Sorry Phil, but he seems to have willfully ignored your advice and is just bound and determined to embarass himself some more, apparently. Amazing... and hilarious!
Of course it is fashionable to believe the worst of alot of people you have never met, especially if they live in a certain country.
Hate to break it to ya' Eightball, but I've met real Americans whose answer to Eric's statement would be "Damn straight!", and mean it. And yes, I'm an American.
What it definitely isn't is purely military. Afghanistan was an exception, not the rule, because the Taliban weren't terrorists in the normal sense (they weren't attacking *anyone* outside of their own country), and obviously Afghanistan is where the architect of 9/11 is hiding out, and its going to take the resources of an army to find him, so a military presence there makes sense. However, Iraq has little to do with a "war on terrorism", considering that the terrorism now there was created *after* our arrival, *by* our presence and is now primarily aimed at *Iraqis*, not us.
Defending against terrorists will require occasional military action in the future, especially the use of covert special forces nearly anywhere in the world, as well as non-stop police activity and intelligence gathering. However, although we can kill terrorists, defeating terrorISM can't be done with bullets, for the same reason we will never win the "war on drugs" without ever coming to grips with our society's own demand (and addiction) to those drugs. Protecting ourselves from the *current* terrorists will require bombs and bullets, but to prevent *future* terrorists, that will require dialog and diplomacy and responsible behavior on our part, and most of all it will need *peace-making* in the Middle East, *not* war-making. Had we solved the Israel-Palestine conflict we would have eliminated the source of bin Laden's hatred of us. Had we not stayed in Saudi Arabia after the '91 war, we never would have gotten bin Laden's full and undivided attention. Without the I-P conflict and our presence in the birthplace of Islam, he'd still be busy trying to destroy the Saudi Royal Family rather than attacking America.
Most terrorism directed our way comes because of the I-P conflict, but Bin Laden, admittedly, is a religious zealot who had already turned to terrorism (against Saudi Arabia) before he ever looked our way. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to that, just as there was no easy (or quick) solution to the religious fundamentalism of either Christianity prior to the Reformation, or Judeaism prior to the destruction of ancient Israel. But this is primarily a *Muslim* problem not an American problem. Fix the things that keep bringing us up in their discussions, like our support for Israel while the I-P dispute continues; and a military presence in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, and their obsession over us will diminish greatly.
In the end we can do the most to make ourselves safe simply by helping to alleviate and end the I-P conflict as soon as possible and acting like a rational responsible member of the global community rather than an arrogant bully. The remaining religiously inspired terrorism will be almost exclusively directed at other (moderate/secular) Muslims, and in the end that terrorism will be (and can only be) ended by those other Muslims (just as with Christianity and Judeaism during their periods of fundamentalism).
Since we are having a discussion regarding military strategy and the training of the combatants,
That's funny, I thought we were talking about protecting the country from terrorists. Oh let me guess, you're one of those typical neocon armchair politicos who thinks he's a general and believes every talking point that comes from the current administration including:
Everyone we're fighting in Iraq is a "terrorist" (hint: the ones blowing up Iraqi civilians are terrorists, the ones blowing up our kids are not)
Terrorists can be defeated solely with the use of a military (hint: calling it a "war" doesn't make it one - its nearly as meaningless as the neverending "war on drugs")
By jumping on the military angle, you've only proven your own ignorance of the real nature of the conflict we face.
Also, there is only so much the House of Representatives can do.
Yea, all those pesky checks and balances tend to get in the way, don't they? I suppose that's why the House Reps have instituted the "martial law" rule (which revokes all previous standing rules the current majority objects to) and the Senate Reps continue to threaten to go nuclear (probably will with Alito nomination). Funny how the Dems, which held control of both Houses for about a 20 year period never thought to do either of those things. Maybe because those 2 things just sound so... undemocratic... ya' think?
Hint: I didn't necessarily have a problem with Newt's Reps, some of their goals, like fiscal discipline, I agreed with, its the current batch of Neo-fascist conservatives that I have a real problem with. The Dems went so far to the left back then that Newt could put together a platform moderate enough to appeal to a majority. I responded to your statement because I now believe the same situation exists again, but in reverse. This time it'll be the Dems that put together a moderate and very popular "contract" that they'll use against the Reps in the next 2 election cycles with great success because Bush has given the Dems all the ammo they need.
In other words, your rhetoric, and your apparent belief that today's Rep Party's issue positions are still popular are both desperately out-of-date, IMO. The "looney left" is not nearly as insane and scary-looking as the "looney right" has now become, and today's Rep Party now holds many positions that are the exact opposite from the Rep Party of the 1980's. So the Dems will offer the country just what Newt did: a smaller, less intrusive, and less corrupt government, a government that really represents ordinary Americans and not the rich/corporations/lobbyists/special interests, not to mention a government which actually obeys the laws of the land and respects the Constitution. That doesn't sound at all wacky to me.... and given the latest news about warrantless spying, its a contract I'd sign in a New York City second.
at least a dozen times for approval as well as the FISA Court
Uhh, dude, the whole point is that his orders allow the NSA to *bypass* the FISA court. Avoiding judicial oversight is Bush's GOAL.
Second it didn't go to a whole committee, just to select members, and many of them (Dem AND Rep) seem to be crying foul on this right now, so I wouldn't be so quick to say they approved Bush's action "a dozen times".
And I'm not sure yet what USA PATRIOT has to do with this, I first saw it mentioned here, not in any of the stories I've read so far elsewhere. I'd be shocked if that act allowed wiretapping on US citizens without any judicial approval, since that would have caused a firestorm from the privacy groups (as this story is doing now). If its true that the act gives Bush an out though, then this event will at least guarantee that the Patriot Act (in its old form) stays dead and buried, so *something* good will come of this at least.
You have to give 'em credit though, the Republicans' plan is clever because the people who are going to have to pay for this spending haven't been born yet. Now here is where I actually find myself in an odd kind of agreement with the anti-abortionists vis-a-vi the unborn: the unborn are being punished because they have no legal representation in our system. We can "just say no" to taxes and vote accordingly, but the Republicans figured out that no one would stop them if they shifted the burden 2 or 3 generations into the future. So the Republican moral of the story is I guess: Don't worry about the future, the future is our grandkids' problem! By the time the bills come due and the lights are turned out for good, we'll all be dead anyway, so party on!
"Offtopic" MY BIG OLD BUTT. IMO, what Bush has done is *exactly* what the Impeachment process is for, not for Presidents having a private affair that has zero effect on my consitutional rights.
The one thing I don't understand is if you don't agree with a bunch of the policies of a party, why the heck are you in it to begin with?
There's only one independent in the House of Reps, and none in the Senate, and its been that way for decades. Why? Mainly becuase of money (most essential asset needed to run a competitive race), but even the millionaires and billionaires usually join one of the parties. The one lone exception (Perot) only managed to act as a spoiler, not a real contender. So why virtually no independents? Answer: DUOPOLY.
The fact that McCain is considered a Republican in name only
Its only the frothing-at-the-mouth right wing of the Republican party that actually believes he's not a conservative. In every major category, his bona fides are true-blue (true-red?) conservative. McCain himself has joked about Democrats who claim to like him not really knowing who he is. I've always admired his independence, but now that he's defending Bush's illegal actions authorizing spying on Americans without any judicial oversight, I could never vote for him.
But remember - a lot (?) of people reading militant Communist propaganda are millitant communists
As you yourself must subconsciously know because you added the question mark, it is through this little hole of vagueness that a democracy can disappear.
The terrorists have a great training ground - right. They are dying.
And so are we. We're killing more of them, but then we were doing that in Vietnam too, and we still lost. However, you're the one who said earlier that you didn't "care about the numbers" so I really shouldn't be at all surprised.
the Americans are also getting in a great deal of training in how to deal with terrorists.
Oh really? How pray tell? How does fighting an insurgency in the urban environment of a foreign country help us at all from keeping bin Laden from slamming any more planes into our skyscrapers here at home? You need to actually proof-read for rationality before posting, because honestly this post sounds absurd.
Hi, I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Republicans go much further than just making up names for those who don't stay in sync with their goosestepping rhythm. The Republican party has been funding TV attack ads against one of their own members, Sen. Chafee, in the northeast (RI? not sure). Under Delay's reign, it was common knowledge that the Republicans would threaten their own members with defunding or even guaranteeing that the member would see an RNC funded opponent in that member's next primary election if they didn't vote the party line.
Did you really think that all those Republicans in the House voted the same way every time on those controversial issues because they all truly believed in the Party line? Both Republicans and Democrats didn't call Tom Delay "the Hammer" just because of his personality... Although the iron control of Tom Delay is gone, in the House of Reps, the Republicans are still more of an elite para-military unit which ruthlessly punishes disloyalty, than a poltical party of like-minded, but independent, individuals.
buy a converter box that will convert the digital (HD or SD) over-the-air signal into standard-def analog signal. And use your old TV.
Unless TV starts producing something worth watching, then I'll just convert my old TV into a footrest for when I'm sitting at the computer. I won't spend a dime upgrading my TV if all it gets me is more asinine commercials just in a higher resolution. To hell with that, I'll fire up nethack instead.
the big question is: how do you attract developers that are interested in fixing bugs?
In the case of OO, they need to break down their monstrous project into smaller pieces. Honestly, even after reading all of this thread, I'm still convinced that OO's problems have nothing to do with FOSS, its just too damn big to be a single monolithic source base. OO desperately needs refactoring.
What's really sad is that I had to get to the end of this article thread before someone finally brought up what is to me the most important issue: When did we reach the point where everyone thinks its ok/normal to pay for channels that are laden with commercial ads? Either give me the commercials or ask that I pay for the content, BUT NOT BOTH. This is why my local cable monopoly hasn't gotten a dime from me in the last 5 years, and until true content-on-demand becomes possible, I'm happy to keep it that way.
but by comparison Gentoo will *seem* faster to them because the only experience they had was their Mandrake box running KDE, Apache, Samba, et all and having all these background services running. It perpetuates the Gentoo Myth and creates some zealotry. (or maybe the zealotry is unavoidable regardless, i dunno).
Well, at the risk of sounding like one of those zealots you mentioned, I think the "Gentoo Myth" itself is conjecture. The problem is several things are being conflated together in the debate over Gentoo speed, some of them have little merit (recompiling by itself doesn't guaranttee a speed increase - it all depends on how the maintainer of the binary package builds it on his machine), but some really do make a difference. One of them is the issue of dependencies. As a refugee from Debian/Ubuntu who wanted more control over what got put on my system, Gentoo is a godsend because most Gentoo ebuilds have options to prevent the use of extraneous dependencies. On Debian/Ubuntu pulling in something like GNOME/KDE will pull in hundreds of megabytes of dependencies that might very well never be used. KDE in Debian/Ubuntoo requires the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) driver for example, even though the current KDE *sources* don't require it. With Gentoo I can get KDE without HAL because I build the sources myself, with a binary distro though, you get what the maintainer says you need. The problem I think is getting serious for Debian/Ubuntu because as they try to be the distro for everyone, they are necessarily building a lot of their software to support everything under the sun, regardless of whether you the user actually use those other things. This is the inherent weakness of a binary distro, and why as a binary distro becomes more popular it also becomes more "bloated".
So for me at least, Gentoo is faster than my old Ubuntu install for some things because I was able to leave out a lot of stuff that I didn't need. Yeah, the speed difference isn't dramatic, and with some software there is no difference, but with KDE at least, there is a measurable difference when you compile it yourself (KDE's bootup time is faster for me with Gentoo than Ubuntu). As with most things though it all depends on each person's specific setup (choice of software) whether they will see a difference or not.
Gentoo is definitely not for everyone, but my point is basically that while the "Gentoo Difference" has been over-hyped and exagerrated, for many people it really is real.
Ahh, in that case, prepare to be pleasantly surprised by AMD's 64bit CPUs!:)
For single core chips, look for one with a "San Diego" core, like Athlon 64 3700+. The dual core chips (Athlon 64 X2) are relatively new. Most recent dual cores are Manchester and Venice. Manchester is very nice if you want a quiet machine (low heat dissipation, can idle under 10 watts), Venice has better performance. For the low-end, budget-conscious, look at the Sempron 64's. Very cheap way to get a 64 bit CPU (but caches are smaller and clock speeds are slower than the Athlons).
(Yes, all this tracking of code names for core steppings *and* the bloody numbers suck, but at least they aren't any worse than Intel)
"Lamers won't buy 64 bit pcs when 32bit systems are cheap."
You might want to watch how you throw the term "lamer" about. There's no reason to pay the extra cost for 64 bit systems until you need them. Currently, their largest advantage lies in address space.
This is not true with AMD64 though. AMD64 isn't just doubling the size of the address bus to 64 bits, it also includes doubling the number of both general purpose and SIMD registers in the CPU. Extra registers make a difference for most programs, and for some, it makes a huge difference.
you could actually hurt both execution speed and the user experience in general by moving to 64 bit.
32 bit apps quite often run *slower* on 64 bit systems
Have you actually used an AMD64 system? These statements are simply factually incorrect. The *only* practical downside is that executables are 10% to 20% larger because address pointers have doubled in size, but for most people that's not a major issue, indeed, many with large hard drives probably won't notice the difference.
An AMD64 CPU moves around 32 bit operands just as fast as a 64 bit operand, the address bus always moves at the same speed whether you're using the whole width of the bus or just half of it. Second, the CPU is doing some address translation behind the scenes to convert a 32 bit adddress reference to a 64 bit reference, but this isn't a net loss in practice, simply because modern CPUs are *always* doing some kind of address translation behind the scenes anyway. However, a 64 bit app would likely be faster because of those extra registers, faster 64 bit integer operations, and simplified memory model, and that is where the implied speed difference is when it comes to AMD64 vs. IA32, its the potential of (most) 32 bit programs to run (at least somewhat) faster when recompiled.
Finally, I would argue with both you and the GP that there is no significant cost difference between 64 vs. 32. Seriously, look at the prices of AMD's low-end 64 bit chips, and consider that motherboards for these chips are typically only 10% to 25% more expensive than a 32 bit motherboard. Most "lamers" would end up *picking* an AMD64 system if all you showed them was various benchmarks and the price tags for AMD64 and IA32 systems, without indicating which were 64 bit and which were 32 bit only.
Say you now have a 64 bit Web browser. Are all the plugins you require, likely from an assortment of vendors, all 64 bit? Or do you lose functionality?
This has nothing to do with AMD64 vs. IA32, and everything to do with the downside of proprietary software. Those who are addicted to the Flash plugin have no recourse other than to petulantly beg Macromedia to support their hardware. Please, pretty, pretty please?:) Meanwhile, everything is compiled for 64 bit on my system because my system is open-source.
Look, you can believe what you want, but I've read articles recently by other French about the latent racism against blacks/arabs. If you're white, like Serbs or Poles, you can get jobs, if you're black or dark-skinned you can't. Ditto for Turkish immigrants in Germany. Its no different then here where white Asians have an easier time integrating than dark-skinned people. The only difference is that the US admits that that kind of racism exists and openly talks about it, where France and much of Europe deny that their "people" are capable of it.
The racism in the South that made it difficult for poor blacks to move about happened after that Migration. Immediately after the end of the Civil War, the racism was relatively less, there were even blacks elected to Congress, but in the south that racism grew (or perhaps "regrew") over time. By the 1960's most blacks were too poor or simply had nowhere to go now that the northern cities had already taken in so many blacks previously.
Oh, the poor arabs and blacks!
Well, even racists are entitled to their own opinion.
How do they pay for teachers? It would help if the French government tried to help them pick up French, but the current French administration has been *cutting* funding for low-income support, including language classes. Its kinda like the US admin. cutting funding for the Mississippi levy system every year since 2001 without ever thinking of the consequences. Sure, you can call them 'scum' in public and a lot of people who don't know any better will agree with you, but the fact remains is that "you", the French government, are partially responsible for this rioting, because you created the problem in the first place by inaction.
Even if the government(s) will let you, you have to have money to afford to move around. These people are unemployed and dirt poor, and have no way out of their situation, that's why most of them are rioting in the first place (some are hooligans, but most aren't). This would be like telling the blacks of 1960's America to "just move to another state". Wouldn't solve the problem even if they could. The kind of mild racism they face in France, exists across most of Europe to some degree, and as someone else pointed out, no one likes 1st generation immigrants anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry Phil, but he seems to have willfully ignored your advice and is just bound and determined to embarass himself some more, apparently. Amazing... and hilarious!
Hate to break it to ya' Eightball, but I've met real Americans whose answer to Eric's statement would be "Damn straight!", and mean it. And yes, I'm an American.
What it definitely isn't is purely military. Afghanistan was an exception, not the rule, because the Taliban weren't terrorists in the normal sense (they weren't attacking *anyone* outside of their own country), and obviously Afghanistan is where the architect of 9/11 is hiding out, and its going to take the resources of an army to find him, so a military presence there makes sense. However, Iraq has little to do with a "war on terrorism", considering that the terrorism now there was created *after* our arrival, *by* our presence and is now primarily aimed at *Iraqis*, not us.
Defending against terrorists will require occasional military action in the future, especially the use of covert special forces nearly anywhere in the world, as well as non-stop police activity and intelligence gathering. However, although we can kill terrorists, defeating terrorISM can't be done with bullets, for the same reason we will never win the "war on drugs" without ever coming to grips with our society's own demand (and addiction) to those drugs. Protecting ourselves from the *current* terrorists will require bombs and bullets, but to prevent *future* terrorists, that will require dialog and diplomacy and responsible behavior on our part, and most of all it will need *peace-making* in the Middle East, *not* war-making. Had we solved the Israel-Palestine conflict we would have eliminated the source of bin Laden's hatred of us. Had we not stayed in Saudi Arabia after the '91 war, we never would have gotten bin Laden's full and undivided attention. Without the I-P conflict and our presence in the birthplace of Islam, he'd still be busy trying to destroy the Saudi Royal Family rather than attacking America.
Most terrorism directed our way comes because of the I-P conflict, but Bin Laden, admittedly, is a religious zealot who had already turned to terrorism (against Saudi Arabia) before he ever looked our way. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to that, just as there was no easy (or quick) solution to the religious fundamentalism of either Christianity prior to the Reformation, or Judeaism prior to the destruction of ancient Israel. But this is primarily a *Muslim* problem not an American problem. Fix the things that keep bringing us up in their discussions, like our support for Israel while the I-P dispute continues; and a military presence in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, and their obsession over us will diminish greatly.
In the end we can do the most to make ourselves safe simply by helping to alleviate and end the I-P conflict as soon as possible and acting like a rational responsible member of the global community rather than an arrogant bully. The remaining religiously inspired terrorism will be almost exclusively directed at other (moderate/secular) Muslims, and in the end that terrorism will be (and can only be) ended by those other Muslims (just as with Christianity and Judeaism during their periods of fundamentalism).
That's funny, I thought we were talking about protecting the country from terrorists. Oh let me guess, you're one of those typical neocon armchair politicos who thinks he's a general and believes every talking point that comes from the current administration including:
By jumping on the military angle, you've only proven your own ignorance of the real nature of the conflict we face.
Yea, all those pesky checks and balances tend to get in the way, don't they? I suppose that's why the House Reps have instituted the "martial law" rule (which revokes all previous standing rules the current majority objects to) and the Senate Reps continue to threaten to go nuclear (probably will with Alito nomination). Funny how the Dems, which held control of both Houses for about a 20 year period never thought to do either of those things. Maybe because those 2 things just sound so... undemocratic... ya' think?
Hint: I didn't necessarily have a problem with Newt's Reps, some of their goals, like fiscal discipline, I agreed with, its the current batch of Neo-fascist conservatives that I have a real problem with. The Dems went so far to the left back then that Newt could put together a platform moderate enough to appeal to a majority. I responded to your statement because I now believe the same situation exists again, but in reverse. This time it'll be the Dems that put together a moderate and very popular "contract" that they'll use against the Reps in the next 2 election cycles with great success because Bush has given the Dems all the ammo they need.
In other words, your rhetoric, and your apparent belief that today's Rep Party's issue positions are still popular are both desperately out-of-date, IMO. The "looney left" is not nearly as insane and scary-looking as the "looney right" has now become, and today's Rep Party now holds many positions that are the exact opposite from the Rep Party of the 1980's. So the Dems will offer the country just what Newt did: a smaller, less intrusive, and less corrupt government, a government that really represents ordinary Americans and not the rich/corporations/lobbyists/special interests, not to mention a government which actually obeys the laws of the land and respects the Constitution. That doesn't sound at all wacky to me.... and given the latest news about warrantless spying, its a contract I'd sign in a New York City second.
Uhh, dude, the whole point is that his orders allow the NSA to *bypass* the FISA court. Avoiding judicial oversight is Bush's GOAL.
Second it didn't go to a whole committee, just to select members, and many of them (Dem AND Rep) seem to be crying foul on this right now, so I wouldn't be so quick to say they approved Bush's action "a dozen times".
And I'm not sure yet what USA PATRIOT has to do with this, I first saw it mentioned here, not in any of the stories I've read so far elsewhere. I'd be shocked if that act allowed wiretapping on US citizens without any judicial approval, since that would have caused a firestorm from the privacy groups (as this story is doing now). If its true that the act gives Bush an out though, then this event will at least guarantee that the Patriot Act (in its old form) stays dead and buried, so *something* good will come of this at least.
Ohh if I only had mod points!
The rabid right would have modded you back down though I suspect, history is not one of their strong suits.
You have to give 'em credit though, the Republicans' plan is clever because the people who are going to have to pay for this spending haven't been born yet. Now here is where I actually find myself in an odd kind of agreement with the anti-abortionists vis-a-vi the unborn: the unborn are being punished because they have no legal representation in our system. We can "just say no" to taxes and vote accordingly, but the Republicans figured out that no one would stop them if they shifted the burden 2 or 3 generations into the future. So the Republican moral of the story is I guess: Don't worry about the future, the future is our grandkids' problem! By the time the bills come due and the lights are turned out for good, we'll all be dead anyway, so party on!
"Offtopic" MY BIG OLD BUTT. IMO, what Bush has done is *exactly* what the Impeachment process is for, not for Presidents having a private affair that has zero effect on my consitutional rights.
They'd get a lot farther than a "Contract on America" from the "looney" right....
Hey, one silly remark using meaningless rhetoric deserves another.
There's only one independent in the House of Reps, and none in the Senate, and its been that way for decades. Why? Mainly becuase of money (most essential asset needed to run a competitive race), but even the millionaires and billionaires usually join one of the parties. The one lone exception (Perot) only managed to act as a spoiler, not a real contender. So why virtually no independents? Answer: DUOPOLY.
Its only the frothing-at-the-mouth right wing of the Republican party that actually believes he's not a conservative. In every major category, his bona fides are true-blue (true-red?) conservative. McCain himself has joked about Democrats who claim to like him not really knowing who he is. I've always admired his independence, but now that he's defending Bush's illegal actions authorizing spying on Americans without any judicial oversight, I could never vote for him.
As you yourself must subconsciously know because you added the question mark, it is through this little hole of vagueness that a democracy can disappear.
And so are we. We're killing more of them, but then we were doing that in Vietnam too, and we still lost. However, you're the one who said earlier that you didn't "care about the numbers" so I really shouldn't be at all surprised.
Oh really? How pray tell? How does fighting an insurgency in the urban environment of a foreign country help us at all from keeping bin Laden from slamming any more planes into our skyscrapers here at home? You need to actually proof-read for rationality before posting, because honestly this post sounds absurd.
Hi, I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Republicans go much further than just making up names for those who don't stay in sync with their goosestepping rhythm. The Republican party has been funding TV attack ads against one of their own members, Sen. Chafee, in the northeast (RI? not sure). Under Delay's reign, it was common knowledge that the Republicans would threaten their own members with defunding or even guaranteeing that the member would see an RNC funded opponent in that member's next primary election if they didn't vote the party line.
Did you really think that all those Republicans in the House voted the same way every time on those controversial issues because they all truly believed in the Party line? Both Republicans and Democrats didn't call Tom Delay "the Hammer" just because of his personality... Although the iron control of Tom Delay is gone, in the House of Reps, the Republicans are still more of an elite para-military unit which ruthlessly punishes disloyalty, than a poltical party of like-minded, but independent, individuals.
Unless TV starts producing something worth watching, then I'll just convert my old TV into a footrest for when I'm sitting at the computer. I won't spend a dime upgrading my TV if all it gets me is more asinine commercials just in a higher resolution. To hell with that, I'll fire up nethack instead.
In the case of OO, they need to break down their monstrous project into smaller pieces. Honestly, even after reading all of this thread, I'm still convinced that OO's problems have nothing to do with FOSS, its just too damn big to be a single monolithic source base. OO desperately needs refactoring.
What's really sad is that I had to get to the end of this article thread before someone finally brought up what is to me the most important issue: When did we reach the point where everyone thinks its ok/normal to pay for channels that are laden with commercial ads? Either give me the commercials or ask that I pay for the content, BUT NOT BOTH. This is why my local cable monopoly hasn't gotten a dime from me in the last 5 years, and until true content-on-demand becomes possible, I'm happy to keep it that way.
Well, at the risk of sounding like one of those zealots you mentioned, I think the "Gentoo Myth" itself is conjecture. The problem is several things are being conflated together in the debate over Gentoo speed, some of them have little merit (recompiling by itself doesn't guaranttee a speed increase - it all depends on how the maintainer of the binary package builds it on his machine), but some really do make a difference. One of them is the issue of dependencies. As a refugee from Debian/Ubuntu who wanted more control over what got put on my system, Gentoo is a godsend because most Gentoo ebuilds have options to prevent the use of extraneous dependencies. On Debian/Ubuntu pulling in something like GNOME/KDE will pull in hundreds of megabytes of dependencies that might very well never be used. KDE in Debian/Ubuntoo requires the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) driver for example, even though the current KDE *sources* don't require it. With Gentoo I can get KDE without HAL because I build the sources myself, with a binary distro though, you get what the maintainer says you need. The problem I think is getting serious for Debian/Ubuntu because as they try to be the distro for everyone, they are necessarily building a lot of their software to support everything under the sun, regardless of whether you the user actually use those other things. This is the inherent weakness of a binary distro, and why as a binary distro becomes more popular it also becomes more "bloated".
So for me at least, Gentoo is faster than my old Ubuntu install for some things because I was able to leave out a lot of stuff that I didn't need. Yeah, the speed difference isn't dramatic, and with some software there is no difference, but with KDE at least, there is a measurable difference when you compile it yourself (KDE's bootup time is faster for me with Gentoo than Ubuntu). As with most things though it all depends on each person's specific setup (choice of software) whether they will see a difference or not.
Gentoo is definitely not for everyone, but my point is basically that while the "Gentoo Difference" has been over-hyped and exagerrated, for many people it really is real.
Ahh, in that case, prepare to be pleasantly surprised by AMD's 64bit CPUs!
For single core chips, look for one with a "San Diego" core, like Athlon 64 3700+. The dual core chips (Athlon 64 X2) are relatively new. Most recent dual cores are Manchester and Venice. Manchester is very nice if you want a quiet machine (low heat dissipation, can idle under 10 watts), Venice has better performance. For the low-end, budget-conscious, look at the Sempron 64's. Very cheap way to get a 64 bit CPU (but caches are smaller and clock speeds are slower than the Athlons).
(Yes, all this tracking of code names for core steppings *and* the bloody numbers suck, but at least they aren't any worse than Intel)
Have fun!
This is not true with AMD64 though. AMD64 isn't just doubling the size of the address bus to 64 bits, it also includes doubling the number of both general purpose and SIMD registers in the CPU. Extra registers make a difference for most programs, and for some, it makes a huge difference.
Have you actually used an AMD64 system? These statements are simply factually incorrect. The *only* practical downside is that executables are 10% to 20% larger because address pointers have doubled in size, but for most people that's not a major issue, indeed, many with large hard drives probably won't notice the difference.
An AMD64 CPU moves around 32 bit operands just as fast as a 64 bit operand, the address bus always moves at the same speed whether you're using the whole width of the bus or just half of it. Second, the CPU is doing some address translation behind the scenes to convert a 32 bit adddress reference to a 64 bit reference, but this isn't a net loss in practice, simply because modern CPUs are *always* doing some kind of address translation behind the scenes anyway. However, a 64 bit app would likely be faster because of those extra registers, faster 64 bit integer operations, and simplified memory model, and that is where the implied speed difference is when it comes to AMD64 vs. IA32, its the potential of (most) 32 bit programs to run (at least somewhat) faster when recompiled.
Finally, I would argue with both you and the GP that there is no significant cost difference between 64 vs. 32. Seriously, look at the prices of AMD's low-end 64 bit chips, and consider that motherboards for these chips are typically only 10% to 25% more expensive than a 32 bit motherboard. Most "lamers" would end up *picking* an AMD64 system if all you showed them was various benchmarks and the price tags for AMD64 and IA32 systems, without indicating which were 64 bit and which were 32 bit only.
This has nothing to do with AMD64 vs. IA32, and everything to do with the downside of proprietary software. Those who are addicted to the Flash plugin have no recourse other than to petulantly beg Macromedia to support their hardware. Please, pretty, pretty please?
Look, you can believe what you want, but I've read articles recently by other French about the latent racism against blacks/arabs. If you're white, like Serbs or Poles, you can get jobs, if you're black or dark-skinned you can't. Ditto for Turkish immigrants in Germany. Its no different then here where white Asians have an easier time integrating than dark-skinned people. The only difference is that the US admits that that kind of racism exists and openly talks about it, where France and much of Europe deny that their "people" are capable of it.
The racism in the South that made it difficult for poor blacks to move about happened after that Migration. Immediately after the end of the Civil War, the racism was relatively less, there were even blacks elected to Congress, but in the south that racism grew (or perhaps "regrew") over time. By the 1960's most blacks were too poor or simply had nowhere to go now that the northern cities had already taken in so many blacks previously.
Well, even racists are entitled to their own opinion.
How do they pay for teachers? It would help if the French government tried to help them pick up French, but the current French administration has been *cutting* funding for low-income support, including language classes. Its kinda like the US admin. cutting funding for the Mississippi levy system every year since 2001 without ever thinking of the consequences. Sure, you can call them 'scum' in public and a lot of people who don't know any better will agree with you, but the fact remains is that "you", the French government, are partially responsible for this rioting, because you created the problem in the first place by inaction.
Even if the government(s) will let you, you have to have money to afford to move around. These people are unemployed and dirt poor, and have no way out of their situation, that's why most of them are rioting in the first place (some are hooligans, but most aren't). This would be like telling the blacks of 1960's America to "just move to another state". Wouldn't solve the problem even if they could. The kind of mild racism they face in France, exists across most of Europe to some degree, and as someone else pointed out, no one likes 1st generation immigrants anywhere.