You didn't begin to answer my points. OSC may think that tyranny is inevitable, but that is an opinion which some historians share.
Unless you're talking about his religion (which would be rude), Card has nothing to do with authoritarianism - if anything, he seems to prefer very limited government in most cases (with exceptions because nobody is consistent in all things).
All you've done is make ad hominem attacks, and read personal opinion into his work: the fact that his books portray some figures sympathetically doesn't mean that he thinks that those figures are to be emulated. As an example, the portrayal of Zdorab is quite sympathetic - even when you might expect it not to be given Card's religious views.
However, with regard to yours,
1) okay, so they think she's the wrong candidate. But why? All of the stated reasons had nothing to do with competence, and everything to do with policy, which is not the perogative of the SoS to set - the SoS reflects the policy of the President. The Senators had a problem with the President's policies, and took them out on his nominee. Inappropriate timing of protest, in my opinion.
2) Correct, although given that Michael Brown got through a Senate confirmation with no hassle, the Senate seems to be falling down on the job.
3) You misunderstand our government. The SoS does not MAKE policy, the SoS enforces and explains policy. The person who MAKES policy was elected, by a majority of the electorate, states, and people. It's reasonable that he be allowed to appoint people who will carry out his policies. The Senate is supposed to be making sure that the nominees are competant, and not cronies, etc. Notice that the complaints against Ms. Miers are directed at whether or not she is competant.
4) Irrelevant. President Bush never said that. OSC never said precisely that either - he merely said that the Senators were overstepping their bounds and authority, and (in a nutshell) being jerks.
That you cannot relate to something does not make it insane. Perhaps what you mean to say is "I don't understand Card, and I think his opinions suck."
Card is hardly a fanatic or a zealot - many sincere practitioners of any religion can appear that way to those who do not subscribe to those belief systems. c.f. "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill and
And then there's the word "homophobia." That's a loaded, innaccurate term - I'd venture to suggest that card isn't "scared" of homosexual behavior, he just "disapproves." There may be a small number of people for whom that term is appropriate, but most of the people who do not support permissive attitudes and policies on homosexual relationships aren't "scared" of anything. The term "homophobia" implies that the user of the term understands the recipient's motivies, which is presumptious - a fortiori, becuase there is necessarily a passionate disagreement. If you want a term to characterize opinions with which you disagree, how about "wrong" or the stronger "wrong-headed"?
As for "trappings of deduction and historical assertions, underwritten by lots of omitted facts and logical implications," physician, heal thyself.
First, he's not advocating for NEW laws, rather the non-removal of the old ones. Subtle, but important difference there.
But more importantly, this paragraph is near the conclusion:
Frankly, I find that this quickly turns into a delicious hypocrisy: Those whose agenda is "tolerance" and who insist that ugly words like 'faggot' not be used against them have found an exactly analogous word to use as a weapon in their virulent intolerance of those who disapprove of either their behavior or their political agenda. They use the word to silence opposition, to subvert legitimate discussion. Those who use the word this way are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they are willing to deny the right of others to disagree with them. Thus, in the name of tolerance of diversity, they seek to force others into a perfect uniformity of thought. The fascism of the left is no more attractive than the fascism of the right.
So would you deny him the right to disagree?
I have seen a lot of people make arguments that existing laws should be changed based on either secular or religious beliefs. Why would a person not be permitted to argue that laws should remain the same?
I read column number (1) when it came out. He's giving the Democratic Senators grief for a relatively controversial, partisan move on their part. Nu? What's the problem here? There's a time and place for dissent, and a time and place to suck it up.
Before the election = great time for dissent. Maybe people change their minds and pick an administration which fits new views.
After the election = not as great a time for dissent. Acting like "I'm taking my ball and going home" or "I'm going to keep arguing the same things, even though the people have spoken" is not polite, not helpful, and not smart.
Honestly, it really IS the President's perogative to pick the SoS. How many Republicans voted against Madeline Allbright?
with regard to Riefenstahl, I think that more of that exists on the left than on the right nowadays: look at Michael Moore as example #1.
Nope, I didn't read Songmaster - it didn't look very good to me. I don't know where this meme of Card == Hitler comes from, but if anything, he's more influenced by Ayn Rand, in that his protagonists are always individuals who are outside the power structure. It's when they get inside the power structure that they become corrupt. Again, that's what I was saying about his views: it's not Democracy he has issues with, it's organized power in general. It'd be hard to read "Earthborn" and not see his glorification of those outside of the hierarchy.
It's not Democracy which looks bad in his books, it's *ALL* governments: reread the "shadow" series and you'll see what I mean. Nearly every government is shown to be much less than the sum of its parts.
Hmm - when I read his columns, I see a lot of rational argument. Now, it's forceful, and he certainly has controversial opinions, but it always seems rational to me...
I certainly would say that you're reading his books on a pretty shallow level to see Democracies as all "weak": re-read the "homecoming" series, and for that matter, reread "Ender's Game" - you'll notice that the Formics are NOT-democratic (being a hive mind and all), and they fall against the superior talents of a group of people.
I've followed Card for quite some time, and I have never heard him argue for government regulation of mores. I've heard him express dislike of policies based on his personal beliefs, but so what? Everyone bases their like and dislike of policy on their personal beliefs.
I wasn't ever able to really grok Mormon theology (I spent 10 years living in SLC), but boy I can tell you that the LDS church is doing something right, because in Utah, the Mormons are fantastically wonderful people - it's definitely the best place in the country to get a flat tire.
I think the Church has done a great job of making honestly good people out of most of its members, so in that they should be counted as quite effective and successful.
That's not how BGP works. BGP requires TCP state, and the routes would have been cleared out within a few minutes. Your way would work if everyone used static routes, which they don't.
There have been a lot of mistaken things said about this: neither side is actually manipulating the routing table - L3 just removed the only way for it and Cogent to exchange routes.
BGP really *IS* automated, and you clearly have never worked for a large ISP. Disclaimer: I've worked for both of the two largest ISPs, and had backbone access at each, within the last five years. I am not currently employed by either of them.
If you're connected to an ISP who has connections to both Cogent and L3, you're fine. By definition, that includes any actual Tier 1 ISP (UUNet, AT&T, Qwest, etc)
If you're a customer of an ISP who is a customer of one of those particular Tier One providers, you're okay. Your packets will route to either L3 or Cogent as appropriate
The real problem is if you're either a customer of or a customer's customer of Cogent or L3 - at that point there's a disconnect. Both L3 and Cogent are significant wholesale dialup providers, so a lot of dial customers are affected.
lack of resiliency in BGP routes has nothing to do with "level 1" peering points, whatever those are. The vast bulk of private interconnections are richer, more geographically diverse, and generally better managed than the legacy MAE peering points. However, there hasn't been the sort of "peering of last resort" available since well before those days either: the CIX was the peering point of last resort, and eventually both Sprint and UUNet withdrew from it, fundamentally changing the Internet topology from a star to a partial mesh.
Read about it here - warning: it's a 120-page pdf...
I heard a couple of anecdotal reports of this, but never have seen any real statistics. Do you have any citations, articles, sources, etc? I'd appreciate it very much...
That was how the '96 telecom act worked. Unfortunately, the CLECs didn't build new infrastructure: most of them merely leased the existing infrastructure.
This is actually what was in place after the '96 telecom act. The wholesale (lines) arm could not deal with the retail (services) arm in any different way than they did with another service company.
This is from section 271 of the telecom act. Section 272 covers the wholesale and retail arms not being able to share operations and management services (i.e. must have separate intranets, NMS platforms, etc).
The goal of the '96 telecom act was for the CLECs to build their own infrastructure, and thus compete with the ILECs. What happened is that most of them relied on leasing the existing infrastructure instead of overbuilding. Those companies which did overbuild will be okay. Those which didn't will have a hard time in the new environment.
I wish I had something witty and clever to add, but you totally described my childhood experience: I loved the few Star Blazers episodes I saw, and vehicle voltron was something different from the recycled plots of all of the other battle shows.
sigh. Why did they have to make a movie of the crappy one?
well, the square [1] box is on the wrong corner: 2801 is the northwest corner, not the southwest. Also, check out how far off the grid is from the street.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't begin to answer my points. OSC may think that tyranny is inevitable, but that is an opinion which some historians share.
Unless you're talking about his religion (which would be rude), Card has nothing to do with authoritarianism - if anything, he seems to prefer very limited government in most cases (with exceptions because nobody is consistent in all things).
All you've done is make ad hominem attacks, and read personal opinion into his work: the fact that his books portray some figures sympathetically doesn't mean that he thinks that those figures are to be emulated. As an example, the portrayal of Zdorab is quite sympathetic - even when you might expect it not to be given Card's religious views.
However, with regard to yours,
1) okay, so they think she's the wrong candidate. But why? All of the stated reasons had nothing to do with competence, and everything to do with policy, which is not the perogative of the SoS to set - the SoS reflects the policy of the President. The Senators had a problem with the President's policies, and took them out on his nominee. Inappropriate timing of protest, in my opinion.
2) Correct, although given that Michael Brown got through a Senate confirmation with no hassle, the Senate seems to be falling down on the job.
3) You misunderstand our government. The SoS does not MAKE policy, the SoS enforces and explains policy. The person who MAKES policy was elected, by a majority of the electorate, states, and people. It's reasonable that he be allowed to appoint people who will carry out his policies. The Senate is supposed to be making sure that the nominees are competant, and not cronies, etc. Notice that the complaints against Ms. Miers are directed at whether or not she is competant.
4) Irrelevant. President Bush never said that. OSC never said precisely that either - he merely said that the Senators were overstepping their bounds and authority, and (in a nutshell) being jerks.
-David
That you cannot relate to something does not make it insane. Perhaps what you mean to say is "I don't understand Card, and I think his opinions suck."
Card is hardly a fanatic or a zealot - many sincere practitioners of any religion can appear that way to those who do not subscribe to those belief systems. c.f. "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill and
And then there's the word "homophobia." That's a loaded, innaccurate term - I'd venture to suggest that card isn't "scared" of homosexual behavior, he just "disapproves." There may be a small number of people for whom that term is appropriate, but most of the people who do not support permissive attitudes and policies on homosexual relationships aren't "scared" of anything. The term "homophobia" implies that the user of the term understands the recipient's motivies, which is presumptious - a fortiori, becuase there is necessarily a passionate disagreement. If you want a term to characterize opinions with which you disagree, how about "wrong" or the stronger "wrong-headed"?
As for "trappings of deduction and historical assertions, underwritten by lots of omitted facts and logical implications," physician, heal thyself.
-David
First, he's not advocating for NEW laws, rather the non-removal of the old ones. Subtle, but important difference there.
But more importantly, this paragraph is near the conclusion:
So would you deny him the right to disagree?
I have seen a lot of people make arguments that existing laws should be changed based on either secular or religious beliefs. Why would a person not be permitted to argue that laws should remain the same?
-David
I read column number (1) when it came out. He's giving the Democratic Senators grief for a relatively controversial, partisan move on their part. Nu? What's the problem here? There's a time and place for dissent, and a time and place to suck it up.
Before the election = great time for dissent. Maybe people change their minds and pick an administration which fits new views.
After the election = not as great a time for dissent. Acting like "I'm taking my ball and going home" or "I'm going to keep arguing the same things, even though the people have spoken" is not polite, not helpful, and not smart.
Honestly, it really IS the President's perogative to pick the SoS. How many Republicans voted against Madeline Allbright?
with regard to Riefenstahl, I think that more of that exists on the left than on the right nowadays: look at Michael Moore as example #1.
Nope, I didn't read Songmaster - it didn't look very good to me.
I don't know where this meme of Card == Hitler comes from, but if anything, he's more influenced by Ayn Rand, in that his protagonists are always individuals who are outside the power structure. It's when they get inside the power structure that they become corrupt. Again, that's what I was saying about his views: it's not Democracy he has issues with, it's organized power in general. It'd be hard to read "Earthborn" and not see his glorification of those outside of the hierarchy.
-David
Now THAT is funny :)
I approve of going after writers for poor HTML... they're violating Niven's rule of "if you have something to say, say it clearly."
-David
It's not Democracy which looks bad in his books, it's *ALL* governments: reread the "shadow" series and you'll see what I mean. Nearly every government is shown to be much less than the sum of its parts.
-David
Hmm - when I read his columns, I see a lot of rational argument. Now, it's forceful, and he certainly has controversial opinions, but it always seems rational to me...
I certainly would say that you're reading his books on a pretty shallow level to see Democracies as all "weak": re-read the "homecoming" series, and for that matter, reread "Ender's Game" - you'll notice that the Formics are NOT-democratic (being a hive mind and all), and they fall against the superior talents of a group of people.
-David
insane? naw... his columns are always quite rational, whether they're right or wrong.
now, "rightwing" is certainly true, and of course a "fanatic" is anyone who has strong opinions with which one disagrees, right?
-David
Please cite a source for the accusation.
I've followed Card for quite some time, and I have never heard him argue for government regulation of mores. I've heard him express dislike of policies based on his personal beliefs, but so what? Everyone bases their like and dislike of policy on their personal beliefs.
-David
I wasn't ever able to really grok Mormon theology (I spent 10 years living in SLC), but boy I can tell you that the LDS church is doing something right, because in Utah, the Mormons are fantastically wonderful people - it's definitely the best place in the country to get a flat tire.
I think the Church has done a great job of making honestly good people out of most of its members, so in that they should be counted as quite effective and successful.
That's not how BGP works. BGP requires TCP state, and the routes would have been cleared out within a few minutes. Your way would work if everyone used static routes, which they don't.
There have been a lot of mistaken things said about this: neither side is actually manipulating the routing table - L3 just removed the only way for it and Cogent to exchange routes.
-David
um, no.
BGP really *IS* automated, and you clearly have never worked for a large ISP. Disclaimer: I've worked for both of the two largest ISPs, and had backbone access at each, within the last five years. I am not currently employed by either of them.
If you're connected to an ISP who has connections to both Cogent and L3, you're fine. By definition, that includes any actual Tier 1 ISP (UUNet, AT&T, Qwest, etc)
If you're a customer of an ISP who is a customer of one of those particular Tier One providers, you're okay. Your packets will route to either L3 or Cogent as appropriate
The real problem is if you're either a customer of or a customer's customer of Cogent or L3 - at that point there's a disconnect. Both L3 and Cogent are significant wholesale dialup providers, so a lot of dial customers are affected.
-David
lack of resiliency in BGP routes has nothing to do with "level 1" peering points, whatever those are. The vast bulk of private interconnections are richer, more geographically diverse, and generally better managed than the legacy MAE peering points. However, there hasn't been the sort of "peering of last resort" available since well before those days either: the CIX was the peering point of last resort, and eventually both Sprint and UUNet withdrew from it, fundamentally changing the Internet topology from a star to a partial mesh.
Read about it here - warning: it's a 120-page pdf...
-David
Bwaaaaa!
Well, it would improve security while using an unsecured wireless access point...
-David
No, but they can be electric or hydrogen fuel-cell, and nuclear reactors would be a great way to generate both of those.
-David
Is it like one of these toasters?
Damn... now we know how the cylon virus worked...
-David
I heard a couple of anecdotal reports of this, but never have seen any real statistics. Do you have any citations, articles, sources, etc? I'd appreciate it very much...
Thank you,
David
That was how the '96 telecom act worked. Unfortunately, the CLECs didn't build new infrastructure: most of them merely leased the existing infrastructure.
-David
This is actually what was in place after the '96 telecom act. The wholesale (lines) arm could not deal with the retail (services) arm in any different way than they did with another service company.
This is from section 271 of the telecom act. Section 272 covers the wholesale and retail arms not being able to share operations and management services (i.e. must have separate intranets, NMS platforms, etc).
The goal of the '96 telecom act was for the CLECs to build their own infrastructure, and thus compete with the ILECs. What happened is that most of them relied on leasing the existing infrastructure instead of overbuilding. Those companies which did overbuild will be okay. Those which didn't will have a hard time in the new environment.
-David
One surprising tidbit is that enabling or disabling tabbed browsing requires a restart. Huh? Neither Firefox nor Safari require that...
Is this the benefit of tightly integrating IE into everything else? bleah.
I hate to agree so vehemently.
I wish I had something witty and clever to add, but you totally described my childhood experience: I loved the few Star Blazers episodes I saw, and vehicle voltron was something different from the recycled plots of all of the other battle shows.
sigh. Why did they have to make a movie of the crappy one?
-David
That would be great...
for Apple and Linux vendors.
One thing to notice about the MSN map is that the street map is badly overlaid on top of the satellite map.
Here's an example:
2801 N St. NW, Washington DC
well, the square [1] box is on the wrong corner: 2801 is the northwest corner, not the southwest. Also, check out how far off the grid is from the street.
Here is a comparison:
2801 N. St. NW, Washington DC
so MSN is offering higher resolution at the price of being wrong... hmm... I'd rather not have data than have wrong data.
-David
I had totally forgotton about Mahir. I wonder whether Ali G used him as the basis for Borat?
-David