Intersting point of view, most of what I've seen, heard, and read seems to indicate that the problems lie a little deeper, with Rumsfeld's deputies having a bitter disagreement on the approach the army should take. My understanding of top level military strategy is limited but I understand that it has to do with the style of military different people think we need (heavy firepower/manpower but slow to deploy vs. highly mobile and well trained but not as much firepower/manpower).
My job isn't exactly plugable; I'm not going to get downsized and if I did I could easily get another or start my own bussiness. Not all jobs have this advantage but this is something people should consider when choosing/switching careers. Bitching about it afterwards isn't going to earn my sympathy.
Most of the people I know who live paycheck to paycheck do so because they can't budget worth a damn and waste money left and right.
How am I not going to have health insurance? If I fuck up, I don't want the government "helping" me especially with money some young guy could have used to get a better life for him and has family.
I'm equally pissed at that, but I don't vote in elections with those guys, I do vote in an election with Kerry. Sure, Kerry had another bill, maybe it was better, but that's not what got to the floor for the vote. I'm convinced that Kerry voted against the money for political purposes, and that worries me.
I never said Democrats wanted to take away my guns. I just don't buy that licensing keeps the guns out of criminals hands. From talking with gun dealers, things were better when the NRA published a list of people to not sell guns to. These dealers worry that the guys who try to buy guns illegally arn't arrested and prosecuted anymore. So they are able to go out to buy guns from an unscrupulous dealer. I'd like to see these worried police officers go out and do their job by arresting people who they know broke the law.
Also I don't give a damn about what Kerry or Bush or anyone else tried to put in some gun controll bill. No matter what, it's still a gun controll bill. Guns are the final failsafe against both anarchy and totalitarianism. I'm very wary about any controls or restrictions on them.
My state didn't raise my tax. The interest on the goverment debt is less then the interest I get by investing my tax savings. Long run I come out ahead. I'd honestly rather the goverment cut some BS agencies and programs to save the money though.
This list thing is kinda fun, I'll have to do it more often...
yeh, I have a shell script that does that for me, I can see how including something like it in the base system might be useful though (actually I think Espie is working on something like that for the package system).
I have a job because I have a useful skill that is in high demand, instead of bitching, people out of work might try the same strategy.
I spend less on health insurance then I do on Medicare taxes. I'll have better coverage when I retire too.
Yes, I have a bad knee, and can't serve combat duty, however if things get to the point that the draft starts back up and I'm drafted, despite my concerns I'm going to serve my country with honor.
I'm still pissed at Kerry for not funding a war he voted for...
Technically it's the job of every citizen to enforce the law, Police officers are just people who do it full time. Personally, I think having more properly trained people with guns around is a good thing. It increases the chances that a violent criminal who is hurting me will get shot in the process.
I wouldn't call myself rich by I sure did like that tax cut...
This is all well and good, but that doesn't make me feel any better ( I don't like either of the candidates ).
I'm not convinced that the security we got from overthrowing Sadam was worth the lives we paid or the opportunities we missed.
Instead of invading Iraq, we could have plugged up our leaky borders and searched more cargo comming into this country, we could have put more air marshals on planes.
Hell, we could have invaded Iran (who looks, in retrospect to have been the bigger threat).
While I agree that Sadam was a bad guy, a long term threat to the US National security, and generally needed getting rid of; I'm not sure we allocated our scare resources as wisely as we could have.
I think you are missing the point. The people who are truely opposed to the war, don't oppose it because we are loosing, but because they don't feel we got fair value for the lives we traded.
After many long discussions on slashdot and elsewhere I can see their point. I don't know about you, but Iraq certainly isn't important enough for me to go over there and risk death for.
However, it's also clear that you can't predict how judges will rule once they get on the bench. Some of the most liberal members of the court were appointed by Republicans and some of the conservative ones by Democrats. This could lead to an interesting voting strategy...
How does debian handle configuration files? does it just overwrite local changes? Does it try to merge them as diffs? I've never seen a method that was reliable enough for me to trust to get it right all the time.
The election is important because Supreme Court Nominations come in batches. So whoever is president is going to get to appoint a batch of new justices which will impact the legal system and our basic rights for years to come. This issue is more likely to affect life then anything about health care, socicial security, or the war on terrorism.
Unfortunately, because the reporters on TV can't ask good questions, all I know about this issue is that Kerry won't appoint anyone who says they are pro-life and Bush doesn't have a yes/no test but tries to pick Justices who interpret the Constitution strictly.
So basically, we don't know anything useful about what's almost definately the most important issue long term. Anyone have any useful links they can post?
Maybe you should have updated with each release since jumping from more then two behind isn't gauranteed to be supported. I'm just guessing but, I think if you tried to skip 5 major releases of debian, you'd have some problems too.
I update my production servers within a month of every release and it never takes more than 30 minutes.
How is it hard to update? I've run servers with OBSD since 2.9 and I've never had problems.
Re:If you had ordered the CD's...
on
OpenBSD 3.6 Released!
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Don't know of a comparison but a quick overview of pf is available: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/index.html
It might just be that I'm a little thick up top, but I've found it easier and quicker to use PF instead of iptables for routers. The main thing I like about it is that you can do your packet shaping and filtering with the same config file. You can also track state connections by IP address (source tracking).
OBSD 3.6 has been out since Friday. It was released early with the hope that mirrors would have time to get set up before a massive slashdot-like download blasted the main site.
Well, come to think of it, this article was on time...
Can someone post links to bring me up to date? I had heard they were revisting the VII storyline but with THREE games and a movie? Did I get that right?
Obviously, having a game out nets you short term cash, and long run you can eventually patch it.
However, if your company has a reputation for releaseing buggy games, gamers are going to just not buy them for a few patches (to get the bugs worked out) or not buy them at all because they have a limited budget.
I'm in favor of the wait until the game is finished approach.
Knowing that Socicial Security is broken doesn't help you figure out who's plan is going to work better to fix it. It's a really complicated issue that requires knowledge of Law, economics, and finanice. Probably less then 10% of the population is capable of even fully grasping all the issues, not to mention actually solving them. Making a truely informed decision on this issue alone is going to take an inordinate amount of time for most people. The same can be said for almost every issue.
Asside: I've used this as an argument for smaller government before: If the government is simpler enough for the average Joe to get his head around, he'll have an easier time getting involved and making informed decisions.
I think you are failing to distinguish caring about the country from desiring to spend the inordinate amount of time required to become truely informed about every issue.
No candidate is ever going to agree with you on every issue; choosing who to vote for is a matter of priorities and trade-offs. Furthermore, today's issues may not nessessarily be tomorrow's problems. Many people see it as a waste to be fully informed about every candidate and every issue (after all that's why we have representatives instead of a direct democracy). Instead, they try to pick a candidate who they can trust to become informed and reach a similar decision to the one they would reach if they spend the time on it.
I would suggest that most Americans vote the candidate they are comfortable with: a guy they could picture sitting in their living room or being married into the family. i.e. Someone they are comfortable with.
The reason for this is simple, most american's don't have time to read massive amounts of political stuff, so they try to pick a good person who they are confident is generally in line with their way of thinking about things.
For Kerry if voters are stuck on the perception that he's "faking", it's going to be damn near impossible to win the election. (I'd like to remind you that all of the people on TV and here on slashdot who are deeply concerned about every single issue are the exception instead of the rule).
You'd think that on Slashdot of all places we could have a rational discussion of something that matters! (After all the average slashdot reader is a bit smarter and a bit better educated than the average American. Oh my g-d! We're doomed...)
There are a good number of political issues that do matter to Slashdoters. Perhaps we could discuss those?
P.S.: Pudge - Just because michael posts Stupid Crap, doesn't mean you have counter by posting more of the opposite type.
Sometimes to be a good leader you gotta piss of a few people
That's why I like Condorcet (or perhaps we could call it Fair Voting). However it is important to admit it's short commings.
In other words it would all balance out
I'm not convinced.
Personally I'd like to see three changes:
An amendment requiring the states to apportion Electoral Votes such that all but two are selected in the same manner as the selection of the Representatives to the House, and the remaining two are selected in a manner that the legislature determines.
This gets rid of the official electors, and does not specify the exact method of dividing the states electoral votes but does ensure it is fair.
An amendment that requires the legislature of each state to select a method for apportioning its representatives to the house in a fair manner reflective to the setiments of the citizens
This lets a push to divy up house seats proportionally (instead of by distric), and hence electors take off in states that prefer those methods.
An amendment that forbids the Congress from un-evenly apportioning direct funds between the various states, and forbids issueing Federal funding tied to the state's implementation of any laws, programs, or policies.
This "fixes" Congress by getting them to refocus, making "pork" harder to create, and keeping them the hell out of local issues.
The system is a true tie however. No candidate is prefered to any other: in any one-on-one election you would have had a tie. The odds of that happening are so statistically low that it's not even worth considering. (And even if it ever did happen, all known election systems can't deal with it).
I'd like to point out that with ONE more vote in any dirrection there will not be a tie. Also with more candidates this is less likely to happen and there are more then three presidential candidates.
I'd futher like to point out that assuming Nader is the dark horse and that people follow a near optimal strategy in an approval voting, Nader would win by a healthy margin (80% popular approval vs. 50% approval for the other guys).
Slashdot Mirror
Intersting point of view, most of what I've seen, heard, and read seems to indicate that the problems lie a little deeper, with Rumsfeld's deputies having a bitter disagreement on the approach the army should take. My understanding of top level military strategy is limited but I understand that it has to do with the style of military different people think we need (heavy firepower/manpower but slow to deploy vs. highly mobile and well trained but not as much firepower/manpower).
- My job isn't exactly plugable; I'm not going to get downsized and if I did I could easily get another or start my own bussiness. Not all jobs have this advantage but this is something people should consider when choosing/switching careers. Bitching about it afterwards isn't going to earn my sympathy.
- How am I not going to have health insurance? If I fuck up, I don't want the government "helping" me especially with money some young guy could have used to get a better life for him and has family.
- See this
for my thoughts
- I'm equally pissed at that, but I don't vote in elections with those guys, I do vote in an election with Kerry. Sure, Kerry had another bill, maybe it was better, but that's not what got to the floor for the vote. I'm convinced that Kerry voted against the money for political purposes, and that worries me.
- I never said Democrats wanted to take away my guns. I just don't buy that licensing keeps the guns out of criminals hands. From talking with gun dealers, things were better when the NRA published a list of people to not sell guns to. These dealers worry that the guys who try to buy guns illegally arn't arrested and prosecuted anymore. So they are able to go out to buy guns from an unscrupulous dealer. I'd like to see these worried police officers go out and do their job by arresting people who they know broke the law.
- My state didn't raise my tax. The interest on the goverment debt is less then the interest I get by investing my tax savings. Long run I come out ahead. I'd honestly rather the goverment cut some BS agencies and programs to save the money though.
This list thing is kinda fun, I'll have to do it more often...Most of the people I know who live paycheck to paycheck do so because they can't budget worth a damn and waste money left and right.
Also I don't give a damn about what Kerry or Bush or anyone else tried to put in some gun controll bill. No matter what, it's still a gun controll bill. Guns are the final failsafe against both anarchy and totalitarianism. I'm very wary about any controls or restrictions on them.
The electoral college is a way to balance the interestes of the population against the interests of the major groups of populations (the states).
yeh, I have a shell script that does that for me, I can see how including something like it in the base system might be useful though (actually I think Espie is working on something like that for the package system).
I'm not convinced that the security we got from overthrowing Sadam was worth the lives we paid or the opportunities we missed.
Instead of invading Iraq, we could have plugged up our leaky borders and searched more cargo comming into this country, we could have put more air marshals on planes.
Hell, we could have invaded Iran (who looks, in retrospect to have been the bigger threat).
While I agree that Sadam was a bad guy, a long term threat to the US National security, and generally needed getting rid of; I'm not sure we allocated our scare resources as wisely as we could have.
we are winning
I think you are missing the point. The people who are truely opposed to the war, don't oppose it because we are loosing, but because they don't feel we got fair value for the lives we traded.
After many long discussions on slashdot and elsewhere I can see their point. I don't know about you, but Iraq certainly isn't important enough for me to go over there and risk death for.
However, it's also clear that you can't predict how judges will rule once they get on the bench. Some of the most liberal members of the court were appointed by Republicans and some of the conservative ones by Democrats. This could lead to an interesting voting strategy...
I give him "completely missed the point and catered to special interests instead", but obviously we have a different oppionion on this matter.
How does debian handle configuration files? does it just overwrite local changes? Does it try to merge them as diffs? I've never seen a method that was reliable enough for me to trust to get it right all the time.
Unfortunately, because the reporters on TV can't ask good questions, all I know about this issue is that Kerry won't appoint anyone who says they are pro-life and Bush doesn't have a yes/no test but tries to pick Justices who interpret the Constitution strictly.
So basically, we don't know anything useful about what's almost definately the most important issue long term. Anyone have any useful links they can post?
I update my production servers within a month of every release and it never takes more than 30 minutes.
How is it hard to update? I've run servers with OBSD since 2.9 and I've never had problems.
It might just be that I'm a little thick up top, but I've found it easier and quicker to use PF instead of iptables for routers. The main thing I like about it is that you can do your packet shaping and filtering with the same config file. You can also track state connections by IP address (source tracking).
Well, come to think of it, this article was on time...
Can someone post links to bring me up to date? I had heard they were revisting the VII storyline but with THREE games and a movie? Did I get that right?
Obviously, having a game out nets you short term cash, and long run you can eventually patch it.
However, if your company has a reputation for releaseing buggy games, gamers are going to just not buy them for a few patches (to get the bugs worked out) or not buy them at all because they have a limited budget.
I'm in favor of the wait until the game is finished approach.
Asside: I've used this as an argument for smaller government before: If the government is simpler enough for the average Joe to get his head around, he'll have an easier time getting involved and making informed decisions.
No candidate is ever going to agree with you on every issue; choosing who to vote for is a matter of priorities and trade-offs. Furthermore, today's issues may not nessessarily be tomorrow's problems. Many people see it as a waste to be fully informed about every candidate and every issue (after all that's why we have representatives instead of a direct democracy). Instead, they try to pick a candidate who they can trust to become informed and reach a similar decision to the one they would reach if they spend the time on it.
The reason for this is simple, most american's don't have time to read massive amounts of political stuff, so they try to pick a good person who they are confident is generally in line with their way of thinking about things.
For Kerry if voters are stuck on the perception that he's "faking", it's going to be damn near impossible to win the election. (I'd like to remind you that all of the people on TV and here on slashdot who are deeply concerned about every single issue are the exception instead of the rule).
There are a good number of political issues that do matter to Slashdoters. Perhaps we could discuss those?
P.S.: Pudge - Just because michael posts Stupid Crap, doesn't mean you have counter by posting more of the opposite type.
BAH! You don't need ASICS you just need to be a little creative with what's out there.
That's why I like Condorcet (or perhaps we could call it Fair Voting). However it is important to admit it's short commings.
In other words it would all balance out
I'm not convinced.
Personally I'd like to see three changes:
This gets rid of the official electors, and does not specify the exact method of dividing the states electoral votes but does ensure it is fair.
This lets a push to divy up house seats proportionally (instead of by distric), and hence electors take off in states that prefer those methods.
This "fixes" Congress by getting them to refocus, making "pork" harder to create, and keeping them the hell out of local issues.
Once they can win
Getting to that point is a huge accomplishment.
Personally I'm all for changing to Condorcet but I'm not going to get upset if we go with Approval instead.
I'd like to point out that with ONE more vote in any dirrection there will not be a tie. Also with more candidates this is less likely to happen and there are more then three presidential candidates.
I'd futher like to point out that assuming Nader is the dark horse and that people follow a near optimal strategy in an approval voting, Nader would win by a healthy margin (80% popular approval vs. 50% approval for the other guys).