Worse than rebooting is maintaining two separate configurations. For example, if you use an email client, you configure it on both sides. Browser, same thing. And so on.
If you use the same apps in both operating systems it's not hard to synchronize data files such as email and browsers. I though it was hard myself, however after some research I found out it can be easy to do. I have a MacBook Pro that runs Leopard and I've been thinking of installing Ubuntu to dualboot. What you do, er what I'll do if I install Ubuntu, is setup 3 partitions. One partition for each OS and the third as the user folder or directory. My browser is Firefox and using the profile manager in each OS you can tell Firefox where to put the Firefox user folder, so put it on the user partition in the same folder. Do the same with email, set Thunderbird to use the same folder in both OSes. Here's a webpage from Lifehacker on to Use a Single Data Store When Dual Booting. And here how to use Mozilla's Profile manager.
If you want to dualboot, or if you already do, I hope this helps.
if this were done as a VM where the Linux machine were to boot and they installed Windows XP in a VirtualBox or some other VM, then that might be acceptable. Then they would have their safer, virus-free environment for email and web browsing and then a VM to host the applications they need to run. This stuff works really well.
You could do both dualboot and use a VM. That's what I want to do. I have Leopard on my Mac but I've been thinking about installing Ubuntu on it as well to dualboot. If so I'll also want to install VMs in each OS so I can run both at the same tyme.
That's progressivism in action - the rich pay more money to the U.S. than they receive in handouts - as it should be.
Taking what a person works to earn is robbery. And neither the rich nor the poor should be getting handouts. This is not how it should be. You want money you can work to earn it. If you can't afford children don't have them, if you do it's your own fault. If someone wants to help those in need they can donate or volunteer.
Civil society can be just as effective as government. And when effectiveness in government becomes important it can lead to fascism.
Ah, perhaps there's the problem. In your original post which I replied to you do not say accountable to the law. Here is the sentence where you say accountable, "Being a corporation does nothing to hide the actions of the people involved and they will be held accountable to the same respect." Another problem is what is considered "acountable", apparently to you it's to the law, but to me it's to justice. And it is not just the fishermen were not compensated, justice was not served.
I have bad feet, bad eyes, bad ears, a bad liver, and a bad kidney. Why does that need to be a secret? What are the disadvantages to me of the whole world knowing that (why it would want to is beyond me)?
Do you have health insurance? If so how do you get it? From the government, your employer, or a private insurer? Depending on how you get health insurance you may find you've been disqualified for insurance or you may be asked to pay more.
I'd bitch to the phone company and take my money elsewhere if that was the case.
Before cell phones the vast majority of phone users did not have a choice as to who they got phone service from, they either got from the incumbent phone company or they didn't get phone service. That's how broadband access is now for most people. Most people can't choose between Broadband ISP1, ISP2, ISP3, or any other. A few have the choice of either cable or DSL, with a little fiber added. Hopefully wireless will correct this though.
Why should't the net have fees? LET PEOPLE BLOODY DECIDE! You don't want fees? You don't want ads? fine, no site for you. I don't want the net regulated because some whiny asshole doesn't like the fact that he might have to put up with the free market.
This is not a case in disagreement with me or what I said. Your just not happy about the penalties that came about.
You said corporations will be held accountable but those fishermen who had their lives destroyed and can't fish now have not been compensated. Neither have any of the businesses that depended on the patronage of those fishermen.
Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. He cared nothing for freedom and liberty.
Thomas Jefferson cared very much about freedom and liberty. Yes, he was a slave owner however he never bought a slave. The slaves he owned he inherited from his father and father-in-law. He did free some slaves though, for instance all of Sally Hemings' children were freed. In Thomas Jefferson's drafts of the "Declaration Of Independence" he included a paragraph condemning slavery.
The founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, would be ashamed.
Yes, Thomas Jefferson would be ashamed. However he did not found the Democratic Party he cofounded, along with his friend James Madison, the Democratic-Republican Party. Later the party split into 2 parties, and both Democrats and Republicans claim to come from it.
So making a law will somehow keep this from happening?
Seeing as Feinstein's would kill net neutrality it would allow this to happen.
Right because this unregulated net has resulted in that already, not like i can't do BT or gaming on my big evil comcast subscription. whoops, i guessi still can.
Only until ISPs start throttling, as Comcast does.
And how about just letting the free market work it's magic.
Yes, if there were a free market however there is not one. Most of those people who have access through Comcast can only get broadband through Comcast. If there were a free market then there's be a number of different choices, I could choose Broadband ISP1, Broadband ISP2, Broadband ISP3, or another broadband ISP. Most people, at least in the US do not have that choice.
So I have come to realize that most slashdotters are for net neutrality, but I am still confused as to why?
It used to confuse me as well. I can't say I fully understand it, much less its implications.
Because both businesses and surfers already pay for access. When I signed up for my access there was nothing in the contract saying my service provider could slow down a website I wanted to visit because they would not pay extra. That's one reason. Another is because there are peering [doc warning]agreements. If broadband providers can't handle the bandwidth then they should not have sold "unlimited access".
The difference was that his powers came from the Constitution. Martial law had been declared because of the Civil War and the nation really was in danger.
not be left bleeding dry of funds as the Federal Gov redistributes to failing programs in other states (I'm looking at you California!)
Except California pays more in federal taxes than it gets back. In 2003 California paid "$50 billion more to Washington in federal taxes than the state received in federal expenditures." California bankrolls other states.
Seriously, as a response that is logical nonsense. roughly I said "we should enable legislators to carry out their congressional duties from within their constituency"
No, this is wrong. The post I replied to does not even have the word "legislators" in it.
I personally think we should implement a voting system where you can check the box next as many candidates you like, and each would get one vote from you. This would break the "two party" system, as a voter would feel confident that they are not throwing a vote away on a 3rd party candidate. Candidate with majority of votes wins.
No, I think ranked or preferential voting is better. Instead of voting for as many candidate as you want you rank them. You can give your favorite candidate 5 points, next fav 4, next one 3 and so on. If you want you only vote for one person. All the points for each candidate is added up and the one with the highest points wins.
Being a corporation does nothing to hide the actions of the people involved and they will be held accountable to the same respect. At best, the corporation will end up being fined in addition to any penalties assessed to the employees responsible for any wrong doing.
Except it doesn't work out that way all the tyme. Take the Exxon Valdez oil spill for instance. Captain Joseph Hazelwood didn't even loose his license, all that happened to him was he was convicted of a misdemeanor and was "fined $50,000, and sentenced to 1,000 hours of community service." As for Exxon, it paid a fine but the people who lived there and had their livelihoods messed up have not received a dime from Exxon despite winning $5 billion in court in 1994. Fishermen can't make a living fishing anymore and because they can't afford to buy things that hurts other businesses too.
I think you may need to turn down the rhetoric a little bit. Cable TV/High-Speed Internet is not really a "critical service". We would all survive just fine without them.
If you want to put it that way, there are no crucial services. Food and grocery stores? People can and do grow their own. Doctors? Many people don't have access to doctors. Piped water and sewage? Many people go without those also.
When we formed our federal government, distance and travel time were big obstacles, And led to the congress having a very long leash with regard to the will of the people and the will of the states, and maybe it's time to reign in that leash.
No, congress had a short leash, states had more power. That ended with the Civil War. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about states rights. Amendment XVII: Election of senators further strengthened congress. Prior to it's ratification state legislatures chose senators. With it's ratification though people voted directly for senators. this removed power from the states. Many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a weak federal government.
Perhaps we could start by setting up the infrastructure for congressional telecommuting, followed by measures to encourage the members of congress to stay within their constituencies.
Originally representatives and senators had to work for a living, as business owners, farmers, or employees and because of this they didn't spend much tyme in Washington DC. Today that I know of only Texas still follows this. The Texas legislatures can only meet for regular sessions in odd numbered years, not every year, and only for a maximum of 140 days.
What amendment changed "government of the people, by the people, for the people" to "government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the corporations.?"
Thomas Jefferson warned about this, and the corporate aristocracy:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Slashdot Mirror
Worse than rebooting is maintaining two separate configurations. For example, if you use an email client, you configure it on both sides. Browser, same thing. And so on.
If you use the same apps in both operating systems it's not hard to synchronize data files such as email and browsers. I though it was hard myself, however after some research I found out it can be easy to do. I have a MacBook Pro that runs Leopard and I've been thinking of installing Ubuntu to dualboot. What you do, er what I'll do if I install Ubuntu, is setup 3 partitions. One partition for each OS and the third as the user folder or directory. My browser is Firefox and using the profile manager in each OS you can tell Firefox where to put the Firefox user folder, so put it on the user partition in the same folder. Do the same with email, set Thunderbird to use the same folder in both OSes. Here's a webpage from Lifehacker on to Use a Single Data Store When Dual Booting. And here how to use Mozilla's Profile manager.
If you want to dualboot, or if you already do, I hope this helps.
Falcon
if this were done as a VM where the Linux machine were to boot and they installed Windows XP in a VirtualBox or some other VM, then that might be acceptable. Then they would have their safer, virus-free environment for email and web browsing and then a VM to host the applications they need to run. This stuff works really well.
You could do both dualboot and use a VM. That's what I want to do. I have Leopard on my Mac but I've been thinking about installing Ubuntu on it as well to dualboot. If so I'll also want to install VMs in each OS so I can run both at the same tyme.
Falcon
That's progressivism in action - the rich pay more money to the U.S. than they receive in handouts - as it should be.
Taking what a person works to earn is robbery. And neither the rich nor the poor should be getting handouts. This is not how it should be. You want money you can work to earn it. If you can't afford children don't have them, if you do it's your own fault. If someone wants to help those in need they can donate or volunteer.
Civil society can be just as effective as government. And when effectiveness in government becomes important it can lead to fascism.
Falcon
I said they would be held accountable to the law.
Ah, perhaps there's the problem. In your original post which I replied to you do not say accountable to the law. Here is the sentence where you say accountable, "Being a corporation does nothing to hide the actions of the people involved and they will be held accountable to the same respect." Another problem is what is considered "acountable", apparently to you it's to the law, but to me it's to justice. And it is not just the fishermen were not compensated, justice was not served.
"held accountable to the same respect".
That is not the same as "accountable to the law".
Falcon
I said the law would be applied to them and no corporate veil would hide anyone responsible.
You also said they would be held accountable, however those fishermen haven't received a dime.
Falcon
well
Citation needed.
Do you even know that government agency have less waste then any corporate group?
Citation needed.
Falcon
I have bad feet, bad eyes, bad ears, a bad liver, and a bad kidney. Why does that need to be a secret? What are the disadvantages to me of the whole world knowing that (why it would want to is beyond me)?
Do you have health insurance? If so how do you get it? From the government, your employer, or a private insurer? Depending on how you get health insurance you may find you've been disqualified for insurance or you may be asked to pay more.
Falcon
Yea, Nixon was a socialist.
Falcon
Right, obviously, since we currently don't regulate the internet and things are just fine, we need to start regulating the internet because....
Things are not just fine. And if ISPs want taxpayer money conditions, like a neutral net, should be a condition of that money.
Falcon
I'd bitch to the phone company and take my money elsewhere if that was the case.
Before cell phones the vast majority of phone users did not have a choice as to who they got phone service from, they either got from the incumbent phone company or they didn't get phone service. That's how broadband access is now for most people. Most people can't choose between Broadband ISP1, ISP2, ISP3, or any other. A few have the choice of either cable or DSL, with a little fiber added. Hopefully wireless will correct this though.
Falcon
Why should't the net have fees? LET PEOPLE BLOODY DECIDE! You don't want fees? You don't want ads? fine, no site for you. I don't want the net regulated because some whiny asshole doesn't like the fact that he might have to put up with the free market.
However there is no free market.
Falcon
This is not a case in disagreement with me or what I said. Your just not happy about the penalties that came about.
You said corporations will be held accountable but those fishermen who had their lives destroyed and can't fish now have not been compensated. Neither have any of the businesses that depended on the patronage of those fishermen.
Falcon
Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. He cared nothing for freedom and liberty.
Thomas Jefferson cared very much about freedom and liberty. Yes, he was a slave owner however he never bought a slave. The slaves he owned he inherited from his father and father-in-law. He did free some slaves though, for instance all of Sally Hemings' children were freed. In Thomas Jefferson's drafts of the "Declaration Of Independence" he included a paragraph condemning slavery.
Falcon
The founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, would be ashamed.
Yes, Thomas Jefferson would be ashamed. However he did not found the Democratic Party he cofounded, along with his friend James Madison, the Democratic-Republican Party. Later the party split into 2 parties, and both Democrats and Republicans claim to come from it.
Falcon
So making a law will somehow keep this from happening?
Seeing as Feinstein's would kill net neutrality it would allow this to happen.
Right because this unregulated net has resulted in that already, not like i can't do BT or gaming on my big evil comcast subscription. whoops, i guessi still can.
Only until ISPs start throttling, as Comcast does.
And how about just letting the free market work it's magic.
Yes, if there were a free market however there is not one. Most of those people who have access through Comcast can only get broadband through Comcast. If there were a free market then there's be a number of different choices, I could choose Broadband ISP1, Broadband ISP2, Broadband ISP3, or another broadband ISP. Most people, at least in the US do not have that choice.
Falcon
So I have come to realize that most slashdotters are for net neutrality, but I am still confused as to why?
It used to confuse me as well. I can't say I fully understand it, much less its implications.
Because both businesses and surfers already pay for access. When I signed up for my access there was nothing in the contract saying my service provider could slow down a website I wanted to visit because they would not pay extra. That's one reason. Another is because there are peering [doc warning] agreements. If broadband providers can't handle the bandwidth then they should not have sold "unlimited access".
Falcon
The difference was that his powers came from the Constitution. Martial law had been declared because of the Civil War and the nation really was in danger.
However not all Lincoln did was constitutional. He suspended habeas corpus which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in Ex parte Merryman.
Falcon
not be left bleeding dry of funds as the Federal Gov redistributes to failing programs in other states (I'm looking at you California!)
Except California pays more in federal taxes than it gets back. In 2003 California paid "$50 billion more to Washington in federal taxes than the state received in federal expenditures." California bankrolls other states.
Falcon
Seriously, as a response that is logical nonsense. roughly I said "we should enable legislators to carry out their congressional duties from within their constituency"
No, this is wrong. The post I replied to does not even have the word "legislators" in it.
Falcon
I personally think we should implement a voting system where you can check the box next as many candidates you like, and each would get one vote from you. This would break the "two party" system, as a voter would feel confident that they are not throwing a vote away on a 3rd party candidate. Candidate with majority of votes wins.
No, I think ranked or preferential voting is better. Instead of voting for as many candidate as you want you rank them. You can give your favorite candidate 5 points, next fav 4, next one 3 and so on. If you want you only vote for one person. All the points for each candidate is added up and the one with the highest points wins.
Falcon
Being a corporation does nothing to hide the actions of the people involved and they will be held accountable to the same respect. At best, the corporation will end up being fined in addition to any penalties assessed to the employees responsible for any wrong doing.
Except it doesn't work out that way all the tyme. Take the Exxon Valdez oil spill for instance. Captain Joseph Hazelwood didn't even loose his license, all that happened to him was he was convicted of a misdemeanor and was "fined $50,000, and sentenced to 1,000 hours of community service." As for Exxon, it paid a fine but the people who lived there and had their livelihoods messed up have not received a dime from Exxon despite winning $5 billion in court in 1994. Fishermen can't make a living fishing anymore and because they can't afford to buy things that hurts other businesses too.
Falcon
I would love to see a "corporate death penalty"
There is one, corporations can have their corporate charter revoked.
Falcon
I think you may need to turn down the rhetoric a little bit. Cable TV/High-Speed Internet is not really a "critical service". We would all survive just fine without them.
If you want to put it that way, there are no crucial services. Food and grocery stores? People can and do grow their own. Doctors? Many people don't have access to doctors. Piped water and sewage? Many people go without those also.
Falcon
When we formed our federal government, distance and travel time were big obstacles, And led to the congress having a very long leash with regard to the will of the people and the will of the states, and maybe it's time to reign in that leash.
No, congress had a short leash, states had more power. That ended with the Civil War. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about states rights. Amendment XVII: Election of senators further strengthened congress. Prior to it's ratification state legislatures chose senators. With it's ratification though people voted directly for senators. this removed power from the states. Many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a weak federal government.
Perhaps we could start by setting up the infrastructure for congressional telecommuting, followed by measures to encourage the members of congress to stay within their constituencies.
Originally representatives and senators had to work for a living, as business owners, farmers, or employees and because of this they didn't spend much tyme in Washington DC. Today that I know of only Texas still follows this. The Texas legislatures can only meet for regular sessions in odd numbered years, not every year, and only for a maximum of 140 days.
Falcon
What amendment changed "government of the people, by the people, for the people" to "government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the corporations.?"
Thomas Jefferson warned about this, and the corporate aristocracy:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Falcon