How many enterprise ready operating systems have you written?
And I see that you've written *none*! All you've done is take FreeBSD and tweak it bit here and there. That is a much different thing from writing an operating system.
Maybe my only claim to fame is homebrewing software (not counting the real time embedded systems software I do at work), but at least I'm secure enough not to feel the need to engage in casting puerile aspersions at my competitors.
An error occurred while loading http://www.hawkinsos.com/
I was going to look up what "several fortune 100 companies" were using HawkinsOS, but apparently the demand is so high it's swamped your server.
If this is true, then I have one question. Why is the Republican leadership pushing for a *Constitutional Amendment* that will exclude consenting homosexual adults from engaging in private relationships with each other?
The Republican leadership is not doing this. Some of them are calling for an amendment to strictly define marriage, but this is a far different thing from banning homosexual relationships. All preventing gay marriage does is to eliminate a tax perq. And it's a tax perq that isn't given to singles either. While you can argue all day long as to unalienable rights of homesexuals to get this tax perq, it still doesn't equate to a ban on homosexual relationships.
Then I provided one example, what you do expect me to do?
I expect you to stop with the anecdotes. For every one of your "billion" anecedotes about stupid gun owners I can counter with ten anecdotes about intelligent gun owners.
I would gladly trade the bigotry of the south for the rude behavior of the north.
You are absolutely correct! The bigotry of a few individuals in Alabama and Mississippi is proof positive that every single person in rural America is an ignorant uneducated intolerant racist dolt.
Sorry, I was only responding to what you wrote. And you wrote: "a lot of the Republican were called "Dixiecrats".
In any case that was fifty years ago. A politician in office at that time would probably have been at least thirty years of age. That would make them 80 today! Face it, those the Republicans didn't kick out died off.
Let me be blunt. I really don't care if the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans fifty years ago, because THEY'RE DEAD NOW! Stop believing the propaganda the Democrats have been mimeographing for the last fifty years and open up your eyes!
I think that's your problem right there. You're mistaking a difference in political opinion as an insult. Thus a difference in opinion over how to deal with social security is viewed as an insult to the elderly. A difference in opinion over affirmative action is seen as an insult to minorities. And so on. Well it simply isn't true.
You talked about "Dixiecrats". Those were Democrats. They were racist. Then the Republicans did a stupid thing and started courting the Dixiecrats. But the Republicans have changed since then. That's why I said you need to abandon your stereotypes, because they were formed in the Dixiecrat days, and those days are no more.
But the Republicans don't do this. They have become the party of inclusion. I'm not a Republican saying this, I am a Libertarian. It's not that I'm sticking up for them, it's just that I have eyes that can see. Maybe you should stop dwelling on fifty year old stereotypes and start looking out at the real world.
Well considering this is a study on psychic powers, and every patron of the "Psychic Powers Center" down the street from me look like they just stepped out of a Kerry fundraiser, I don't think this has anything at all to do with the current administration.
The other day I went to track meet. There was a 100 meter dash. One participant wore ankle weights for some bizarre reason. He of course lost the race. When I went up to him afterwards I asked him why he was wearing ankle weights.
His response was, "F*ck you you asshole! You're the reason this country is so f*cked up! The other guy cheated and I can prove it! Go away you ignorant uneducated hick Christian! I can win the next race without your help!"
No one was shouting at you. Really, it's true. Go read the parent post again. There's a lot of wisdom in the post, and it's actually saying what you're trying to say, but you're so caught up in a delusion of being attacked that you can't even recognize friend from enemy.
If you are in any way representative of the Democrat party leadership, then a Republican president will be elected in 2008. If you don't want that then you need to crawl out of your delusion and start observing reality for what it is. There is a reason Kerry lost and post after post is telling you what it is, but unless you open your eyes you're not going to see it.
We need to do more than just reorganize; we need to restrategize.
And while you restrategize, you really do need to pay attention to what trb0001 is saying. You're not going to win the 2008 election by insulting the 51% of the people who voted for Bush. If you continue insulting Christians, rural inhabitants, and blue collar workers, you will lose the next election. If you want to win you need to be the party of egalitarian inclusion, not elitist exclusion.
In the past century, the more intelligent, educated, and ambitious people have migrated away from the farms to places with more opportunities. The less educated have stayed behind. Those who live in rural counties are less likely to read, and therefore are not well-informed.
I have been seeing this assertion and its variants all week. Frankly I'm getting pissed at it. It's almost like you're arguing that only urbanites should vote, and more than that, only the intellectual elites of the urbanites should have the franchise. Is that what you're really saying?
I'm a ruralite. A hick. A country bumpkin. I was born and raised in ruraldom. I wore cowboys hats and boots in high school. I was a member of the FFA. I've helped brand cows and shear sheep.
But six years ago I moved to the San Fransisco bay area. Culture shock! Because I had a liberal arts degree it was assumed I was one of them. But mingling at various parties and events over the last six years it became very clear to me that the rural America was despised by the liberal urbanites. In fact, contrary to their rhetoric, the poorer you were in rural America, the greater their disdain for you! To live in a trailer was to them the ultimate unforgivable sin.
These people would never dream of uttering a racial slur, but epithets such as "trailer trash" and "white trash" escape their lips with regularity. These people talk about religous inclusion, but it's impossible for them to utter the word "Christian" without a sneer on their lips.
Yes, I have migrated away from rural America. But I anxious to get back. When the opporunity arises I'm moving back. My old childhood buddies may be hicks, but they aren't ignorant savages. We have colleges outside the penninsula. We have bookstores. We get the internet just like you. The only difference is we aren't arrogant assholes like you. We believe that democracy is very everyone, not just for those that agree with us. Shocking!
Wait! Are you telling me that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with firearms because your friend was an asshole? In the twenty years since the incident has it ever occured to you that your friend was a CRIMINAL? That he was committing a CRIMINAL act?
I've been the victim of roadrage. If the perp had a gun I would have been shot, but as it was I was merely run off the road. So I am sympathetic to your argument. But that doesn't mean I agree with you that all of society should be punished for the actions of your CRIMINAL friend.
I really don't get you guys. I really don't. For four years it was a constant gripe about who really won and who really lost. Now you go and switch the rules 180 degrees! If Bush should not have been president the last four years because he didn't win the popular vote, then neither should Kerry be president the next for years should hell freeze over and the electoral college sends him to Washington.
I really don't know what you're talking about, because I have NEVER advocated outlawing gay marriage. Really, some of you need to put more caffiene into your diet. Because maybe if your eyes were open you could actually read what I wrote.
The US government (and its member states) grant particular priviledges to married couples. These priviledges are not available to those who aren't married. Notice that I said "priviledges". These aren't rights. They are not available to single people. They are not available to the divorced or widowed who do not subsequently remarry. And they are not available to homosexual unions. Most of these priviledges are financial matters, such as tax breaks and the like.
I'm slightly pissed at the gay community for insisting that these priviledges are rights. Why? Because I'm single and thus am not getting these tax breaks either! What has the gay community said about the rights of single people? NOTHING! I would be nice if the gay community took their blinders off and realized single people want the "rights" of marriage too. Insisting that marriage must be defined as a union of two people is a horribly intolerant idea.
But beyond the financial benefits of a legal marriage, there is also the name. Yes, the name. Most people really don't care if two gays move in together for a tax advantage. But they do get upset at it being called a marriage. I would say it's not entirely irrational. Marriage is a sacred and holy thing to many people, and the act of the govenment redefining it is very upsetting. While it may seem silly to many people, particularly in Europe, some will choose their religion over their government. When the Bible says "a man and a woman", it doesn't matter what any politican or bureaucrat says.
The question, IMHO, and one which should be discussed instead of this incessent bickering and hate lobbing, is whether government should even be involved in domain of marriage. Just give everyone a tax break and then get out of the marriage business alltogether! If two people want to live together then they can live together. If they want to make a contract of commitment to each other, they can. If they want to celebrate this contract with a religious ceremony and lots of champagne, they can. The ONLY reason gay marriage is a problem is because the government is involved.
I don't know if you've checked, but the party that introduced that "cannon fodder" bill into congress lost the election. I don't want to hear about about the Republicans are going to demand a draft anyway, because it's the Democrats who are the only ones on record wanting one.
Every draft in the last century was started by the Democrats. Every draft in the last century was stopped by the Republicans. I would study history a bit more before I started talking about Orwellian overlords.
Not at all. Bash contains everything that is needed, for a fraction of the resources. For some projects you would be right. But for this one plain old Bourne fits the bill. It's not doing any string manipulation. No data structures. No real algorithm. It is a script in every sense of the word.
Write scripts in a scripting language, write programs in a programming language. Perl and Python are a programming languages more than they are scripting languages. If this same project were on Windows, I would use Perl, simply because there is no ubiquitous L.C.D. sripting language. But on Unix I can fall back to sh/bash and KNOW that everyone coming after me will be able to maintain it.
Sorry, I work for a very large corporation (sixth or seventh largest in the world). Peons like me simply don't "push" for Linux or BSD. It's simply not done. The word comes down from on high, and it is done. We are free to (quietly) bitch and complain, but the orders will be followed. It doesn't matter how much it costs, because we have tens of billions to lose just so the CEO/CTO save face.
Sorry, Denmark allows civil unions, but has not legalized same-sex marriage. There are, however, two nations that currently recognize/grant same-sex marriage. Netherlands and Belgium. Neither of which are Scandanavian countries.
The point of my questions is that people are demanding the US be not only in the vanguard of gay marriage, but are demanding it be so "enlightened" as to make such nations as Denmark, France, Sweden and Germany seem like backward troglodytes.
Is it really that urgent of an issue if no one else in the world is clamoring for it? Perhaps we have time to sensibly discuss the issue and government's role in marriage before we rush unthinkingly towards bad solutions. Eleven states passed "protection of marriage" laws this week. This ONLY happened because the gay activists pushed too hard and too fast.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was in Germany I asked the people I was staying with how they could tell us Americans and Canadians apart.
"Oh, that's easy! If I find you in the morning passed out in my garden, you must be Canadian."
How many enterprise ready operating systems have you written?
And I see that you've written *none*! All you've done is take FreeBSD and tweak it bit here and there. That is a much different thing from writing an operating system.
Maybe my only claim to fame is homebrewing software (not counting the real time embedded systems software I do at work), but at least I'm secure enough not to feel the need to engage in casting puerile aspersions at my competitors.
An error occurred while loading http://www.hawkinsos.com/
I was going to look up what "several fortune 100 companies" were using HawkinsOS, but apparently the demand is so high it's swamped your server.
If this is true, then I have one question. Why is the Republican leadership pushing for a *Constitutional Amendment* that will exclude consenting homosexual adults from engaging in private relationships with each other?
The Republican leadership is not doing this. Some of them are calling for an amendment to strictly define marriage, but this is a far different thing from banning homosexual relationships. All preventing gay marriage does is to eliminate a tax perq. And it's a tax perq that isn't given to singles either. While you can argue all day long as to unalienable rights of homesexuals to get this tax perq, it still doesn't equate to a ban on homosexual relationships.
Then I provided one example, what you do expect me to do?
I expect you to stop with the anecdotes. For every one of your "billion" anecedotes about stupid gun owners I can counter with ten anecdotes about intelligent gun owners.
I would gladly trade the bigotry of the south for the rude behavior of the north.
You are absolutely correct! The bigotry of a few individuals in Alabama and Mississippi is proof positive that every single person in rural America is an ignorant uneducated intolerant racist dolt.
HawkinsOS, for the petulant child in you.
Sorry, I was only responding to what you wrote. And you wrote: "a lot of the Republican were called "Dixiecrats".
In any case that was fifty years ago. A politician in office at that time would probably have been at least thirty years of age. That would make them 80 today! Face it, those the Republicans didn't kick out died off.
Let me be blunt. I really don't care if the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans fifty years ago, because THEY'RE DEAD NOW! Stop believing the propaganda the Democrats have been mimeographing for the last fifty years and open up your eyes!
but look at the POLICIES Bush & Co. have pursued
I think that's your problem right there. You're mistaking a difference in political opinion as an insult. Thus a difference in opinion over how to deal with social security is viewed as an insult to the elderly. A difference in opinion over affirmative action is seen as an insult to minorities. And so on. Well it simply isn't true.
You talked about "Dixiecrats". Those were Democrats. They were racist. Then the Republicans did a stupid thing and started courting the Dixiecrats. But the Republicans have changed since then. That's why I said you need to abandon your stereotypes, because they were formed in the Dixiecrat days, and those days are no more.
But the Republicans don't do this. They have become the party of inclusion. I'm not a Republican saying this, I am a Libertarian. It's not that I'm sticking up for them, it's just that I have eyes that can see. Maybe you should stop dwelling on fifty year old stereotypes and start looking out at the real world.
Truly amazing. That this got marked down to "-1, Flamebait" indicates that the Democrats not only lost the election, they lost all sense of humor too.
Well considering this is a study on psychic powers, and every patron of the "Psychic Powers Center" down the street from me look like they just stepped out of a Kerry fundraiser, I don't think this has anything at all to do with the current administration.
You must have missed your marching orders. ANYTHING that treats Christianity in any positive manner whatsoever is defined to be theocratic.
The other day I went to track meet. There was a 100 meter dash. One participant wore ankle weights for some bizarre reason. He of course lost the race. When I went up to him afterwards I asked him why he was wearing ankle weights.
His response was, "F*ck you you asshole! You're the reason this country is so f*cked up! The other guy cheated and I can prove it! Go away you ignorant uneducated hick Christian! I can win the next race without your help!"
I wonder what party he belonged to...
Okay, let's have a shouting match.
No one was shouting at you. Really, it's true. Go read the parent post again. There's a lot of wisdom in the post, and it's actually saying what you're trying to say, but you're so caught up in a delusion of being attacked that you can't even recognize friend from enemy.
If you are in any way representative of the Democrat party leadership, then a Republican president will be elected in 2008. If you don't want that then you need to crawl out of your delusion and start observing reality for what it is. There is a reason Kerry lost and post after post is telling you what it is, but unless you open your eyes you're not going to see it.
We need to do more than just reorganize; we need to restrategize.
And while you restrategize, you really do need to pay attention to what trb0001 is saying. You're not going to win the 2008 election by insulting the 51% of the people who voted for Bush. If you continue insulting Christians, rural inhabitants, and blue collar workers, you will lose the next election. If you want to win you need to be the party of egalitarian inclusion, not elitist exclusion.
In the past century, the more intelligent, educated, and ambitious people have migrated away from the farms to places with more opportunities. The less educated have stayed behind. Those who live in rural counties are less likely to read, and therefore are not well-informed.
I have been seeing this assertion and its variants all week. Frankly I'm getting pissed at it. It's almost like you're arguing that only urbanites should vote, and more than that, only the intellectual elites of the urbanites should have the franchise. Is that what you're really saying?
I'm a ruralite. A hick. A country bumpkin. I was born and raised in ruraldom. I wore cowboys hats and boots in high school. I was a member of the FFA. I've helped brand cows and shear sheep.
But six years ago I moved to the San Fransisco bay area. Culture shock! Because I had a liberal arts degree it was assumed I was one of them. But mingling at various parties and events over the last six years it became very clear to me that the rural America was despised by the liberal urbanites. In fact, contrary to their rhetoric, the poorer you were in rural America, the greater their disdain for you! To live in a trailer was to them the ultimate unforgivable sin.
These people would never dream of uttering a racial slur, but epithets such as "trailer trash" and "white trash" escape their lips with regularity. These people talk about religous inclusion, but it's impossible for them to utter the word "Christian" without a sneer on their lips.
Yes, I have migrated away from rural America. But I anxious to get back. When the opporunity arises I'm moving back. My old childhood buddies may be hicks, but they aren't ignorant savages. We have colleges outside the penninsula. We have bookstores. We get the internet just like you. The only difference is we aren't arrogant assholes like you. We believe that democracy is very everyone, not just for those that agree with us. Shocking!
Wait! Are you telling me that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with firearms because your friend was an asshole? In the twenty years since the incident has it ever occured to you that your friend was a CRIMINAL? That he was committing a CRIMINAL act?
I've been the victim of roadrage. If the perp had a gun I would have been shot, but as it was I was merely run off the road. So I am sympathetic to your argument. But that doesn't mean I agree with you that all of society should be punished for the actions of your CRIMINAL friend.
Someone please explain to me why anyone in their right mind would want to buy Slashcode?
I really don't get you guys. I really don't. For four years it was a constant gripe about who really won and who really lost. Now you go and switch the rules 180 degrees! If Bush should not have been president the last four years because he didn't win the popular vote, then neither should Kerry be president the next for years should hell freeze over and the electoral college sends him to Washington.
I really don't know what you're talking about, because I have NEVER advocated outlawing gay marriage. Really, some of you need to put more caffiene into your diet. Because maybe if your eyes were open you could actually read what I wrote.
The US government (and its member states) grant particular priviledges to married couples. These priviledges are not available to those who aren't married. Notice that I said "priviledges". These aren't rights. They are not available to single people. They are not available to the divorced or widowed who do not subsequently remarry. And they are not available to homosexual unions. Most of these priviledges are financial matters, such as tax breaks and the like.
I'm slightly pissed at the gay community for insisting that these priviledges are rights. Why? Because I'm single and thus am not getting these tax breaks either! What has the gay community said about the rights of single people? NOTHING! I would be nice if the gay community took their blinders off and realized single people want the "rights" of marriage too. Insisting that marriage must be defined as a union of two people is a horribly intolerant idea.
But beyond the financial benefits of a legal marriage, there is also the name. Yes, the name. Most people really don't care if two gays move in together for a tax advantage. But they do get upset at it being called a marriage. I would say it's not entirely irrational. Marriage is a sacred and holy thing to many people, and the act of the govenment redefining it is very upsetting. While it may seem silly to many people, particularly in Europe, some will choose their religion over their government. When the Bible says "a man and a woman", it doesn't matter what any politican or bureaucrat says.
The question, IMHO, and one which should be discussed instead of this incessent bickering and hate lobbing, is whether government should even be involved in domain of marriage. Just give everyone a tax break and then get out of the marriage business alltogether! If two people want to live together then they can live together. If they want to make a contract of commitment to each other, they can. If they want to celebrate this contract with a religious ceremony and lots of champagne, they can. The ONLY reason gay marriage is a problem is because the government is involved.
I don't know if you've checked, but the party that introduced that "cannon fodder" bill into congress lost the election. I don't want to hear about about the Republicans are going to demand a draft anyway, because it's the Democrats who are the only ones on record wanting one.
Every draft in the last century was started by the Democrats. Every draft in the last century was stopped by the Republicans. I would study history a bit more before I started talking about Orwellian overlords.
Not at all. Bash contains everything that is needed, for a fraction of the resources. For some projects you would be right. But for this one plain old Bourne fits the bill. It's not doing any string manipulation. No data structures. No real algorithm. It is a script in every sense of the word.
Write scripts in a scripting language, write programs in a programming language. Perl and Python are a programming languages more than they are scripting languages. If this same project were on Windows, I would use Perl, simply because there is no ubiquitous L.C.D. sripting language. But on Unix I can fall back to sh/bash and KNOW that everyone coming after me will be able to maintain it.
Sorry, I work for a very large corporation (sixth or seventh largest in the world). Peons like me simply don't "push" for Linux or BSD. It's simply not done. The word comes down from on high, and it is done. We are free to (quietly) bitch and complain, but the orders will be followed. It doesn't matter how much it costs, because we have tens of billions to lose just so the CEO/CTO save face.
Sorry, Denmark allows civil unions, but has not legalized same-sex marriage. There are, however, two nations that currently recognize/grant same-sex marriage. Netherlands and Belgium. Neither of which are Scandanavian countries.
The point of my questions is that people are demanding the US be not only in the vanguard of gay marriage, but are demanding it be so "enlightened" as to make such nations as Denmark, France, Sweden and Germany seem like backward troglodytes.
Is it really that urgent of an issue if no one else in the world is clamoring for it? Perhaps we have time to sensibly discuss the issue and government's role in marriage before we rush unthinkingly towards bad solutions. Eleven states passed "protection of marriage" laws this week. This ONLY happened because the gay activists pushed too hard and too fast.