I never said you were a Democrat. I only brought up the Democrat candidate because the claim seems to be that a vote for Bush was a vote against gay marriage, when in fact Kerry was against gay marriage as well.
Jesus came to save people from their sins, and not to free them to continue sinning. He was inclusive of people, but he was very EXCLUSIVE of sin. Mary Magdeline STOPPED whoring when she followed Jesus. Matthew STOPPED tax collecting when he followed Jesus. But the gay movement wants a "christianity" where one can actively sin while following Jesus.
If you do not leave your sin behind you are not following Jesus. I don't care if that sin is homosexuality, adultery, usury, or simple everyday pride and arrogance. You must leave it behind. We are all going to slip up and fall, make no mistake. We will continue to sin. But we must at least try to climb up out of that mud and continue on. Otherwise we cannot follow Jesus.
Yes, Jesus was inclusive of people. But we must never forget he was exclusive of sin. He never claimed that it would be easy to follow him.
Typical fucking Democrat. Now I understand the real reason the Dems submitted this bill to congress. They wanted to punish kids for not voting for them. How fucking selfish can you get!
Is that all a draft is to you, punishment for Republicans? Fuck you! The last vestiges of the notion that Democrats stand for tolerance, diversity and enlightenment just got brutally stomped out in my mind.
I have a question for you: how many nations already have gay marriage so that the US is considered a cultural backwater not to have it? Does France have it? Denmark? Australia? ANYONE?
Sorry, unfair question. Let me ask another instead. Which Democrat politicians were publicly in favor of gay marriage before Gavin Newsome arrived on the scene? ANYONE?
Sorry, still unfair. Here's a trivially easy question: name one 2004 Democrat Presidential Candidate in favor of gay marriage? What's that deafening silence I hear?
I remember asking a friend, "what the fsck is your party doing? Do they want to lose?" His answer was, "shut up, he's not Bush and that's all that matters."
Frankly I'm amazed the Democrats showed as well as they did.
Except that Jesus told the whores and tax collectors to "go and sin no more." Jesus was most certainly against the inclusion of sin. The Bible makes it clear that the homosexual act is a sin. Jesus didn't come to exclude homosexuals, but he did come to save them from their sin.
NO THEY FUCKING DIDN'T! No one was talking about an armed and forceful expulsion of Clinton out of power. No one was talking about lining people up against the wall and shooting them. No one. So stop your fucking rewrite of history.
It's six hours later. The situation has gotten worse. Only a freaking idiot could read through the posts in this article and claim that there is no significant cry of conspiracy by the losing faction.
Spitzak says it's the Republicans who want to keep this country divided, but according to the posts and moderations in this story, it's clearly the other side that is wallowing in hatred.
Most people forget the overhead costs of switching to an entirely new system.
Yet, at one time these organizations switched to Windows. Think about it. If they didn't get into computing recently after Windows became de'rigeur, then they must have switched *TO* Windows from something else!
So my question is, if switching from Windows to FOSS is too expensive, then how inexpensive was it to switch from Unix/Netware/DOS/Etc to Windows ten years ago?
p.s. My company switched from Solaris 8 to Windows NT at a great and horrible expense. We're still reeling from the switchover four years later. If it's feasible for a major corporation to do it one way (just because it's popular), then what's the hindrance against going to the other way?
Right now I'm rewriting several thousand lines of dlsh script. It's been a legacy I've had to deal with for five years now, and I've finally gotten tired of it. No one uses dlsh. It's archaic. It's not sh based, it's not csh based, it's or horrible proprietary shell existing in a world where proprietary shells do not belong.
The top ranked post on this story is, and I quote: "I understand made use of electronic voting machines manufactured by Diebold. Their CEO pledged to do whatever was in his power to swing the election towards George. Interesting... Plus the exit polls seemed to suggest a different winner."
It's not the ratio of sane to wacko posts that counts, but how seriously the nutbag posts are taken. Considering the moderation, the tinfoil theories are pretty damned popular here on Slashdot. If you want to go karma whoring, evil Republican conspiracies seem to be your best bet. Some other choice quotes from top level high-mod posts:
"Don't be surprised when these requests are denied on the grounds that providing this information would compromise our ability to prevent vote fraud. (my head spins just typing that)"
"It's not about who votes. It's about who counts them."
"Much of Ohio uses Diebold voting machines, which leave no paper trail. Early in the campaign, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, a GOP fundraiser, promised to deliver Ohio to Bush."
"It seems fishy to me that the two states with computerized balloting and no paper trail, had Kerry winning in the exit polls, but the outcome was decidedly different. In fact these two states had the highest discrepancy in exit poll vs. final poll numbers."
Because fraud happened in California about a year ago.
And why were Diebold machines used in California? Because of the 200 presidential election! There was always a tiny minority urging the move away from pen/punch and paper ballots, but it wasn't until Florida circus that it became an imperative.
Stop trying to put words in peoples mouths. It is your side that is making up this crap.
My "side" is not the Republican's. Neither is it the Democrats. So why am I bitching? Because when I got up this morning to find out who won I had to wade through the same old smelly shit I've had to endure the last four years. The top story on Slashdot was an election lawsuit.
I have seen the responses here. Have you? There is a strong undercurrent of Diebold/Republican conspiracy. It may not be a dominant theme, but it is significant.
"Rural" means more than just a farmer miles away from his nearest neighbor. It means the character of the area. Look at the regions and not the points. California is a good example. San Fransciso is decidedly urban, because it's entire area is a city. Ditto for Los Angeles. But then look at Fresno. Big city, but the immediate region is decidedly rural.
It is true that more people live in a city than on a farm, but that does not mean that urbanites vastly outnumber ruralites.
There are also others reason to give ruralites their say in politics. One, all politics is local Two, tyranny by the majority is still tyranny. For example, why should San Fransisco wield so much power that it can dam up natural wonders in Mariposa country? Why should Los Angeles have the power to take water from agricultural central California? Third, the needs of rural areas are very different from urban areas, yet majority-takes-all will never recognize it (such as forced busing in a town only one mile square).
This is why we have a government that largely appears to be run by inbred redneck trailer trash...
Well if that's what you think of people who live further than five miles from a coast line, no wonder you don't want their vote to count. But I would suggest you get rid of your fucking bigoted stereotypes. You can get a lot more sympathy for your opinions if you don't go around insulting people. Oh! But your don't fucking care because you're the majority!
In my experience it doesn't happen. I'm from California, where liberals win the nine out of ten important elections. I don't hear the local California conservative talk shows bitching about "stupid and wicked" voters. It just does not happen. They may bitch at "unfair" Democrat tactics, but I've never heard them bitch at the voters. I've heard them ponder why the voters decided they way they did, but it was always in terms of "they must not have known" or "we didn't get out message out", and never "they're stupid ignorant uneducated trailer trash."
p.s. I'm not talking about Michael Savage. He's an ass.
I was so hoping that I wouldn't get four more years of the same, but I was wrong. It looks like I'm going to have another four years of insanity.
Am I talking about Bush? Fuck no! I'm talking about the utterly pathetic Democrats whining that the election was stolen! The last four years were nearly unbearable. Why is there a preponderance of electronic voting machines this year? Because the Democrats managed to convince everyone that punch ballots were a Republican conspiracy. So what do we get instead? Conspiracies about touch screen voting! Aaargh!
This morning on the news there was a "woman on the street" interview with the lady in San Fransisco *crying* that Kerry didn't challenge the election. If I can remember her quote, it was something like, "Why did he give up? He could still have won if he would have gone to court!"
Last time Bush did not win the popular vote, so Democrats griped about the nasty evil Constitution and the vast right-wing conspiracy known as the Electoral College. But this time Bush won the popular vote. Last time the Democrats blamed the Naderites siphoning off their votes. They can't blame spoilers this time around because Badnarik spoiled the Republicans as much as Nader spoiled the Democrats (approx 01% each way). Last time the blamed the low voter turnout. This election saw a record turnout, and they still lost.
In short, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. But never in the history of this Republic has a Democrat ever blamed himself. So they invent a new conspiracy. I fear for my patience and sanity over the next four years.
I am not a Republican. But you don't have to be in the Bush bed to hear the constant peurile whining from the Democrat side. I thought this was going to be like Lemmings, where they would all quiver and explode *pop* *pop* *pop* *pop* after the election. I was wrong. They quivered and fumed even popped some shirt buttons, but they didn't explode. They're still here to present us with four more years of their sbsurdist fantasies of Republican machinations.
The Democrats lost the election fair and square, and they need to realize it.
You can go live with Mr. Baldwin. He left the country after the last election according to his promise. He did move, didn't he? What, he didn't?!?! You mean this whole liberal "I'll move if my candidate doesn't win" thing is just idle boasting? Waaaagh! I was hoping they would all move away and leave me alone!
Actually, their FrameMaker port was *finished*. They pulled the product one week before release with no explanation. I'm assuming they just didn't want to support it, but it is a finished product.
No one is denying that hammered during the war. But the fact remains that the US and USSR met each other in BERLIN. Not Omaha Beach. That means the allied forces had to fight through France, Belgium and two thirds of Germany. It was most certainly a REAL WAR.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said you were a Democrat. I only brought up the Democrat candidate because the claim seems to be that a vote for Bush was a vote against gay marriage, when in fact Kerry was against gay marriage as well.
Jesus came to save people from their sins, and not to free them to continue sinning. He was inclusive of people, but he was very EXCLUSIVE of sin. Mary Magdeline STOPPED whoring when she followed Jesus. Matthew STOPPED tax collecting when he followed Jesus. But the gay movement wants a "christianity" where one can actively sin while following Jesus.
If you do not leave your sin behind you are not following Jesus. I don't care if that sin is homosexuality, adultery, usury, or simple everyday pride and arrogance. You must leave it behind. We are all going to slip up and fall, make no mistake. We will continue to sin. But we must at least try to climb up out of that mud and continue on. Otherwise we cannot follow Jesus.
Yes, Jesus was inclusive of people. But we must never forget he was exclusive of sin. He never claimed that it would be easy to follow him.
I almost hope that they get drafted
Typical fucking Democrat. Now I understand the real reason the Dems submitted this bill to congress. They wanted to punish kids for not voting for them. How fucking selfish can you get!
Is that all a draft is to you, punishment for Republicans? Fuck you! The last vestiges of the notion that Democrats stand for tolerance, diversity and enlightenment just got brutally stomped out in my mind.
Some of us get our brains in knots trying to figure out how some of you Europeans choose your leaders.
I have a question for you: how many nations already have gay marriage so that the US is considered a cultural backwater not to have it? Does France have it? Denmark? Australia? ANYONE?
Sorry, unfair question. Let me ask another instead. Which Democrat politicians were publicly in favor of gay marriage before Gavin Newsome arrived on the scene? ANYONE?
Sorry, still unfair. Here's a trivially easy question: name one 2004 Democrat Presidential Candidate in favor of gay marriage? What's that deafening silence I hear?
Actually, there is historical precedence for electors to jump ship and cast votes for Libertarians...
I remember asking a friend, "what the fsck is your party doing? Do they want to lose?" His answer was, "shut up, he's not Bush and that's all that matters."
Frankly I'm amazed the Democrats showed as well as they did.
I was really hoping that the Libertarian party would get 5-10% no matter who won, to shake the party powers up.
They did. In lots of elections. Some as high as 20%. But just not in the presidential election.
Gay Rights fit right in there.
Except that Jesus told the whores and tax collectors to "go and sin no more." Jesus was most certainly against the inclusion of sin. The Bible makes it clear that the homosexual act is a sin. Jesus didn't come to exclude homosexuals, but he did come to save them from their sin.
Actually they did.
NO THEY FUCKING DIDN'T! No one was talking about an armed and forceful expulsion of Clinton out of power. No one was talking about lining people up against the wall and shooting them. No one. So stop your fucking rewrite of history.
The anarchists are right. The vote is rigged.
But what do the anarchists care? Whoever wins, they lose!
It's six hours later. The situation has gotten worse. Only a freaking idiot could read through the posts in this article and claim that there is no significant cry of conspiracy by the losing faction.
Spitzak says it's the Republicans who want to keep this country divided, but according to the posts and moderations in this story, it's clearly the other side that is wallowing in hatred.
Most people forget the overhead costs of switching to an entirely new system.
Yet, at one time these organizations switched to Windows. Think about it. If they didn't get into computing recently after Windows became de'rigeur, then they must have switched *TO* Windows from something else!
So my question is, if switching from Windows to FOSS is too expensive, then how inexpensive was it to switch from Unix/Netware/DOS/Etc to Windows ten years ago?
p.s. My company switched from Solaris 8 to Windows NT at a great and horrible expense. We're still reeling from the switchover four years later. If it's feasible for a major corporation to do it one way (just because it's popular), then what's the hindrance against going to the other way?
Right now I'm rewriting several thousand lines of dlsh script. It's been a legacy I've had to deal with for five years now, and I've finally gotten tired of it. No one uses dlsh. It's archaic. It's not sh based, it's not csh based, it's or horrible proprietary shell existing in a world where proprietary shells do not belong.
So Monday my boss asks me what I'm doing:
Boss: "What else is up besides the ABC project?"
Me: "I'm rewriting the XYZ script in bash."
Boss: [stunned silence] "Is that necessary?"
Me: "I'll sleep better at night."
Boss: "Okay then, go for it."
The top ranked post on this story is, and I quote: "I understand made use of electronic voting machines manufactured by Diebold. Their CEO pledged to do whatever was in his power to swing the election towards George. Interesting... Plus the exit polls seemed to suggest a different winner."
It's not the ratio of sane to wacko posts that counts, but how seriously the nutbag posts are taken. Considering the moderation, the tinfoil theories are pretty damned popular here on Slashdot. If you want to go karma whoring, evil Republican conspiracies seem to be your best bet. Some other choice quotes from top level high-mod posts:
"Don't be surprised when these requests are denied on the grounds that providing this information would compromise our ability to prevent vote fraud. (my head spins just typing that)"
"It's not about who votes. It's about who counts them."
"Much of Ohio uses Diebold voting machines, which leave no paper trail. Early in the campaign, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, a GOP fundraiser, promised to deliver Ohio to Bush."
"It seems fishy to me that the two states with computerized balloting and no paper trail, had Kerry winning in the exit polls, but the outcome was decidedly different. In fact these two states had the highest discrepancy in exit poll vs. final poll numbers."
Because fraud happened in California about a year ago.
And why were Diebold machines used in California? Because of the 200 presidential election! There was always a tiny minority urging the move away from pen/punch and paper ballots, but it wasn't until Florida circus that it became an imperative.
Stop trying to put words in peoples mouths. It is your side that is making up this crap.
My "side" is not the Republican's. Neither is it the Democrats. So why am I bitching? Because when I got up this morning to find out who won I had to wade through the same old smelly shit I've had to endure the last four years. The top story on Slashdot was an election lawsuit.
I have seen the responses here. Have you? There is a strong undercurrent of Diebold/Republican conspiracy. It may not be a dominant theme, but it is significant.
"Rural" means more than just a farmer miles away from his nearest neighbor. It means the character of the area. Look at the regions and not the points. California is a good example. San Fransciso is decidedly urban, because it's entire area is a city. Ditto for Los Angeles. But then look at Fresno. Big city, but the immediate region is decidedly rural.
It is true that more people live in a city than on a farm, but that does not mean that urbanites vastly outnumber ruralites.
There are also others reason to give ruralites their say in politics. One, all politics is local Two, tyranny by the majority is still tyranny. For example, why should San Fransisco wield so much power that it can dam up natural wonders in Mariposa country? Why should Los Angeles have the power to take water from agricultural central California? Third, the needs of rural areas are very different from urban areas, yet majority-takes-all will never recognize it (such as forced busing in a town only one mile square).
This is why we have a government that largely appears to be run by inbred redneck trailer trash...
Well if that's what you think of people who live further than five miles from a coast line, no wonder you don't want their vote to count. But I would suggest you get rid of your fucking bigoted stereotypes. You can get a lot more sympathy for your opinions if you don't go around insulting people. Oh! But your don't fucking care because you're the majority!
In my experience it doesn't happen. I'm from California, where liberals win the nine out of ten important elections. I don't hear the local California conservative talk shows bitching about "stupid and wicked" voters. It just does not happen. They may bitch at "unfair" Democrat tactics, but I've never heard them bitch at the voters. I've heard them ponder why the voters decided they way they did, but it was always in terms of "they must not have known" or "we didn't get out message out", and never "they're stupid ignorant uneducated trailer trash."
p.s. I'm not talking about Michael Savage. He's an ass.
I was so hoping that I wouldn't get four more years of the same, but I was wrong. It looks like I'm going to have another four years of insanity.
Am I talking about Bush? Fuck no! I'm talking about the utterly pathetic Democrats whining that the election was stolen! The last four years were nearly unbearable. Why is there a preponderance of electronic voting machines this year? Because the Democrats managed to convince everyone that punch ballots were a Republican conspiracy. So what do we get instead? Conspiracies about touch screen voting! Aaargh!
This morning on the news there was a "woman on the street" interview with the lady in San Fransisco *crying* that Kerry didn't challenge the election. If I can remember her quote, it was something like, "Why did he give up? He could still have won if he would have gone to court!"
Last time Bush did not win the popular vote, so Democrats griped about the nasty evil Constitution and the vast right-wing conspiracy known as the Electoral College. But this time Bush won the popular vote. Last time the Democrats blamed the Naderites siphoning off their votes. They can't blame spoilers this time around because Badnarik spoiled the Republicans as much as Nader spoiled the Democrats (approx 01% each way). Last time the blamed the low voter turnout. This election saw a record turnout, and they still lost.
In short, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. But never in the history of this Republic has a Democrat ever blamed himself. So they invent a new conspiracy. I fear for my patience and sanity over the next four years.
I am not a Republican. But you don't have to be in the Bush bed to hear the constant peurile whining from the Democrat side. I thought this was going to be like Lemmings, where they would all quiver and explode *pop* *pop* *pop* *pop* after the election. I was wrong. They quivered and fumed even popped some shirt buttons, but they didn't explode. They're still here to present us with four more years of their sbsurdist fantasies of Republican machinations.
The Democrats lost the election fair and square, and they need to realize it.
You can go live with Mr. Baldwin. He left the country after the last election according to his promise. He did move, didn't he? What, he didn't?!?! You mean this whole liberal "I'll move if my candidate doesn't win" thing is just idle boasting? Waaaagh! I was hoping they would all move away and leave me alone!
Thus we see liberal elitism at its finest.
Actually, their FrameMaker port was *finished*. They pulled the product one week before release with no explanation. I'm assuming they just didn't want to support it, but it is a finished product.
No one is denying that hammered during the war. But the fact remains that the US and USSR met each other in BERLIN. Not Omaha Beach. That means the allied forces had to fight through France, Belgium and two thirds of Germany. It was most certainly a REAL WAR.
This means that being smug and using BSD won't necessarily have any practical impact on you.
So you're saying Lindows is just as safe and secure as OpenBSD?