all I can say is, if you care so little about your vote that you can't be bothered to leave the house to cast it (I"m assuming those who are housebound are catered for) you don't deserve to vote.
All well and good, and I agree to an extent--but you're over simplifying the problem. Absentee ballots go out to more than just the lazy or totally disabled.
Soldiers outside their states of residence or overseas (who are the subject of this story--pay attention!)
Other American citizens out of state or overseas for one reason or another (say my company decides it needs me at the home office in Germany for two months this fall. Should I lose my vote as a result?)
People who just downright don't trust voting machines of any stripe (lots of this from the black box voting crowd, and I commend them for their good idea.)
For the sake of the above groups (and other reasons) absentee ballots are a neccessary evil. If you want something to really bitch about, try asking why no one asks for ID at the polls. This is almost certainly responsible for more voter fraud than the drop in the bucket absentee voting.
Jesus, I hope she doesn't eat off that table! I imagine the amount of residue from all the lead that was on those PCBs at one time would be quite high...
Game data is not released under GPL. This is obvisly a mayor flaw, and will render the game unplayable.
Just because you're too cheap to buy the original game doesn't make this a "flaw" in source code releases.
The "source code release" is just that--source code--not models, or art, or sounds, etc. Port the engine to whatever platform you want and use the data from the original game (that you bought) to play it as is--or better yet create your own damn game data and do something new.
I think that's the biggest problem with the open source community (and I'm not talking about the people who actually do productive things like code and test, I'm talking about the other 90% of the community.) No matter what somebody gives you--for free, no less--people complain that they haven't been given enough.
Now they have little incentive to bring out upgrades since they will get that revenue stream regardless, no matter what.
Tell me about it. I work for a small/medium business, and we got burned on SQL Server 2000. The single CPU license with Software Assurance was like six grand, or 50% more than the license without SA.
Microsoft (or one of their contractors) called us and asked about renewing our various SA agreements. The droid was seriously confused that I didn't want to take advantage of such a good deal after having been burned once already.
The reason they say its safer is because they took advantage of the new processor features that allow you to mark a block of memory as "non-executable" thus stopping buffer overrun 'sploits and similar problems. Linux doesn't have this feature.
A) As another poster already mentioned, Linux supports that feature.
B) Joe User isn't running a freaking Itanium or any other CPU that supports it, so the NX feature is completely useless for home user security.
Windows XP came out in 2001. Do you really need me to tell you that running a RedHat distribution from 2001 would be suicide right now?
Assuming you never patch the system, I agree. However, assuming that you're the slightest bit proactive about maintaining the box, I strongly disagree.
I use RH7.3 as a baseline for my systems (because RHEL costs too damn much, and because I'm not particularly fond of 8, 9, or FC) and while it's not quite that old (early 2002 as opposed to 2001) it's stable and secure. Of course, I do make use of Fedora Legacy via yum for most of my updates, but presuming such are not available it's not exactly a dificult task these days to, say, rebuild OpenSSH from source if security issues are found.
Until the spammers catch on and start to resend their requests. This seems like a stop-gap solution.
It is, but it's a GOOD stop-gap. In order to resend the bounced greylisted message, you'd have to be resending ALL soft bounced messages the number of which, assuming you're sending millions of emails a day, is not insignificant.
It makes the cost of doing business higher for spammers, which ideally cuts down on their profits, making spamming less attractive.
A Spanish-language version of Windows XP, destined for Latin American markets, asked users to select their gender between "not specified," "male" or "bitch"
Pretty bad when even the Slashdot crew knows thats not too smooth...:)
When pressed for comment, a Microsoft spokesman stated, "We never should have hired Rick James as a translator."
The OP's 4,800 tons of ANFO probably beats your 5,035 tons of various ordnance. The majority of your figure is probably bomb casings which, being made of steel, weigh significantly more then the explosives within them.
I agree with most of what you have to say, with the exception of the following:
Selling games subscription to PC will ensure support nightmares
The major problem with supporting PC games is that the platform is continually advancing, and there are a massive number of variables to be dealt with--CPU type, graphics card core and manufacturer, amount of RAM, type of sound card, etc, to the point where there are literally tens of thousands of unique system configurations. Given that Infinium would be dealing with a single, static configuration directly under their control, supporting it won't be as bad as you think.
Most likely, we're going to be stuck with another twelve to twenty four years of democratic and republican nonsense before enough younger voters get politically motivated to make a 5% dent in the system.
I think you're being extremely optomistic, particularly your idea that all it will take is for some party to gain 5% of the vote before things start to snowball. A good example is Ross Perot who drew roughly 20% of the vote in 1992 (and about 8% in 1996.) The reform party absolutely fell apart during the 2000 election cycle (going so far as to have two separate conventions and two nominees!) despite having the advantages you mention--largely because Ross Perot was all the party had going for it, and that aint saying much!
Most third parties run a presidential candidate on at least SOME of the state ballots, but they've got nothing going for them at the local level. How many libertarian or green state senators/representatives are there? Heck, how many of them are even elected at the county level? Until they straighten out these problems and build strong state and local organizations, they'll never successfully run a presidential candidate. That's not the way I want it, but that's a cold, hard fact. That's what it will take to convince people that "you're throwing your vote away" is just so much horseshit.
Twenty-four years? Sadly, I think it's more like fifty--at the least.
In the mean time, I view my third party vote not as something likely to put someone in office, but rather as a prod to the two mainstream parties that they've lost my vote and have to work at winning it back. THAT is one thing that Ross Perot did stunningly well: shock the Republican party into making some serious changes (and looking at the last four years, I think it's a lesson both they and the democrats need to be taught again.)
Um, I take back my previous comment. I think I was confusing the Patriot Act with some other large bill.
You were right the first time; PATRIOT was passed with the vast majority of our "representatives" failing to read the legislation, because it wasn't made available to them.
Then you VOTE THEM THE FUCK OUT. This entire problem occurs because the voters in this country fall into two categories: Those who are foolish enough to think there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats, and 2) those who honestly think that there is no way to vote in a third party (or fourth, or fifth, or twelfth, but let's not go as far as France.)
The biggest lie the media has ever gotten the american public to swallow is simply this:
Any vote for a third party is a vote for $NAME_of_REP_OR_DEM_PEOPLE_HATE.
You're preaching to the choir on this one. My vote this year is already going to a third party candidate. I, like you, realize change is impossible while our current two party system endures, and I'm working to change that.
HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I'm naive enough to think that the winner of the Presidential election this year will NOT be a Republican or a Democrat, which goes to the point of my initial post.
I agree completely with your sentiments. But I don't think any major party candidate is going to do anything about the Department of Fatherland^W Homeland Security. Recall that the votes for PATRIOT etc were almost unanimous.
Could this have been some backroom shenanigans to harass and intimidate an outspoken member of the opposition party? Lord, no, such a thing would never be done by politicians these days...
Given that a Kennedy spokesman said "This wasn't politically motiviated, just a screwup" I have to conclude that, no, this isn't "someone" trying to harass a high profile member of the minority party.
The data as presented by CNN is not entirely factual. The current Brady law didn't really go into effect until 1998 (from 1994-1998, the brady law established a waiting period on handgun purchases. In 1998, the NICS system went into effect requiring background checks for both handgun and longgun purchases.)
As noted by the story, violence was actually on the decline for two years before Brady was passed, and six years before background checks became the law of the land. Given that context, no, I can't agree with you that Brady has had a significant effect on gun violence.
Why shouldn't it be hard, but possible, for the law abiding to purchase firearms?
That's not to say I don't think the idea of background checks are a bad idea. Most objections from the pro-2nd amendment crowd center around the idea that if you're approved, that record should be destroyed (which is what the NICS law states should happen.)
It's hard to purchase, register, and drive a car, because they're dangerous, and require screening and control
It's ludicrously simple to purchase a car (no ID required) and registration is not required unless one wishes to drive on the public roads. For example, you could dig through the classifieds, find an old beater pickup, pay cash, have it towed to your land, and let your 10 year old drive it around your land all he wants and all would be perfectly legal (though you MAY be violating child endangerment laws...)
You'll note the 2nd amendment crowd usually supports concealed carry licenses, which are exactly what you're talking about: A difficult piece of paper that requires lots of paperwork and proof of training (in most jurisdictions) that allows you to carry a firearm in public.
Why haven't gun advocates demanded that all guns include triggerlocks, to protect their owners from being shot when the gun is taken by an assailant or a fool?
I have a safe. Why should I be forced to pay an extra 15 bucks every time I buy a firearm, for a useless piece of metal, most of which are horribly designed? (Google for it.) Furthermore, why should my self-denfense weapon be locked up at all? Doing so all but ensures that the assailant you mention WILL be able to disarm you. The criminal is not going to wait around for you to unlock your gun, after all.
Ask yourself why "safety" laws such as you propose ALWAYS excluse law enforcement/government from their jurisdiction. If the police unions think this is such a bad idea, exactly why should MY safety be considered of lesser importance?
Are you kidding me about which party is producing the "PATRIOT" Acts, the "Straight Marriage" amendment, DMCA, INDUCE, and the rest of these depradations?
PATRIOT passed almost unanimously--that's BOTH parties giving the FBI a bunch of stuff it's wanted for years, with 9/11 being the handy excuse to ask for it--and NONE of the bastards, from either party, even READ THE FUCKING THING before voting on it.
While the Republicans are the ones pushing for a national amendment on gay marriage, the Massachusetts legislature (google around to see how the party affiliations in that body break down) is working on a state constitutional amendment to be voted on in 2006. Further, John Kerry is on record as opposing gay marriage.
The DMCA passed BOTH HOUSES on a VOICE VOTE! Granted that the Republicans controlled both houses in 1998, but looking through the congressional record, I don't see any democrats in either house demanding a roll call vote. And then it was signed by Bill Clinton, a democrat.
INDUCE is co-sponsored by Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Exactly how this is a Republican abomination is beyond me.
Buckling under pressure my ass, Democrats had a big hand in every example you posted.
John Kerry voted for NAFTA which is hardly the mark of someone against "offshoring" unless you take it litterally and require crossing an ocean for it to count.
Gun control increases the rights of citizens to walk freely without fear of being shot.
I posted this in reply to another post, but I'll repeat it here: Give me an example of any federal gun control law that has actually reduced shootings, instead of simply making it harder for the law abiding to purchase firearms.
Nothing appropriate for "sport shooting" gets eliminated by these laws, unless you think emptying a clip into a deer is sporting. But then I guess you play Doom in God mode.
1) The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting! It's about the right of people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, and represents the final check in our system of checks and balances. Going out to bag your deer once a year isn't what it's about.
While the right to carry a gun was limited, the right not to get shot was protected
I respectfully disagree. Show me an example of any federal gun control laws that actually reduced shootings instead of simply making it harder for the law abiding to purchase firearms.
When you look at the broad range of civil liberties, you see Republicans constraining them all over the place, with Democrats much less so
Define "all over the place," please--and provide a few examples. If those examples include PATRIOT act and gay marriage, you mind want to dig a little depper as to where Democrats stand (or stood) on those issues, first.
Slashdot Mirror
All well and good, and I agree to an extent--but you're over simplifying the problem. Absentee ballots go out to more than just the lazy or totally disabled.
For the sake of the above groups (and other reasons) absentee ballots are a neccessary evil. If you want something to really bitch about, try asking why no one asks for ID at the polls. This is almost certainly responsible for more voter fraud than the drop in the bucket absentee voting.
PCB from old AT motherboards into a giant table
Jesus, I hope she doesn't eat off that table! I imagine the amount of residue from all the lead that was on those PCBs at one time would be quite high...
Game data is not released under GPL. This is obvisly a mayor flaw, and will render the game unplayable.
Just because you're too cheap to buy the original game doesn't make this a "flaw" in source code releases.
The "source code release" is just that--source code--not models, or art, or sounds, etc. Port the engine to whatever platform you want and use the data from the original game (that you bought) to play it as is--or better yet create your own damn game data and do something new.
I think that's the biggest problem with the open source community (and I'm not talking about the people who actually do productive things like code and test, I'm talking about the other 90% of the community.) No matter what somebody gives you--for free, no less--people complain that they haven't been given enough.
Based on the above, I would have to conclude that $100-$200 for an operating system isn't "a low price" but it's certainly the average price.
Now they have little incentive to bring out upgrades since they will get that revenue stream regardless, no matter what.
Tell me about it. I work for a small/medium business, and we got burned on SQL Server 2000. The single CPU license with Software Assurance was like six grand, or 50% more than the license without SA.
Microsoft (or one of their contractors) called us and asked about renewing our various SA agreements. The droid was seriously confused that I didn't want to take advantage of such a good deal after having been burned once already.
How can we convince people not to run admin mode?
By smacking software developers around until they stop writing applications that require them to.
The reason they say its safer is because they took advantage of the new processor features that allow you to mark a block of memory as "non-executable" thus stopping buffer overrun 'sploits and similar problems. Linux doesn't have this feature.
A) As another poster already mentioned, Linux supports that feature.
B) Joe User isn't running a freaking Itanium or any other CPU that supports it, so the NX feature is completely useless for home user security.
Windows XP came out in 2001. Do you really need me to tell you that running a RedHat distribution from 2001 would be suicide right now?
Assuming you never patch the system, I agree. However, assuming that you're the slightest bit proactive about maintaining the box, I strongly disagree.
I use RH7.3 as a baseline for my systems (because RHEL costs too damn much, and because I'm not particularly fond of 8, 9, or FC) and while it's not quite that old (early 2002 as opposed to 2001) it's stable and secure. Of course, I do make use of Fedora Legacy via yum for most of my updates, but presuming such are not available it's not exactly a dificult task these days to, say, rebuild OpenSSH from source if security issues are found.
I'll be able to use these in my flexible paper display ebook with fuel cell technology as I drive to work in my hydrogen powered flying car!
Hey, at least they were honest and it wasn't a story like "new petabyte hard drive to ship early next year."
Until the spammers catch on and start to resend their requests. This seems like a stop-gap solution.
It is, but it's a GOOD stop-gap. In order to resend the bounced greylisted message, you'd have to be resending ALL soft bounced messages the number of which, assuming you're sending millions of emails a day, is not insignificant.
It makes the cost of doing business higher for spammers, which ideally cuts down on their profits, making spamming less attractive.
Imagine if Coppola tried to do 'Godfather 4'.. I would have to kill him...
Do us all a favor and invent a time machine, so you can go back and kill him before he makes Godfather 3.
A Spanish-language version of Windows XP, destined for Latin American markets, asked users to select their gender between "not specified," "male" or "bitch"
:)
Pretty bad when even the Slashdot crew knows thats not too smooth...
When pressed for comment, a Microsoft spokesman stated, "We never should have hired Rick James as a translator."
The OP's 4,800 tons of ANFO probably beats your 5,035 tons of various ordnance. The majority of your figure is probably bomb casings which, being made of steel, weigh significantly more then the explosives within them.
I agree with most of what you have to say, with the exception of the following:
Selling games subscription to PC will ensure support nightmares
The major problem with supporting PC games is that the platform is continually advancing, and there are a massive number of variables to be dealt with--CPU type, graphics card core and manufacturer, amount of RAM, type of sound card, etc, to the point where there are literally tens of thousands of unique system configurations. Given that Infinium would be dealing with a single, static configuration directly under their control, supporting it won't be as bad as you think.
I think the Scrabble developers should add numbers. I've always wanted to lay down PWN3D.
Turn the "E" upside down--instant "3"
Thanks for the idea--I'll do it next time I play scrabble with the appropriate crowd.
Most likely, we're going to be stuck with another twelve to twenty four years of democratic and republican nonsense before enough younger voters get politically motivated to make a 5% dent in the system.
I think you're being extremely optomistic, particularly your idea that all it will take is for some party to gain 5% of the vote before things start to snowball. A good example is Ross Perot who drew roughly 20% of the vote in 1992 (and about 8% in 1996.) The reform party absolutely fell apart during the 2000 election cycle (going so far as to have two separate conventions and two nominees!) despite having the advantages you mention--largely because Ross Perot was all the party had going for it, and that aint saying much!
Most third parties run a presidential candidate on at least SOME of the state ballots, but they've got nothing going for them at the local level. How many libertarian or green state senators/representatives are there? Heck, how many of them are even elected at the county level? Until they straighten out these problems and build strong state and local organizations, they'll never successfully run a presidential candidate. That's not the way I want it, but that's a cold, hard fact. That's what it will take to convince people that "you're throwing your vote away" is just so much horseshit.
Twenty-four years? Sadly, I think it's more like fifty--at the least.
In the mean time, I view my third party vote not as something likely to put someone in office, but rather as a prod to the two mainstream parties that they've lost my vote and have to work at winning it back. THAT is one thing that Ross Perot did stunningly well: shock the Republican party into making some serious changes (and looking at the last four years, I think it's a lesson both they and the democrats need to be taught again.)
Um, I take back my previous comment. I think I was confusing the Patriot Act with some other large bill.
You were right the first time; PATRIOT was passed with the vast majority of our "representatives" failing to read the legislation, because it wasn't made available to them.
Then you VOTE THEM THE FUCK OUT. This entire problem occurs because the voters in this country fall into two categories: Those who are foolish enough to think there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats, and 2) those who honestly think that there is no way to vote in a third party (or fourth, or fifth, or twelfth, but let's not go as far as France.)
The biggest lie the media has ever gotten the american public to swallow is simply this:
Any vote for a third party is a vote for $NAME_of_REP_OR_DEM_PEOPLE_HATE.
You're preaching to the choir on this one. My vote this year is already going to a third party candidate. I, like you, realize change is impossible while our current two party system endures, and I'm working to change that.
HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I'm naive enough to think that the winner of the Presidential election this year will NOT be a Republican or a Democrat, which goes to the point of my initial post.
Vote.
I agree completely with your sentiments. But I don't think any major party candidate is going to do anything about the Department of Fatherland^W Homeland Security. Recall that the votes for PATRIOT etc were almost unanimous.
Could this have been some backroom shenanigans to harass and intimidate an outspoken member of the opposition party? Lord, no, such a thing would never be done by politicians these days...
Given that a Kennedy spokesman said "This wasn't politically motiviated, just a screwup" I have to conclude that, no, this isn't "someone" trying to harass a high profile member of the minority party.
You will have to pry my 2400 baud modem from my cold dead hands. Now off to download Doom 3.
By the time it finishes, your hands will be cold and dead--so it's win-win for everyone, it seems.
Government figures show gun crimes down, Brady bill successful
The data as presented by CNN is not entirely factual. The current Brady law didn't really go into effect until 1998 (from 1994-1998, the brady law established a waiting period on handgun purchases. In 1998, the NICS system went into effect requiring background checks for both handgun and longgun purchases.)
As noted by the story, violence was actually on the decline for two years before Brady was passed, and six years before background checks became the law of the land. Given that context, no, I can't agree with you that Brady has had a significant effect on gun violence.
Why shouldn't it be hard, but possible, for the law abiding to purchase firearms?
That's not to say I don't think the idea of background checks are a bad idea. Most objections from the pro-2nd amendment crowd center around the idea that if you're approved, that record should be destroyed (which is what the NICS law states should happen.)
It's hard to purchase, register, and drive a car, because they're dangerous, and require screening and control
It's ludicrously simple to purchase a car (no ID required) and registration is not required unless one wishes to drive on the public roads. For example, you could dig through the classifieds, find an old beater pickup, pay cash, have it towed to your land, and let your 10 year old drive it around your land all he wants and all would be perfectly legal (though you MAY be violating child endangerment laws...)
You'll note the 2nd amendment crowd usually supports concealed carry licenses, which are exactly what you're talking about: A difficult piece of paper that requires lots of paperwork and proof of training (in most jurisdictions) that allows you to carry a firearm in public.
Why haven't gun advocates demanded that all guns include triggerlocks, to protect their owners from being shot when the gun is taken by an assailant or a fool?
I have a safe. Why should I be forced to pay an extra 15 bucks every time I buy a firearm, for a useless piece of metal, most of which are horribly designed? (Google for it.) Furthermore, why should my self-denfense weapon be locked up at all? Doing so all but ensures that the assailant you mention WILL be able to disarm you. The criminal is not going to wait around for you to unlock your gun, after all.
Ask yourself why "safety" laws such as you propose ALWAYS excluse law enforcement/government from their jurisdiction. If the police unions think this is such a bad idea, exactly why should MY safety be considered of lesser importance?
Are you kidding me about which party is producing the "PATRIOT" Acts, the "Straight Marriage" amendment, DMCA, INDUCE, and the rest of these depradations?
PATRIOT passed almost unanimously--that's BOTH parties giving the FBI a bunch of stuff it's wanted for years, with 9/11 being the handy excuse to ask for it--and NONE of the bastards, from either party, even READ THE FUCKING THING before voting on it.
While the Republicans are the ones pushing for a national amendment on gay marriage, the Massachusetts legislature (google around to see how the party affiliations in that body break down) is working on a state constitutional amendment to be voted on in 2006. Further, John Kerry is on record as opposing gay marriage.
The DMCA passed BOTH HOUSES on a VOICE VOTE! Granted that the Republicans controlled both houses in 1998, but looking through the congressional record, I don't see any democrats in either house demanding a roll call vote. And then it was signed by Bill Clinton, a democrat.
INDUCE is co-sponsored by Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Exactly how this is a Republican abomination is beyond me.
Buckling under pressure my ass, Democrats had a big hand in every example you posted.
Personally, though, I agree
That's not true. John Kerry is anti-offshoring.
John Kerry voted for NAFTA which is hardly the mark of someone against "offshoring" unless you take it litterally and require crossing an ocean for it to count.
Gun control increases the rights of citizens to walk freely without fear of being shot.
I posted this in reply to another post, but I'll repeat it here: Give me an example of any federal gun control law that has actually reduced shootings, instead of simply making it harder for the law abiding to purchase firearms.
Nothing appropriate for "sport shooting" gets eliminated by these laws, unless you think emptying a clip into a deer is sporting. But then I guess you play Doom in God mode.
1) The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting! It's about the right of people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, and represents the final check in our system of checks and balances. Going out to bag your deer once a year isn't what it's about.
2) To play your game for a minute, define "sport shooting." The International Defensive Pistol Association, and The International Practical Shooting Confederation sponsor shooting sports involving "tactical" handgun and rifle scenarios (using those ugly black rifles politicians love to ban) and tens of thousands compete worldwide every year.
While the right to carry a gun was limited, the right not to get shot was protected
I respectfully disagree. Show me an example of any federal gun control laws that actually reduced shootings instead of simply making it harder for the law abiding to purchase firearms.
When you look at the broad range of civil liberties, you see Republicans constraining them all over the place, with Democrats much less so
Define "all over the place," please--and provide a few examples. If those examples include PATRIOT act and gay marriage, you mind want to dig a little depper as to where Democrats stand (or stood) on those issues, first.