I predict Chuck Hagel will run for President for the Republicans in 2008. And he will win.
The only way he won't is if he is defeated in primaries or the election by a 60% majority. Anything smaller can be usurped by sabotaged e-voting machines.
And George W Bush wants all Americans subjected to psychological assessments and regulation, especially children.
And yet the evangelicals who would normally sand up against this kind of fascism think he's some kind of saint, and they all turn out on election day and put him back in office.
and that's also why I'm also going to do what I can to help change in the electoral system, hopefully to get us a system where two parties are not mathematically precluded. Instant runoff, I think they call it. And thanks for the links.
Your point is well-made. And given our heavily walled-off two-party system at present, I can understand. But I don't want (as I said in another reply in this thread) the same black mark on my conscience left by my mistake in the 2000 election. Lesser or not, I don't want to vote for ANY evil.
And the liberating thing about my convictions is that I don't expect or need anybody else to agree with me. Good luck tomorrow, and may the least awful man win.;)
Yes, I'll still get Republicrats for a while, but this is what drives me:
In 2000 my vote was wasted on a Republicrat. I never got what I voted for. Both in 2004 promise to make the same constitutional violations, and promise to be the more aggressive in the war. I do not want the same black mark on my conscience twice. My primary motivation is conscience. I don't want to see George Kerry or whoever on television over the next four years and saying to myself "I can't believe I voted for that moron."
The "big difference" is not merely on paper. There is a practical effect. It improves the real situation of my party of choice by helping them get more campaign funding next time, better media coverage next time, and all the things that are needed to win more support. And if things go as I expect, my candidate will get the blame for costing a certain Republicrat the election. And that would get his party to do a little soul-searching and possibly improve. I'd say my vote is going to be a lot more effective about communicating my values than by simply giving in and condoning the sins of the Republicrat I least hate.
You're right about the self-defeating philosophy against alternative parties, but changing that trend is only as hard as dispelling the misconception that the odds should affect your choice. If you know you've got a 100% chance of dying in a car wreck when you go out today, but a 3% chance of survival if you put on your seatbelt, are you going to not bother with the seatbelt? Would you resign yourself to death just because the odds are so low? If you know your Windows network is eventually going to get infected or rooted or God-knows-what, no matter what you do, and the only thing at your command is your own PC, you can install Linux and refuse to contribute to the problem, and serve as an exemple of the solution.
To summarize, I believe the short-term sacrifice is worth the long-term gain. Most great positive changes in this country came from third parties. And I believe more in principle than I do in defeatist pragmatism. I know there are plenty of people who can't see past Tuesday, but I've got a jump start on the next two or four years to enlighten them.
A lot of my experience with Firefox has been on WinXP Pro. It's very fast, and I haven't noticed the memory leak style slowness for a coule versions now.
Could this be something OS specific?
What good does it do to preach to the converted? You've answered your own question. It makes good visuals on TV, because the news ameras can't see the dissidents who have been razor-wired off into "free speech zones."
They're not preaching to the converted. They're preaching to the people watching on TV. "Oh look at all the unanimous Bush support!" The people who are awake enough to realize there's something to protest about aren't the kind of people Bush has a prayer of converting anyway. The Bush campaign is counting on Americans being more rabid about their views than ever before, while simultaneously less aware of reality than they've ever been before. I am looking forward to the day after the election, because that's when the real work starts.
The only time you waste your vote is when you vote for a candidate you do not respect.
The Republicans and Democrats have all the media access they want, and are going to have a gajillion dollars to run campaigns no matter what. A vote for one of them would hardly be noticed. Voting for a third party has, proportionally, far greater impact on things than a vote for either Republican or Democrat. A vote for a third party candidate has a noticeable impact on the party's future funding and publicity. A Green/Libertarian/Constitution/Socialist vote in 2004 is an investment in 2008 and beyond. It is an investment in true change.
Besides, if you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you're going to keep getting--you guessed it--evil! Repeating an action and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanty. Therefore, if you're going to keep voting for Democrats and Repbulicans, you're crazy if you expect meaningful change.
Nader has been hit-and-miss, getting on only 35 state ballots, and the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik is on 48. On top of this, the Badnarik campaign has just launched aggressive advertising in four swing states, aimed at fiscal conservatives.
One of them is Arizona, where Nader is not on the ballot. And Libertarians, who have a tendency to attract conservatives, are polling higher all the time.
The features it has now are just FINE. Stop adding them. We could probably even do with fewer. I am curious though. What makes you say it "isn't that great?" It's far and away better than IE (imho), and it doesn't feel as clunky as the Mozilla Suite. It does everything I want it to and for me it's been a pleasure to use. In fact I use it exclusively. What flaw am I overlooking? Is it something that only anal-retentive coders notice?
But of course--security problems or not--almost anything is better than IE, eh? eh?;)
I'm surprised OSIA even dignified Gartner with a response.
I wonder how many Windows machines are destined to have Linux installed on them. When a new Windows OS comes out and everyone is goaded to upgrade, some just can't afford the new OS, while the old one keeps breaking no matter what is done. (This happened to me with my Win98 box I got from Gateway in 1999 or 2000. Even now, a fresh Win98 install gets goofy in no time flat.) Solution? Put Linux on it. It won't arbitrarily freak out, and keeps the computer usable. This will vastly extend the lifespan of the hardware. I could go another 3 or 4 years with this aging Pentium3 if I stay with Fedora. The only thing driving me to upgrade is UT2k4 and Doom3.
The one major difference I have noticed between Windows and Linux OSes is this: A Windows install deteriorates over time, while a Linux OS keeps getting nicer.
If Mozilla isn't responding properly to standards-compliant code, then someone needs to write a particularly irritated letter to the Mozilla devs.
Doesn't Opera have a browser that displays properly all the stuff that's coded to IE or to Mozilla? Is such a feature all that difficult to implement?
Bah! That flies in the face of the groupthink I've been raised to believe! You are clearly a Microsoft shill and everything you say is bunk.
That's my way of saying:... Good point.
But as with the Office Source thing going on right now, there's the problem of the source license letting you compile your own so you know the app comes from the source you audited.
I'd have to guess that it isn't the USA, but rather Saudi Arabia.
And whoever else sells a lot of oil to the USA.
The bludgeoning foreign policy (and horrific "mistakes" that led to 9/11) of the USA can mostly be traced to trying to satisfy oil-bearing nations like the Saudis. The United States of America is so dependent on oil that it'll do almsot anything with its vast military-industrial-media power in order to satisfy its need.
The USA might be the biggest powerhouse, but it is being led around by the nose by the interests of a certain few who have never set foot in the Americas.
Well you gotta admit, the history of MSFT makes it awfully hard to trust ANYTHING they say or do.
Re:Antartica is a nature preserve! KEEP OUT!
on
Antarctic Telescope?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
They can point the telescope at polar bears once in a while, if that would be OK.
I'm surprised that you care so much about Antarctica. I'm all for responsibly maintaining the Earth, but I can't find a good reason to object to building one measley telescope. Especially if it will have such a great impact on astronomy.
Do you object solely on the principle that it was decreed to be a nature preserve, or is there a deeper conviction? Do you believe that a telescope would have a negative effect on the Antarctic environment?
David Hart, an associate professor at Harvard's Kennedy school and a lobbying expert, says that lobbyists are only as good as the ideas they promote, and that lobbyists without good ideas usually don't last. But with Microsoft lobbying in a near vacuum, there is no system of checks and balances to judge whether its ideas are good. And few legislators have the technology background--or the interest--to come up with ideas on their own. In this kind of an environment, ideas from a well-connected, well-funded company can easily become policy.
If you become aware of a particular technological issue that your congresscritters are discussing, WRITE THEM A LETTER, STUPID. If MSFT-centric policies are getting pushed through "in a vacuum," it's because citizens who know better aren't providing the opposing ideas.
As that philosopher guy once said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil (or silly corporate lobbyists) is that good men do nothing."
Bills only pass after thorough discussion. Perhaps these bills pop into existence because after discussing the options, government agencies prefer software products that they can be ASSURED is secure where they need it to be.
Slashdot Mirror
I predict Chuck Hagel will run for President for the Republicans in 2008. And he will win.
The only way he won't is if he is defeated in primaries or the election by a 60% majority. Anything smaller can be usurped by sabotaged e-voting machines.
I read it in 1984, too.
And George W Bush wants all Americans subjected to psychological assessments and regulation, especially children.
And yet the evangelicals who would normally sand up against this kind of fascism think he's some kind of saint, and they all turn out on election day and put him back in office.
Seriously. What the FUCK?
...we can turn movie making into a completely safe, risk-free and boring enterprise.
and that's also why I'm also going to do what I can to help change in the electoral system, hopefully to get us a system where two parties are not mathematically precluded. Instant runoff, I think they call it. And thanks for the links.
Your point is well-made. And given our heavily walled-off two-party system at present, I can understand. But I don't want (as I said in another reply in this thread) the same black mark on my conscience left by my mistake in the 2000 election. Lesser or not, I don't want to vote for ANY evil.
;)
And the liberating thing about my convictions is that I don't expect or need anybody else to agree with me. Good luck tomorrow, and may the least awful man win.
Yes, I'll still get Republicrats for a while, but this is what drives me:
In 2000 my vote was wasted on a Republicrat. I never got what I voted for. Both in 2004 promise to make the same constitutional violations, and promise to be the more aggressive in the war. I do not want the same black mark on my conscience twice. My primary motivation is conscience. I don't want to see George Kerry or whoever on television over the next four years and saying to myself "I can't believe I voted for that moron."
The "big difference" is not merely on paper. There is a practical effect. It improves the real situation of my party of choice by helping them get more campaign funding next time, better media coverage next time, and all the things that are needed to win more support. And if things go as I expect, my candidate will get the blame for costing a certain Republicrat the election. And that would get his party to do a little soul-searching and possibly improve. I'd say my vote is going to be a lot more effective about communicating my values than by simply giving in and condoning the sins of the Republicrat I least hate.
You're right about the self-defeating philosophy against alternative parties, but changing that trend is only as hard as dispelling the misconception that the odds should affect your choice. If you know you've got a 100% chance of dying in a car wreck when you go out today, but a 3% chance of survival if you put on your seatbelt, are you going to not bother with the seatbelt? Would you resign yourself to death just because the odds are so low? If you know your Windows network is eventually going to get infected or rooted or God-knows-what, no matter what you do, and the only thing at your command is your own PC, you can install Linux and refuse to contribute to the problem, and serve as an exemple of the solution.
To summarize, I believe the short-term sacrifice is worth the long-term gain. Most great positive changes in this country came from third parties. And I believe more in principle than I do in defeatist pragmatism. I know there are plenty of people who can't see past Tuesday, but I've got a jump start on the next two or four years to enlighten them.
It is what you make it, I guess.
A lot of my experience with Firefox has been on WinXP Pro. It's very fast, and I haven't noticed the memory leak style slowness for a coule versions now. Could this be something OS specific?
What good does it do to preach to the converted? You've answered your own question. It makes good visuals on TV, because the news ameras can't see the dissidents who have been razor-wired off into "free speech zones."
They're not preaching to the converted. They're preaching to the people watching on TV. "Oh look at all the unanimous Bush support!" The people who are awake enough to realize there's something to protest about aren't the kind of people Bush has a prayer of converting anyway. The Bush campaign is counting on Americans being more rabid about their views than ever before, while simultaneously less aware of reality than they've ever been before. I am looking forward to the day after the election, because that's when the real work starts.
The only time you waste your vote is when you vote for a candidate you do not respect.
The Republicans and Democrats have all the media access they want, and are going to have a gajillion dollars to run campaigns no matter what. A vote for one of them would hardly be noticed. Voting for a third party has, proportionally, far greater impact on things than a vote for either Republican or Democrat. A vote for a third party candidate has a noticeable impact on the party's future funding and publicity. A Green/Libertarian/Constitution/Socialist vote in 2004 is an investment in 2008 and beyond. It is an investment in true change.
Besides, if you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you're going to keep getting--you guessed it--evil! Repeating an action and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanty. Therefore, if you're going to keep voting for Democrats and Repbulicans, you're crazy if you expect meaningful change.
Why, right here. And you're right. The Dems are Socialist, Bush is a Fascist. So I voted Libertarian.
Nader has been hit-and-miss, getting on only 35 state ballots, and the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik is on 48. On top of this, the Badnarik campaign has just launched aggressive advertising in four swing states, aimed at fiscal conservatives.
One of them is Arizona, where Nader is not on the ballot. And Libertarians, who have a tendency to attract conservatives, are polling higher all the time.
...there are more eloquent ways to state your case against everyone's favorite Capitalism Experiment Gone Awry.
The features it has now are just FINE. Stop adding them. We could probably even do with fewer. I am curious though. What makes you say it "isn't that great?" It's far and away better than IE (imho), and it doesn't feel as clunky as the Mozilla Suite. It does everything I want it to and for me it's been a pleasure to use. In fact I use it exclusively. What flaw am I overlooking? Is it something that only anal-retentive coders notice?
;)
But of course--security problems or not--almost anything is better than IE, eh? eh?
Everyone sees THIS.
Don't be a slashtard.
Have a nice day!
I'm surprised OSIA even dignified Gartner with a response.
I wonder how many Windows machines are destined to have Linux installed on them. When a new Windows OS comes out and everyone is goaded to upgrade, some just can't afford the new OS, while the old one keeps breaking no matter what is done. (This happened to me with my Win98 box I got from Gateway in 1999 or 2000. Even now, a fresh Win98 install gets goofy in no time flat.) Solution? Put Linux on it. It won't arbitrarily freak out, and keeps the computer usable. This will vastly extend the lifespan of the hardware. I could go another 3 or 4 years with this aging Pentium3 if I stay with Fedora. The only thing driving me to upgrade is UT2k4 and Doom3.
The one major difference I have noticed between Windows and Linux OSes is this: A Windows install deteriorates over time, while a Linux OS keeps getting nicer.
If Mozilla isn't responding properly to standards-compliant code, then someone needs to write a particularly irritated letter to the Mozilla devs. Doesn't Opera have a browser that displays properly all the stuff that's coded to IE or to Mozilla? Is such a feature all that difficult to implement?
Polar Bear Penguins.
Perhaps you haven't heard of the species.
Related to the platypus, I hear.
That's my way of saying: ... Good point.
But as with the Office Source thing going on right now, there's the problem of the source license letting you compile your own so you know the app comes from the source you audited.
...when my PC started its habit of flashing the word "BRAAAIIINS" every few minutes.
I'd have to guess that it isn't the USA, but rather Saudi Arabia.
And whoever else sells a lot of oil to the USA.
The bludgeoning foreign policy (and horrific "mistakes" that led to 9/11) of the USA can mostly be traced to trying to satisfy oil-bearing nations like the Saudis. The United States of America is so dependent on oil that it'll do almsot anything with its vast military-industrial-media power in order to satisfy its need.
The USA might be the biggest powerhouse, but it is being led around by the nose by the interests of a certain few who have never set foot in the Americas.
Well you gotta admit, the history of MSFT makes it awfully hard to trust ANYTHING they say or do.
They can point the telescope at polar bears once in a while, if that would be OK.
I'm surprised that you care so much about Antarctica. I'm all for responsibly maintaining the Earth, but I can't find a good reason to object to building one measley telescope. Especially if it will have such a great impact on astronomy.
Do you object solely on the principle that it was decreed to be a nature preserve, or is there a deeper conviction? Do you believe that a telescope would have a negative effect on the Antarctic environment?
If you become aware of a particular technological issue that your congresscritters are discussing, WRITE THEM A LETTER, STUPID. If MSFT-centric policies are getting pushed through "in a vacuum," it's because citizens who know better aren't providing the opposing ideas.
As that philosopher guy once said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil (or silly corporate lobbyists) is that good men do nothing."
Bills only pass after thorough discussion. Perhaps these bills pop into existence because after discussing the options, government agencies prefer software products that they can be ASSURED is secure where they need it to be.
You can't do that with closed-source.