I'm guessing you are joking on the Jeb Bush thing?
I think McCain would get the support. He had reasonable support in the primaries four years ago and has only become more popular and well known since then. I think his moderate positions would draw the support of moderate democrats.
If he has enough popular support in the primaries he will get the nomination. He will not lose the support from the Republican base in the general election because the alternative would be Clinton. If Hillary is running, I'll vote for the alternative (even if it was Dole.) I fully expect (and hope) that he gets the nomination.
I don't really. Kerry wanted to keep that choice at the state level. In retrospect, it was a very good choice by him since many states had that on the ballot. It allowed states like Mississippi who did not like Bush but were opposed to gay marriage to not have to make a choice between the two.
So much for the democrat theory that record turnouts would obviously mean good news for Kerry. Bush won more votes than any other President in our Nation's history. The American people have spoken, and spoken loudly.
I don't think this post is overated. This guy has a point. One of the key political strategies of the Democratic party is that an increased voter turnout equals more votes for them. In this case it's true, but it also meant more votes for the other guy which they weren't expecting. I got the impression last night from some of the coverage that Kerry's campaign advisers were stunned by this fact.
As far as the part of the American people speaking loudly, I hope you are refering to the turnout and not speaking loudly in support for Bush. Bush did have a majority but it wasn't a landslide. The country still remains bitterly divided. It's just 52/48 now.
I certainly didn't. I don't think he will either. He seems to have more integrity than that plus the results are clearer than they were in 2000.
I'm not too sure of the rules (I'm English) but can't Kerry run again next time?
Yeah if he gets the support of his party again and thats a big IF. I think Dukacus (I'm sure I spelled it wrong) did that against Reagan and Bush but I'm not certain. The party is much more likely to go with someone new than go with somone that already lost one election for them.
I expect the next election to be between McCain and Hillary Clinton. I think John McCain has the capibility to be one of the best presidents that we have had in a long time because he is not on the leash of his party. He has a history of working across parties and standing up for what he believes is right (e.g. Campaign Finance Reform) dispite the official party stance. I think enough people dislike Clinton to keep her from being elected.
Personally, I think the potential damage to the country caused by a Kerry-ordered recount pales in comparison to potential good for the country of a Kerry presidency.
Well we definitely have different views there.
But hey, that's just me...and obviously the majority of Americans chose Bush. And that's what democracy is all about, right?
I wish more people on slashdot were as mature as you seem to be.
I didn't vote for him but I respect Kerry for not further dividing the country with all the recounts and mess of 2000 (yet at least.) It shows me that he truly does have the contries best intersts in mind as opposed to Gore who just wanted to be president.
Didn't Gore concede and the "un-concede" back in 2000 too though?
Neither candidate is perfect though-- it's honestly best to think of it as "picking the lesser of two evils".
Or you can think of it in a more positive manner. I prefer to think of it like I have two choices and I need to choose the one who will be the best for the needs of the country and myself.
Definitely. It's not immediately obvious what it is. I have had several problems with the encryption (though it's been about 9 months since I last used it.) I figure it's not worth my trouble. My powerbook stays at home most of the time and there's nothing especially sensitive on it.
I'm waging my own ineffectual little war against those moderators in metamoderation by marking any negative moderation of comments about failings of editors or moderators unfair, and I urge the rest of the slashdot readership to do the same.
Isn't that just contributing to the problem? Complaints are off-topic as are many of the things that are modded as funny. Your little "war" is just punishing those who moderate properly instead of those who do not.
I find it very intersting how the theories put forth from science that we hold so often to be true are often wrong. It makes me wonder if any basic "truths" that we know are wrong as well.
Yeah, I'm still on the last.9x release. I figure that since the official release will be soon, I don't want to risk breaking what I have now. In addition, I don't want to go about updating the extensions just to do it in another week.
While that's very true (though I don't know about the 50s-60s part,) nowadays, Democrats are more into promoting social services then Repulbicans are. These social services benefit many minorities. You don't vote on what the parties plattform was 100-150 years ago. You vote on the current platform.
Why would people outside the US be the only security threat to his website?
I didn't see where anyone said that. This prevents government-sanctioned attacks. We know that NK has an army of hackers and that their supreme ruler has made it known that he would rather deal with Kerry. I'm sure that there are many other governments that would like to influence the election.
That being said, who actually goes to these websites? I went to Kerry's once but saw not solid information on it - just propeganda and vague plans. I assume Bush's is similar but with his "accomplishments" listed as well.
I would assume that there a lot of US citizens living in Canada because of the huge border. Come to think of it, is that the largest border between two countries in the world?
The desire to want to match features is an artifact of the hidden source monolithic development model. If you have a product you're trying to sell, you want to maximize how attractive it looks to the purchaser.
I disagree here. One thing that makes Firefox so attractive is the extra features that IE does not provide (in addition to security issues.) If firefox was an IE clone but without the security holes, I doubt that it would be as popular.
You have to choose which features are important and not just add stuff because you can. If you open up somthing like xine (it's been a while since I have used this but it's what I remember) and look at the preferences dialog, there are tons and tons of options that I have no idea what they mean. Open up WMPs options and they are much more managable. OSS seems to be targeted toward the power user.
If you target the power user, don't expect "normal" users to get/use your product. Firefox is an example of targeting the "normal" users (while still having config files for power users) and having success.
The problem with voting records is that they attach all kinds of unrelated laws to records. For instance, if there is a bill proposed regarding airport security, one party can attach somthing pro/against abortion. When the other party votes against it, they have more fodder for the next election.
You have to either look at the details of the votes or take it with a shaker of salt.
Of course protecting one area will not prevent attacks on others. Protecting the subway will however protect the people who use the subways on a daily basis.
I find you whole argument rediculous. It's preposterous to suggest that people should hire their own security instead of depending on the government to provide it. It is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens, whether that be from conventional military attacks or terrorist attacks.
So while I agree computers software might not be as efficient as when everthing was written in assembly, software today is significantly faster.
I am going to have to disagree there. I do not think that is the case. Efficiently programming in assembly is not like C or whatever HLL you can use. I remember studying a MIPS architecture in college. If I remember correctly, doing the steps for A=A+B would take longer then A=B+A for various reasons. You have to worry about this in assembly but with HLLs, the compiler is smart enough to figure out these optimaztions by itself.
So you either have to rely on the programmer to know all the pelculiarities with every architecture he wants to program on or you rely on him to know one HLL well enough be algorithmicly efficient and let the compiler take care of the rest.
Programmers would be a lot less of a commodity though.
Yeah. Try disabling the "taskswitch.exe" (or something like that) service. I believe you can kill it from the process manage too. It was kind of cool (before expose) but the time it takes to draw the thumbs is inexcusable.
I doubt it. I think he wants some simple principles to be acknowledged. Like having a self-documenting interface (which doesn't mean context-sensitive help, but an interface which makes it obvious how to do what you want to do), or like designing an application for the user,
I believe that that is the goal of all operating system UIs. The problem is that it is a gradual processes that takes a lot of time. Windows XP is much better at this than DOS was and the same goes for Gnome/KDE and the bash prompt. It's not something that you can research and then develop. You have to build on what's already out there and working while innovating.
instead of for the computer (by starting with the interface, and building a backend to serve it, instead of the other way around), or like actually teaching UI design principles in CS courses, which way too often isn't done at all
The CS program that I was a part of actually tought a course on UI design. It was always stressed to do the opposite of what you are suggesting. There are definite benifits to both. Doing the UI first provides clear direction along with a user-centric approach. It would cause the backend to focus only on the needed functions and make it harder to expand on the next release. Doing the backend first means that you aren't constrained to any preexisting UI ideas on how things should work. The downside of course is that you have to "fit" a UI to your application.
This is just observation from my personal (though somewhat limited) experience. I believe that you have to weigh the tradeoffs. The best way to ensure a great UI and backend is to ensure great internal and external communication though thats a little off topic.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing you are joking on the Jeb Bush thing?
I think McCain would get the support. He had reasonable support in the primaries four years ago and has only become more popular and well known since then. I think his moderate positions would draw the support of moderate democrats.
If he has enough popular support in the primaries he will get the nomination. He will not lose the support from the Republican base in the general election because the alternative would be Clinton. If Hillary is running, I'll vote for the alternative (even if it was Dole.) I fully expect (and hope) that he gets the nomination.
Heck, even DC didn't vote that Democrat.
Actually it did
I don't really. Kerry wanted to keep that choice at the state level. In retrospect, it was a very good choice by him since many states had that on the ballot. It allowed states like Mississippi who did not like Bush but were opposed to gay marriage to not have to make a choice between the two.
So much for the democrat theory that record turnouts would obviously mean good news for Kerry. Bush won more votes than any other President in our Nation's history. The American people have spoken, and spoken loudly.
I don't think this post is overated. This guy has a point. One of the key political strategies of the Democratic party is that an increased voter turnout equals more votes for them. In this case it's true, but it also meant more votes for the other guy which they weren't expecting. I got the impression last night from some of the coverage that Kerry's campaign advisers were stunned by this fact.
As far as the part of the American people speaking loudly, I hope you are refering to the turnout and not speaking loudly in support for Bush. Bush did have a majority but it wasn't a landslide. The country still remains bitterly divided. It's just 52/48 now.
Who says Kerry won't do similar?
I certainly didn't. I don't think he will either. He seems to have more integrity than that plus the results are clearer than they were in 2000.
I'm not too sure of the rules (I'm English) but can't Kerry run again next time?
Yeah if he gets the support of his party again and thats a big IF. I think Dukacus (I'm sure I spelled it wrong) did that against Reagan and Bush but I'm not certain. The party is much more likely to go with someone new than go with somone that already lost one election for them.
I expect the next election to be between McCain and Hillary Clinton. I think John McCain has the capibility to be one of the best presidents that we have had in a long time because he is not on the leash of his party. He has a history of working across parties and standing up for what he believes is right (e.g. Campaign Finance Reform) dispite the official party stance. I think enough people dislike Clinton to keep her from being elected.
Personally, I think the potential damage to the country caused by a Kerry-ordered recount pales in comparison to potential good for the country of a Kerry presidency.
Well we definitely have different views there.
But hey, that's just me...and obviously the majority of Americans chose Bush. And that's what democracy is all about, right?
I wish more people on slashdot were as mature as you seem to be.
I didn't vote for him but I respect Kerry for not further dividing the country with all the recounts and mess of 2000 (yet at least.) It shows me that he truly does have the contries best intersts in mind as opposed to Gore who just wanted to be president.
Didn't Gore concede and the "un-concede" back in 2000 too though?
You need to get 3rd parties into congress and the senate before you can hope to get them in to the white house
Neither candidate is perfect though-- it's honestly best to think of it as "picking the lesser of two evils".
Or you can think of it in a more positive manner. I prefer to think of it like I have two choices and I need to choose the one who will be the best for the needs of the country and myself.
Definitely. It's not immediately obvious what it is. I have had several problems with the encryption (though it's been about 9 months since I last used it.) I figure it's not worth my trouble. My powerbook stays at home most of the time and there's nothing especially sensitive on it.
I'm waging my own ineffectual little war against those moderators in metamoderation by marking any negative moderation of comments about failings of editors or moderators unfair, and I urge the rest of the slashdot readership to do the same.
Isn't that just contributing to the problem? Complaints are off-topic as are many of the things that are modded as funny. Your little "war" is just punishing those who moderate properly instead of those who do not.
I find it very intersting how the theories put forth from science that we hold so often to be true are often wrong. It makes me wonder if any basic "truths" that we know are wrong as well.
Yeah, I'm still on the last .9x release. I figure that since the official release will be soon, I don't want to risk breaking what I have now. In addition, I don't want to go about updating the extensions just to do it in another week.
While that's very true (though I don't know about the 50s-60s part,) nowadays, Democrats are more into promoting social services then Repulbicans are. These social services benefit many minorities. You don't vote on what the parties plattform was 100-150 years ago. You vote on the current platform.
Thanks for the info. I've been trying to use it since it hit slashdot and have had no luck at all. I'll give this way a shot.
Why would people outside the US be the only security threat to his website?
I didn't see where anyone said that. This prevents government-sanctioned attacks. We know that NK has an army of hackers and that their supreme ruler has made it known that he would rather deal with Kerry. I'm sure that there are many other governments that would like to influence the election.
That being said, who actually goes to these websites? I went to Kerry's once but saw not solid information on it - just propeganda and vague plans. I assume Bush's is similar but with his "accomplishments" listed as well.
I would assume that there a lot of US citizens living in Canada because of the huge border. Come to think of it, is that the largest border between two countries in the world?
The desire to want to match features is an artifact of the hidden source monolithic development model. If you have a product you're trying to sell, you want to maximize how attractive it looks to the purchaser.
I disagree here. One thing that makes Firefox so attractive is the extra features that IE does not provide (in addition to security issues.) If firefox was an IE clone but without the security holes, I doubt that it would be as popular.
You have to choose which features are important and not just add stuff because you can. If you open up somthing like xine (it's been a while since I have used this but it's what I remember) and look at the preferences dialog, there are tons and tons of options that I have no idea what they mean. Open up WMPs options and they are much more managable. OSS seems to be targeted toward the power user.
If you target the power user, don't expect "normal" users to get/use your product. Firefox is an example of targeting the "normal" users (while still having config files for power users) and having success.
The problem with voting records is that they attach all kinds of unrelated laws to records. For instance, if there is a bill proposed regarding airport security, one party can attach somthing pro/against abortion. When the other party votes against it, they have more fodder for the next election.
You have to either look at the details of the votes or take it with a shaker of salt.
So do you suggest we make no attempt at security?
Of course protecting one area will not prevent attacks on others. Protecting the subway will however protect the people who use the subways on a daily basis.
I find you whole argument rediculous. It's preposterous to suggest that people should hire their own security instead of depending on the government to provide it. It is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens, whether that be from conventional military attacks or terrorist attacks.
Sorry man. I guess you're a troll because you don't oppose this.
So while I agree computers software might not be as efficient as when everthing was written in assembly, software today is significantly faster.
I am going to have to disagree there. I do not think that is the case. Efficiently programming in assembly is not like C or whatever HLL you can use. I remember studying a MIPS architecture in college. If I remember correctly, doing the steps for A=A+B would take longer then A=B+A for various reasons. You have to worry about this in assembly but with HLLs, the compiler is smart enough to figure out these optimaztions by itself.
So you either have to rely on the programmer to know all the pelculiarities with every architecture he wants to program on or you rely on him to know one HLL well enough be algorithmicly efficient and let the compiler take care of the rest.
Programmers would be a lot less of a commodity though.
Yeah. Try disabling the "taskswitch.exe" (or something like that) service. I believe you can kill it from the process manage too. It was kind of cool (before expose) but the time it takes to draw the thumbs is inexcusable.
I doubt it. I think he wants some simple principles to be acknowledged. Like having a self-documenting interface (which doesn't mean context-sensitive help, but an interface which makes it obvious how to do what you want to do), or like designing an application for the user,
I believe that that is the goal of all operating system UIs. The problem is that it is a gradual processes that takes a lot of time. Windows XP is much better at this than DOS was and the same goes for Gnome/KDE and the bash prompt. It's not something that you can research and then develop. You have to build on what's already out there and working while innovating.
instead of for the computer (by starting with the interface, and building a backend to serve it, instead of the other way around), or like actually teaching UI design principles in CS courses, which way too often isn't done at all
The CS program that I was a part of actually tought a course on UI design. It was always stressed to do the opposite of what you are suggesting. There are definite benifits to both. Doing the UI first provides clear direction along with a user-centric approach. It would cause the backend to focus only on the needed functions and make it harder to expand on the next release. Doing the backend first means that you aren't constrained to any preexisting UI ideas on how things should work. The downside of course is that you have to "fit" a UI to your application.
This is just observation from my personal (though somewhat limited) experience. I believe that you have to weigh the tradeoffs. The best way to ensure a great UI and backend is to ensure great internal and external communication though thats a little off topic.
I have no problems with either. A lot of people here seem to have problems with both.