Sure I understand how it works - if only 5% of the people are willing to vote for one party (hint: by far most people disagree with the Green Party, so it's not just a "lesser of two evils" issue - to many people they're a far greater evil), those people's votes will be wasted.
With that reasoning ALL parties are evil. I mean, hardly any party ever gets over 50% of the vote. Yet there is always one winner in the end. What does that mean? That an "illegimate" party is ruling? Of course not. I don't think you understand how democracy works--especially British-style systems (which Canada uses) where it is based on many parties winning small percentages (this is in contrast to US-style systems).
Whether you like the Greens or not is irrelevant. My point is that a party getting 5% or even 1% is in no way "far greater evil". In general, under British-style systems, the goverment is ruled by coalitions. In Canada, some party has dominated each election so it doesn't happen but that is more common.
It might have started off as propaganda but it has very specific implications these days. Progressive is basically on the left. To conservatives, progressives are automatically bad since they prefer static values and systems. Therefore, conservatives won't really vote for "progress". In contrast, liberals would consider progressive to be good and would likely vote for a candidate that is progressive than one that is not.
If I'm not mistaken, the Canadian Alliance was against homosexual marriages. They might have been ok with civil unions or some other quasi-marriage system for homosexuals but I'm not 100% sure. The Conservatives uner Harper will likely be against it (I think Harper said that in his recent campaign) but Stronach supports it (or at least civil unions) so it remains to be seen. The Liberals under Chretien was in favour of homosexual marriages. Under Martin, I am not sure. Martin wants an open vote in the Commons and has sent the issue for further study by the courts but this is like sweeping the issue under the rug. I'm not sure what the Liberal Party and Martin support.
I know you are being humourous but on a serious note... why not the Green Party? They can never be bought by corporations (since they are environmentally friendly)... at least that's the theory:)
The Liberals are center-left in my opinion. Martin might shift it towards center or center-right but they are not there yet. Yes, the Liberals cut funding and off-loaded costs to the provinces and cities, but they still support social programs. Therefore they are left-leaning.
I also disagree with your view that Martin is socially conservative. He may be more conservative than, say, Chretien but I can't consider him conservative. He still isn't against homosexuality like conservatives. He still isn't against immigration like conservatives. He still isn't against medicare like conservatives. He still isn't against funding public education like conservatives. The Liberals aren't conservative yet IMO.
I don't know the details of what you are talking about but what Martin did is ok. There is a word for it: capitalism. Capitalism calls for free markets and easy transfer of capital. If someone wants to stash all their money in Monaco, or Bahamas, or whatever, that is not the person's fault. If there is a fault, it's with the system--not the person.
Everyone who is wealthy (obviously you and I are not) does it. Take the Conservative candidate Stronach's family. Her father avoids paying taxes by living in (I think) Switzerland. Is that immoral? Not really. That's the rules. If you don't like it, change it. The fault is with the system...
What makes you think the dominant parties will implement anything like that? The Liberals and Conservatives are already against reforing the voting system (especially proportional representation). Down south, Democrats and Republicans have consistently watered down any campaign financing policy.
I actually support what you are saying (although I'm not sure if voting should be based on votes--I want caps and minimums of some sort). However, I don't see your proposal being implemented in the next...oh... 200 years. Unfortunately, that's well past your lifetime:(
I'm not anti-Linux as you are:) But some of your points are still true. The bootup time for linux is very slow. Linux has to load its OS (say 10 to 20 seconds) then it has to load KDE (or Gnome) which takes another 20 seconds or so (all this depends on speed of the computer htough).
Windows is far better when it comes to multimedia.
Overall, I don't think linux is as bad as it was back when you tried it. Nowadays, it is much better but Windows is still superior for desktop.
It will be interesting to see how Longhorn vs linux shapes up. That will be a crucial battle. Contrary to what some slashdot users say, Longhorn actually has a lot of innovation. For instance, Longhorn is supposed to use a database-like filesystem. It remains to be seen if linux will do anything like that.
XP help always tells me to run this or that troubleshooter, which asks some stupid questions which are mostly irrelevant and have nothing to do with my problem, only having the blindingly obvious documented.
Windows helps is great for newbies...
KDE help lacks troubleshooters, focuses mostly on setting up various software, and documents mostly the very obvious (as opposed to blindingly obvious in XP).
Linux/KDE help is great for experts...
I think an ideal help system should cater to both. Right now we don't have that. Troubleshooters are good for newbies (linux doesn't have it). Whereas linux has a ton of howto's and general documents but doesn't really help the newbies. Only experts can get past the first paragraph on a typical linux how-to.
From a linux perspective, if it wants to become more popular, help has to be written from an end-user point of view (unlike how it is now, from a developer point of view).
I use KDE 3.1 so 3.2 isn't that different from what I have. I haven't tried 3.2 but it isn't like you are describing (I don't think it's as big a jump as from 3.1->XP).
Without thinking too much, things KDE/linux is lacking include:
cut & paste (not that great)
bootup time (much slower than windows on my somewhat old computer; time(linux+KDE) media player isn't so good and is lacking compared to Windows
harder to use than Windows
plug&play detection not as great
doesn't support as many peripherals
video card support isn't as good as Windows
graphics performance (mostly due to the XFree server stuff) isn't as good as Windows
no sleep mode and other power saving features (linux crashes my PC--I think X server doesn't get updated so my screen is messed up when I resume)
Help system inferior
installing new programs can be problematic (version mismatches, have to find binary for the particular distro, etc, whereas Windows is install and forget, although Windows ends up being bloated because of this)
maybe a worse filesystem (not 100% sure of this but it seems NTFS is superior to ext3)
That should give you an idea of things I don't like. Some of them aren't necessarily KDE's or linux's fault. For instance, some independent applications needs to be improved. I am also ignoring all the positives that KDE/linux has over Windows (but the negatives outweigh the positives when using linux/KDE as a desktop IMO).
As far as Longhorn is concerned, I can't pass comment until I see the final version (or something close to it). Right now, it is nothing more than XP with some modifications so I have to wait. I'm also not sure what KDE/linux's future plans are. I have to wait until I see what KDE has in store. If MS implements many of the things they are touting for Longhorn, it will be superior to anything from the linux world. For instance, Longhorn will allow you to use your video card's 3d capabilities to render stuff on the desktop. I haven't heard such a thing come out of KDE or Gnome.
Asking a Chinese living under totalitarianism whether they are free is like asking an American whether their government is imperialist? Because governments spend billions of dollars on propaganda and disinformation (we all know how it worked for the Iraqi war and their WMD), the citizens in any nation are "brainwashed" and more likely to toe the government, or conformist, view.
There is no such thing as peasents; rather it's more like low class (as opposed to upper classes). In any case, they are already struggling these days. The restructuring of the Chinese economy meant that millions of lower class people were put out of jobs. So right now you have the situation where some people in the coastal areas are getting very rich while the interior is poor. A lot of these so-called migrants flock to the cities but they still struggle.
The Chinese government realizes this. In fact, the recent speech the Premier gave (just last week I think), he was talking about this problem. The wealth needs to be more equitable. He even talked about slowing down the Chinese economy (yes, slowing it down) from something like a 9% growth rate to 6-7% (or something). It remains to be seen if any of this will be successfully accomplished. Failure to do so will mean the Chinese government will collapse.
The US government does the same thing China does. Since you probably live in USA, or are heavily influenced by US government government propaganda, you wouldn't know. If you don't believe me, ask anyone from Latin America. Free trade did them a lot of good all right...
The sad thing is Bush probably thinks just like that. Since he is a "God-fearing" Christian, does anyone think he would admit that we are peering back millions of years with our telescopes?
The wealthy get back FAR MORE than $2000. Don't forget that Bush abolished capital gains tax as well. That alone is probably $10,000+ for large investements that are typically held only by the wealthy.
As far as Kerry is concerned, he isn't going to win IMO. He hasn't done anything to indicate that he has any great plans. Progressives will also be unhappy with him (he isn't very progressive if you look at his voting record eg. he voted for Iraq war; voted for Patriot Act; etc). In any case, Bush just has to start going back to his usual terrorism rhetoric and most Americans will be sold. A few terrorist attacks here and there might help swing vote in Bush's favour too.
Kind of ironic for conservatives to quote Hitler of all people. It is the conservatives, after all, who share more ideals with fascism than the liberals. Or has this fact been forgotten?
If you really want to continue your idiotic attacks against the Democrats, it would be more wise for you to quote Lenin or someone like that.
Dismissing the impact of Hubble is to dismiss astrophysics and astronomy. Most of our understanding of the universe comes from telescopes--not from probes and satellites. A lot of theories developed by astrophysists are tested by telescopes. I'm not saying Hubble is responsible for all of it (radio telescopes, x-ray telescopes, etc play a role too) but Hubble is more than pretty pictures.
Furthermore, the Bush administration plan is not going to accomplish anything you are saying. They haven't allocated any new money and the exist $5billion (or whatever that is being salvaged) isn't going to get you anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow.. did you write all that up? :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sure I understand how it works - if only 5% of the people are willing to vote for one party (hint: by far most people disagree with the Green Party, so it's not just a "lesser of two evils" issue - to many people they're a far greater evil), those people's votes will be wasted.
With that reasoning ALL parties are evil. I mean, hardly any party ever gets over 50% of the vote. Yet there is always one winner in the end. What does that mean? That an "illegimate" party is ruling? Of course not. I don't think you understand how democracy works--especially British-style systems (which Canada uses) where it is based on many parties winning small percentages (this is in contrast to US-style systems).
Whether you like the Greens or not is irrelevant. My point is that a party getting 5% or even 1% is in no way "far greater evil". In general, under British-style systems, the goverment is ruled by coalitions. In Canada, some party has dominated each election so it doesn't happen but that is more common.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It might have started off as propaganda but it has very specific implications these days. Progressive is basically on the left. To conservatives, progressives are automatically bad since they prefer static values and systems. Therefore, conservatives won't really vote for "progress". In contrast, liberals would consider progressive to be good and would likely vote for a candidate that is progressive than one that is not.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If I'm not mistaken, the Canadian Alliance was against homosexual marriages. They might have been ok with civil unions or some other quasi-marriage system for homosexuals but I'm not 100% sure. The Conservatives uner Harper will likely be against it (I think Harper said that in his recent campaign) but Stronach supports it (or at least civil unions) so it remains to be seen. The Liberals under Chretien was in favour of homosexual marriages. Under Martin, I am not sure. Martin wants an open vote in the Commons and has sent the issue for further study by the courts but this is like sweeping the issue under the rug. I'm not sure what the Liberal Party and Martin support.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I know you are being humourous but on a serious note... why not the Green Party? They can never be bought by corporations (since they are environmentally friendly)... at least that's the theory :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The Liberals are center-left in my opinion. Martin might shift it towards center or center-right but they are not there yet. Yes, the Liberals cut funding and off-loaded costs to the provinces and cities, but they still support social programs. Therefore they are left-leaning.
I also disagree with your view that Martin is socially conservative. He may be more conservative than, say, Chretien but I can't consider him conservative. He still isn't against homosexuality like conservatives. He still isn't against immigration like conservatives. He still isn't against medicare like conservatives. He still isn't against funding public education like conservatives. The Liberals aren't conservative yet IMO.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know the details of what you are talking about but what Martin did is ok. There is a word for it: capitalism. Capitalism calls for free markets and easy transfer of capital. If someone wants to stash all their money in Monaco, or Bahamas, or whatever, that is not the person's fault. If there is a fault, it's with the system--not the person.
Everyone who is wealthy (obviously you and I are not) does it. Take the Conservative candidate Stronach's family. Her father avoids paying taxes by living in (I think) Switzerland. Is that immoral? Not really. That's the rules. If you don't like it, change it. The fault is with the system...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What makes you think the dominant parties will implement anything like that? The Liberals and Conservatives are already against reforing the voting system (especially proportional representation). Down south, Democrats and Republicans have consistently watered down any campaign financing policy.
:(
I actually support what you are saying (although I'm not sure if voting should be based on votes--I want caps and minimums of some sort). However, I don't see your proposal being implemented in the next...oh... 200 years. Unfortunately, that's well past your lifetime
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are the first openly fascist person I have met.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not anti-Linux as you are :) But some of your points are still true. The bootup time for linux is very slow. Linux has to load its OS (say 10 to 20 seconds) then it has to load KDE (or Gnome) which takes another 20 seconds or so (all this depends on speed of the computer htough).
Windows is far better when it comes to multimedia.
Overall, I don't think linux is as bad as it was back when you tried it. Nowadays, it is much better but Windows is still superior for desktop.
It will be interesting to see how Longhorn vs linux shapes up. That will be a crucial battle. Contrary to what some slashdot users say, Longhorn actually has a lot of innovation. For instance, Longhorn is supposed to use a database-like filesystem. It remains to be seen if linux will do anything like that.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
XP help always tells me to run this or that troubleshooter, which asks some stupid questions which are mostly irrelevant and have nothing to do with my problem, only having the blindingly obvious documented.
Windows helps is great for newbies...
KDE help lacks troubleshooters, focuses mostly on setting up various software, and documents mostly the very obvious (as opposed to blindingly obvious in XP).
Linux/KDE help is great for experts...
I think an ideal help system should cater to both. Right now we don't have that. Troubleshooters are good for newbies (linux doesn't have it). Whereas linux has a ton of howto's and general documents but doesn't really help the newbies. Only experts can get past the first paragraph on a typical linux how-to.
From a linux perspective, if it wants to become more popular, help has to be written from an end-user point of view (unlike how it is now, from a developer point of view).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
No but what difference does that make? I know old school Unix users might like it but it isn't a big deal...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Without thinking too much, things KDE/linux is lacking include:
That should give you an idea of things I don't like. Some of them aren't necessarily KDE's or linux's fault. For instance, some independent applications needs to be improved. I am also ignoring all the positives that KDE/linux has over Windows (but the negatives outweigh the positives when using linux/KDE as a desktop IMO).
As far as Longhorn is concerned, I can't pass comment until I see the final version (or something close to it). Right now, it is nothing more than XP with some modifications so I have to wait. I'm also not sure what KDE/linux's future plans are. I have to wait until I see what KDE has in store. If MS implements many of the things they are touting for Longhorn, it will be superior to anything from the linux world. For instance, Longhorn will allow you to use your video card's 3d capabilities to render stuff on the desktop. I haven't heard such a thing come out of KDE or Gnome.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Just because they used the word socialist does not make them socialist. Go and ask a neo-Nazi if they are socialist.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
No wonder Usama bin Laden is angry. He probably saw a message like yours and got angry... ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Doesn't mathematics everywhere use Arabic numerals?
I'm not sure but I always thought humans used Arabic numerals everwhere (of course, I'm talking about now--clearly it wasn't the case before).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Asking a Chinese living under totalitarianism whether they are free is like asking an American whether their government is imperialist? Because governments spend billions of dollars on propaganda and disinformation (we all know how it worked for the Iraqi war and their WMD), the citizens in any nation are "brainwashed" and more likely to toe the government, or conformist, view.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Expect the peasants to lose considerable clout.
There is no such thing as peasents; rather it's more like low class (as opposed to upper classes). In any case, they are already struggling these days. The restructuring of the Chinese economy meant that millions of lower class people were put out of jobs. So right now you have the situation where some people in the coastal areas are getting very rich while the interior is poor. A lot of these so-called migrants flock to the cities but they still struggle.
The Chinese government realizes this. In fact, the recent speech the Premier gave (just last week I think), he was talking about this problem. The wealth needs to be more equitable. He even talked about slowing down the Chinese economy (yes, slowing it down) from something like a 9% growth rate to 6-7% (or something). It remains to be seen if any of this will be successfully accomplished. Failure to do so will mean the Chinese government will collapse.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The US government does the same thing China does. Since you probably live in USA, or are heavily influenced by US government government propaganda, you wouldn't know. If you don't believe me, ask anyone from Latin America. Free trade did them a lot of good all right...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The sad thing is Bush probably thinks just like that. Since he is a "God-fearing" Christian, does anyone think he would admit that we are peering back millions of years with our telescopes?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If you want the society survive, the cold hard fact is that people like me are not replaceable or equal to the leeches.
Let's see what you say in 15 years when you get fired and end up just like the ones you are criticizing... some leeches all right...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The wealthy get back FAR MORE than $2000. Don't forget that Bush abolished capital gains tax as well. That alone is probably $10,000+ for large investements that are typically held only by the wealthy.
As far as Kerry is concerned, he isn't going to win IMO. He hasn't done anything to indicate that he has any great plans. Progressives will also be unhappy with him (he isn't very progressive if you look at his voting record eg. he voted for Iraq war; voted for Patriot Act; etc). In any case, Bush just has to start going back to his usual terrorism rhetoric and most Americans will be sold. A few terrorist attacks here and there might help swing vote in Bush's favour too.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Kind of ironic for conservatives to quote Hitler of all people. It is the conservatives, after all, who share more ideals with fascism than the liberals. Or has this fact been forgotten?
If you really want to continue your idiotic attacks against the Democrats, it would be more wise for you to quote Lenin or someone like that.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Oh... one more thing... Kerry isn't very progressive... his record in Senate shows it...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Dismissing the impact of Hubble is to dismiss astrophysics and astronomy. Most of our understanding of the universe comes from telescopes--not from probes and satellites. A lot of theories developed by astrophysists are tested by telescopes. I'm not saying Hubble is responsible for all of it (radio telescopes, x-ray telescopes, etc play a role too) but Hubble is more than pretty pictures.
Furthermore, the Bush administration plan is not going to accomplish anything you are saying. They haven't allocated any new money and the exist $5billion (or whatever that is being salvaged) isn't going to get you anywhere.
Sivaram Velauthapillai