Re:Simple: make your own job.
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
I realized I accidently cut out a part there during editing, not just PC repair work, but general office IT work as well. Sys admin type work. If you're a sysadmin out of work, maybe doing some contracts here or there, and want to learn more, email me. Veridium@linuxmail.org.
We're still planning, but we are getting closer to launch.
Re:Simple: make your own job.
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
NO. A co-op is not anything like a Union in the Teamsters sense of the word.
A Co-op is a co-operative business where members are owners/operators. Unions are labor organizations that lobby the businesses their members work in for pay, benefits, working conditions, etc... Two different beasts.
Re:Simple: make your own job. UNLIKELY
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Ya gotta be flexible. There is no box. There was a time when I had sweet geek dream jobs, but due to my new geographic location, I had to adapt.
Now I do mostly POS/online store integration for small business and handle small business IT needs and home user repair/upgrades. Not as exciting, nor as prestigious, but it pays. It sure beats working in a company worried about whether or not they'll be downsizing soon.
Re:Simple: make your own job.
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yeah, but unless your former company is small, you can't compete with your former companies advertising budget. Co-ops. I wish I could convince everyone of this. This is the answer to taking back the industry from management to the geeks who know their stuff.
Anyone who can do PC Repair work and is interested in finding out about a tech co-op that is forming to provide such work, please email me at veridium@linuxmail.org. Geography not important, as long as you're in the States.
To change the subject slightly, at what point does sabotage become a morally acceptable alternative?
It doen't. What that will succeed in doing is making people who object to these machines look like petty vandals, if not some kind of hyped up terrorist.
I've been against these machines for years. I urge everyone who is against them, who feels as strongly as I and you do, to not sink to the level of a vandal. I'm sure it would be quite gratifying, but it will be used against us.
If only we could rally people against Diebold like people have been rallied against SCO. That would be the most positive thing we could have happen, IMO.
That's exactly what I was thinking. OTOH, I don't know the details of Sasser or how much intelligence it took to write it, but the kid's only 18. I think giving him a shot to make legitimate money, provided he's got the smarts, is better than blacklisting him. We all make idiotic choices when we're younger, some of them have a greater impact than others. It's not like he's a serial killing doctor(that analogy was completely over the top).
Sounds about as interesting as spending the evening in a secluded hospital room--sanitized, with nothing to engage the mind.
I'll give you an idea of how it will go. Bush will say many things about freedom, no matter what the topic is. Kerry will say some things about needing a new course and restoring hope.
If asked about specific economic policies, the answers will be something like "Our plan will create jobs" with a bunch of meaningless crap thrown in. Specifics of anti-terrorism policy? "Our plan will preserve freedoms while ensuring the security of our nation.". When bush says it, all the republicans will be nodding their heads "yeah, good point." and when Kerry says it, all the democrats will do the same.
I think I'm going to have some coins made with a democrat donkey tail on one side and a repubican elephant head on the other. You can use it to help you decide who to vote for.:P
As for voting for Kerry because he's not Bush... I don't feel that way. I've actually gone out of my way to find out some information about him, and have listened to him speak on Cspan a few times...I *like* Kerry.
Well my point here is not to get people who like a candidate to not vote for them, just to get people who feel trapped to wake up and stop feeling trapped. If you like him and think he is the best person for the job, then I say vote for him. It is not my place to tell you who to like and who not to.
The bottom line is, it won't make a bit of difference if I vote for Nader (I don't like Nader anyways) or any of the other people running...
I'm not a nader guy, for the record, and wouldn't vote for him myself.
it will only make a difference pragmatically if LOTS of people do.
This is what I call the viscious cycle. How will lots of people ever vote for a different party, if we as individuals won't?
You are absolutely right, Bush has gotten me scared. I do not always feel scared, actually as an American I have always felt ridiculously not scared. I'm your typical cocky American without question! Or at least, used to be. Pre- 9/11, and pre-Abu Ghraib.
Bush has not gotten you scared. Bush has done things, and other things have happened, and your reaction was to be scared. You have a choice in this. You are not a victim. Neither bush, nor anyone else, has the power to make you afraid, unless you choose to give them that power.
I felt scared after watching W "win" that election.
Your choice.
I do absolutely feel our nation is in currently in a state of crisis.
Oh we've been in a state of crisis. The crisis started many years ago, perhaps decades ago. The crisis is, our people choose to be scared. They choose to be scared and they choose to look at things outside of themselves, like politicians, to alleviate that fear. Politicians are no longer chosen on the basis who will best represent them in a logical rational government, but now we choose who seems most likely to save us from our fears.
BTW if any party is making use of fear tactics, it is the Republican party.
I don't go for that blame game, the democrats and the republicans alike are world class fearmongers.
It doesn't matter if airport security really accomplishes anything by making us throw out our nail clippers, it's the illusion of security for the people they are scaring half to death
Right and it doesn't matter if Kerry was behind the invasion of Iraq, supported Bush in most of his anti-terrorism agenda, it's the illusion that he is somehow different, that even though he supported all these things as a senator, he would somehow not as president.
It doesn't matter a bit if the Patriot Act robs us of our freedoms
Nor does it seem to matter a bit to Kerry supporters that he voted for it.
It doesn't matter if Al Qaeda is not in fact in Iraq
It doesn't matter to Kerry supporters that Kerry supported Bush going into Iraq.
My question for you was really how to make alternative parties more visible and viable in our election system as it stands.
We can go two ways. We can go the sheep way, looking for shephards, which means $$$$ is going to matter. Or we can go the human way, and look for representatives, in which case, when we change ourselves, others around us will change. When that happens, then the $$$ will come, and we won't need a rich guy to be our shephard.
It's a good thing the great civil rights movements in history didn't wait around for someone with $$$ to come along to save them. It's just too bad that so many people had to wait for someone with the balls, someone who had conquered their fear, to stand up and do something. That's it all it takes. Conquer your fear, subdue it. This is your life, this is your reality, live it on your terms, not on the terms of your fear.
The question is, how can we make alternative parties viable options?
They won't be a viable option until you recognize that they are.
I will not vote for an alternative party when what it means in the reality of this election, is that my vote will help Bush. I simply can't. I also have no idea how we could make a multi-party system more of a reality in this country.
This is a good example of what's wrong in this country. In every election you will be filled with a sense of urgency to defeat the "other" side. That is what they will indoctrinate you with and that is what you always come to believe right before an election. Your vote will never represent what you truly stand for, unless you honestly stand for the things that one of the parties stand for. I've found that few people can honestly say that. Maybe you can, but I doubt it, else why would you say "As for voting for a third party, I would love to."?
I do not know how old you are, but I suspect you are on the younger side. Watch as time goes on, watch yourself and how you react. Watch how they play you and pull your strings. Watch how they instill in you a sense of urgency through fear. It is a cycle and it will repeat in you every election year, until you decide you will not be part of it anymore.
I myself do not like Bush and find his diehard supporters tend to be little more than parrots. But they do have a point. The best argument for voting for Kerry is that he is not Bush. I am sorry, but Hitler is not Bush, should I vote for him? Saddam Hussein is not Bush, should I vote for him?
Many of the third party candidates have good arguments as to why you should vote for them. These are people who ask you to vote for them based on your ability to think and consider their positions. Not because "they aren't Bush". I can't vote for a candidate whose most appealing thing is he isn't someone else. That is an irresponsible use of my vote. You are free to see things as otherwise.
Unfortunately it looks like they aren't going to be attending a Citizens Debate Commision event. Assuming I've read everything right.
They say this:
"The debates will provide an opportunity for President Bush and Senator John Kerry to have a serious discussion about the important issues to be decided in this election," a joint statement from the campaigns said. "Both President Bush and Senator Kerry are pleased with today's announcement and look forward to the debates."
and then we find out the format is this:
In each debate, according to the agreement, "the candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions."
Could somebody please tell me how you have a serious discussion about important issues to be decided in this election through the use of rhetorical questions when a rhetorical question is by defintion "one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply". Don't you guys on the right and left get it? This is the wool being pulled over your eyes.
Maybe the townhall "debate" will be interesting. Yeah, who am I kidding. This is a joke and a sham.
2 sides, same coin. Democrats and Republicans. Donkey tails they win, Elephant heads we lose.
Without the bleeding edge people finding the common/"D'oh" bugs, people like me will have a harder time.
WIMP!:) Man, it's really not that bad. Especially compared to where we were last December, when I first moved to the platform. Actually, I'd say where we're at right now is pretty good.
Actually, I hear what you're saying on the news. Oddly enough. In between stories about cities falling into fundamentalist hands, but it's not a quagmire.
Did it ever occur to you people who pick your sides and argue predictably and dogmatically, that maybe people who don't play your little left/right game, mean something different when they say things than what you've been conditioned to believe they mean?
Maybe I didn't mean quagmire in terms of military success(though having cities fall under fundamentlist rule doesn't seem very successful). Maybe I meant it in the sense, that we can not leave because the current political regime is not strong enough to keep order and the whole country would fall to fundamentalists if we did. And if we continue to stay, we undermine the legitimacy of the current political regime as representing the people of Iraq. That is the reality we're in right now, and it seems very much like a quagmire.
As for this comment: Yes, there are Islamofascists killing people there, usually unarmed people as chickenshit dickheads usually do
So are our soliders chickenshit dickheads when they kill unarmed people? Or are you not ready to deal with that particular reality yet?
I caught an interesting thing on ESPN with regards to the Iraqi olympic soccer team: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer04/gen/columns/story?id=1865386 Midfielder Ahmed Manajid told SI's Grant Wahl that if he weren't playing soccer, he'd be back in his home of Fallujah fighting the coalition. "I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?" he said. "Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq."
Yeah, but I'm sure this guy and his whole soccer team is a plant by the media to make it sound worse than they are. 90 percent of Iraqi's want us there of course. They sent us invitations in the mail. They are quite thankful we destroyed their water treatment plants, damanged hospitals, and killed(and continue killing) their people. I for one would welcome my new American bomb dropping, country invading, overlords if I were an Iraqi.
Except, you know, for the fact that he was honorably discharged, not an honor conferred upon them what don't show up. And the public record of Bush's attendance. And the expert opinion of Lt. Col. Lloyd given upon examining the records. And the dental check-up that you guys love to forget about.
What I find most ironic about this is, all of these arguments do no good for Kerry when it comes to the claims of the swiftboat vets. He was given an honorable discharge at the time, was awarded medals at the time, with all proper military paperwork behind them.
Not that I'm concerned about Kerry's campaign, I'm not voting for him and was never intending to. Kerry's the other side of the same coin in my opinion. I guess the only reason it matters is that I'm really sick of hearing the right and left turn the presidential "debate"(and I'm using this word loosely here) into being about things that ALLGEDLY happened 30 years ago. Both sides choosing to believe whatever dirt, from whatever source that suits their agenda. I know, I know, "they" started it, you're all just poor victims of the "other" side.
Meanwhile, our debt is soaring, our economy is on shaky ground, Iraq is a quagmire, and the legislation against our rights continues its slow and steady march. But you geniuses on the left and right want to sling mud about alleged events from 30 years ago.
Excuse me if I remain unimpressed with the democrats and republicans. Vote 3rd party, stop the circus.
Which is a nice way to "force" you to XP don't you think? Slowly drop support for minor details on older versions and make anyone feel "incomplete" who doesn't upgrade to the latest (and greatest?).
That's what I think. Yes.
Some may say today that there's no need to switch to Longhorn and we can keep using what we have. Believe me, you will switch.
I know you mean this in general to windows users, but for me, I won't switch. I don't use Windows. No Windows, no problem.:)
That may be true for some, but I went AMD for one simple reason: More bang for the buck under Linux.
I mean c'mon. If Windows users had a shipping 64bit OS right now, are you trying to tell me they would settle for a 32bit processor? This has nothing to do with the david vs. Goliath mystique. I get a 64 bit processor for my 64bit operating system, today, here and now, for less than comparable Intel offerings and it performs better.
You can bet when Intel releases a better offering, people will change their tunes. I know I will.
Windows understands that there are two "virtual" processors, while linux treats them as two physical processors.
FYI: WindowsXP understands. According to Intel, you should have hyperthreading turned off running an older version of Windows.
As another poster pointed out, kernel 2.6 handles hyperthreading correctly. And I had thought actually, that 2.4.17 and up handled it too, but I don't know the whole story. Don't know where you're getting the AMD's QC issues getting worse bit from. It'd be nice if you could provide a source so we can all be informed.
Where I live, we would recoup the cost in something like 5-10 years. I live in a desert and have a good sized house(with seperate buildings on the property) and a total of 3 AC units. And where I live, the value of your house goes up about dollar for dollar with a solar system installed. Well, according to a realtor I talked to.
But still, I don't have that kind of money lying around. So, we wait till we refinance.
I tried to dig up the exact quote but I couldn't find it, so this is a rough estimate from memory. The system we looked at was ~14,000 for the hardware. The state will reimburse us about half, but this is after we've paid for it, and it takes months. Then the installation was another $12,000.
The thing that got me was they lure you in with some headline like "Complete system for 7,500!". Then you call the sales guy for a quote, find out you have to cough up 14,000 for the hardware, and then another $12,000 for the installation. It was just a shock, given the hook "complete system for 7500!" then you find out, no, try $20,000 after rebates, and $28,000 up front. Ouch.
You know what the real shocker is? The installation cost. It costs as much as the hardware in my area. We're going to do it, but we have to refinance our house in order to afford it. Fricking ouch.
Re:Site is incredibly biased...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Given the choice of: 1) a news media free and unfettered by government oversight; and 2) a news media where the courts or the government can impose its version of the "truth" on us, I'll take the free and uncensored version any time.
I largely agree, provided it's taken with the proverbial grain of salt. Personally, I think all news programs should have to show disclaimers at the beginning of their shows which basically say "This program is under no legal obligation to provide accurate or unbiased information." I think that would be a very fair "regulation" to have and I think it would be very beneficial to our people to be hit with that every time they watch the news.
s/companies/individuals and it's still true.
No, companies and individuals are two different things. Our system was setup to guarantee the rights of people, not companies. Our constitution was written to ensure the rights of people, not companies. There is a difference. People should be able to lobby the government, as individuals, but not as companies.
You can't stop like-minded people from forming groups to advocate their positions, whether it's through corporations, political parties, PACs, or 527s. (Well, you can try, but you'd fail in addition to trashing the 1st Amendment).
I disagree on certain points. I don't mind like-minded individuals forming groups to advocate their position, so long as those groups are not profit oriented. When they are, they should not be allowed in the political process(the groups that is). This is my opinion. I don't believe this is even a first amendment issue either, because I don't believe corporations/companies should have the same rights as individuals and in fact, there is a pretty clear legal precedent that exists for this. Corporations/companies do not have the right to vote. Are they being denied their constitutional rights because they can't vote? How then is it denying them a constitutional right by saying they can't, as corporate identities, fund political campaigns or seek to influence our politicians votes?
As for not being able to stop corporations from influencing politics, I see it this way: You can't stop all crime, but that does not mean you do away with the criminal justice system. There will always be people seeking to get around such laws, just as there are people who seek to get around laws now, but it would be better to make it clear up front that we do not want corporations funding our politicians by having laws in place than the way it is now. My opinion.
Re:Site is incredibly biased...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Actually I don't think I have to acknowledge any such thing. It doesn't change the fact that FOX argued for that, nor does it make it right.
If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that while I mentioned FOX specifically, which was appropriate given the post I was replying to, I also advised not trusting any media outlet. You can sugar coat what that case was about all you want, those guys want their right to spin news and be misleading. Just go through a list of the things they reported that were totally wrong before and during the early days of the Iraq war, all of them designed to instill fear through sensationalized news reporting. Those are the easiest examples to find in a collection that I know of.
Fox is not a trustworthy outlet for news and neither is anyone else. The best you can hope for is to get your news from as many different sources as possible and come to your own conlusions. Anyone trusting just one source can look forward to being misled. It is their "constitutional right" to mislead you after all.
Slashdot Mirror
I realized I accidently cut out a part there during editing, not just PC repair work, but general office IT work as well. Sys admin type work. If you're a sysadmin out of work, maybe doing some contracts here or there, and want to learn more, email me. Veridium@linuxmail.org.
We're still planning, but we are getting closer to launch.
NO. A co-op is not anything like a Union in the Teamsters sense of the word.
A Co-op is a co-operative business where members are owners/operators. Unions are labor organizations that lobby the businesses their members work in for pay, benefits, working conditions, etc... Two different beasts.
Ya gotta be flexible. There is no box. There was a time when I had sweet geek dream jobs, but due to my new geographic location, I had to adapt.
Now I do mostly POS/online store integration for small business and handle small business IT needs and home user repair/upgrades. Not as exciting, nor as prestigious, but it pays. It sure beats working in a company worried about whether or not they'll be downsizing soon.
Yeah, but unless your former company is small, you can't compete with your former companies advertising budget. Co-ops. I wish I could convince everyone of this. This is the answer to taking back the industry from management to the geeks who know their stuff.
Anyone who can do PC Repair work and is interested in finding out about a tech co-op that is forming to provide such work, please email me at veridium@linuxmail.org. Geography not important, as long as you're in the States.
To change the subject slightly, at what point does sabotage become a morally acceptable alternative?
It doen't. What that will succeed in doing is making people who object to these machines look like petty vandals, if not some kind of hyped up terrorist.
I've been against these machines for years. I urge everyone who is against them, who feels as strongly as I and you do, to not sink to the level of a vandal. I'm sure it would be quite gratifying, but it will be used against us.
If only we could rally people against Diebold like people have been rallied against SCO. That would be the most positive thing we could have happen, IMO.
even if a sizable chunk of those speaking freely are raving loons.
Besides, they're our elected officials, we have to let them speak.
That's exactly what I was thinking. OTOH, I don't know the details of Sasser or how much intelligence it took to write it, but the kid's only 18. I think giving him a shot to make legitimate money, provided he's got the smarts, is better than blacklisting him. We all make idiotic choices when we're younger, some of them have a greater impact than others. It's not like he's a serial killing doctor(that analogy was completely over the top).
Sounds about as interesting as spending the evening in a secluded hospital room--sanitized, with nothing to engage the mind.
:P
I'll give you an idea of how it will go. Bush will say many things about freedom, no matter what the topic is. Kerry will say some things about needing a new course and restoring hope.
If asked about specific economic policies, the answers will be something like "Our plan will create jobs" with a bunch of meaningless crap thrown in. Specifics of anti-terrorism policy? "Our plan will preserve freedoms while ensuring the security of our nation.". When bush says it, all the republicans will be nodding their heads "yeah, good point." and when Kerry says it, all the democrats will do the same.
I think I'm going to have some coins made with a democrat donkey tail on one side and a repubican elephant head on the other. You can use it to help you decide who to vote for.
As for voting for Kerry because he's not Bush... I don't feel that way. I've actually gone out of my way to find out some information about him, and have listened to him speak on Cspan a few times...I *like* Kerry.
Well my point here is not to get people who like a candidate to not vote for them, just to get people who feel trapped to wake up and stop feeling trapped. If you like him and think he is the best person for the job, then I say vote for him. It is not my place to tell you who to like and who not to.
The bottom line is, it won't make a bit of difference if I vote for Nader (I don't like Nader anyways) or any of the other people running...
I'm not a nader guy, for the record, and wouldn't vote for him myself.
it will only make a difference pragmatically if LOTS of people do.
This is what I call the viscious cycle. How will lots of people ever vote for a different party, if we as individuals won't?
You are absolutely right, Bush has gotten me scared. I do not always feel scared, actually as an American I have always felt ridiculously not scared. I'm your typical cocky American without question! Or at least, used to be. Pre- 9/11, and pre-Abu Ghraib.
Bush has not gotten you scared. Bush has done things, and other things have happened, and your reaction was to be scared. You have a choice in this. You are not a victim. Neither bush, nor anyone else, has the power to make you afraid, unless you choose to give them that power.
I felt scared after watching W "win" that election.
Your choice.
I do absolutely feel our nation is in currently in a state of crisis.
Oh we've been in a state of crisis. The crisis started many years ago, perhaps decades ago. The crisis is, our people choose to be scared. They choose to be scared and they choose to look at things outside of themselves, like politicians, to alleviate that fear. Politicians are no longer chosen on the basis who will best represent them in a logical rational government, but now we choose who seems most likely to save us from our fears.
BTW if any party is making use of fear tactics, it is the Republican party.
I don't go for that blame game, the democrats and the republicans alike are world class fearmongers.
It doesn't matter if airport security really accomplishes anything by making us throw out our nail clippers, it's the illusion of security for the people they are scaring half to death
Right and it doesn't matter if Kerry was behind the invasion of Iraq, supported Bush in most of his anti-terrorism agenda, it's the illusion that he is somehow different, that even though he supported all these things as a senator, he would somehow not as president.
It doesn't matter a bit if the Patriot Act robs us of our freedoms
Nor does it seem to matter a bit to Kerry supporters that he voted for it.
It doesn't matter if Al Qaeda is not in fact in Iraq
It doesn't matter to Kerry supporters that Kerry supported Bush going into Iraq.
My question for you was really how to make alternative parties more visible and viable in our election system as it stands.
We can go two ways. We can go the sheep way, looking for shephards, which means $$$$ is going to matter. Or we can go the human way, and look for representatives, in which case, when we change ourselves, others around us will change. When that happens, then the $$$ will come, and we won't need a rich guy to be our shephard.
It's a good thing the great civil rights movements in history didn't wait around for someone with $$$ to come along to save them. It's just too bad that so many people had to wait for someone with the balls, someone who had conquered their fear, to stand up and do something. That's it all it takes. Conquer your fear, subdue it. This is your life, this is your reality, live it on your terms, not on the terms of your fear.
Yep. What sane person would choose to believe professional liars?
the sooner we can stop talking about foolishness and get back to real issues.
Yes, like who did what 30 years ago. Such a critical issue today.
The question is, how can we make alternative parties viable options?
They won't be a viable option until you recognize that they are.
I will not vote for an alternative party when what it means in the reality of this election, is that my vote will help Bush. I simply can't. I also have no idea how we could make a multi-party system more of a reality in this country.
This is a good example of what's wrong in this country. In every election you will be filled with a sense of urgency to defeat the "other" side. That is what they will indoctrinate you with and that is what you always come to believe right before an election. Your vote will never represent what you truly stand for, unless you honestly stand for the things that one of the parties stand for. I've found that few people can honestly say that. Maybe you can, but I doubt it, else why would you say "As for voting for a third party, I would love to."?
I do not know how old you are, but I suspect you are on the younger side. Watch as time goes on, watch yourself and how you react. Watch how they play you and pull your strings. Watch how they instill in you a sense of urgency through fear. It is a cycle and it will repeat in you every election year, until you decide you will not be part of it anymore.
I myself do not like Bush and find his diehard supporters tend to be little more than parrots. But they do have a point. The best argument for voting for Kerry is that he is not Bush. I am sorry, but Hitler is not Bush, should I vote for him? Saddam Hussein is not Bush, should I vote for him?
Many of the third party candidates have good arguments as to why you should vote for them. These are people who ask you to vote for them based on your ability to think and consider their positions. Not because "they aren't Bush". I can't vote for a candidate whose most appealing thing is he isn't someone else. That is an irresponsible use of my vote. You are free to see things as otherwise.
Unfortunately it looks like they aren't going to be attending a Citizens Debate Commision event. Assuming I've read everything right.
They say this:
"The debates will provide an opportunity for President Bush and Senator John Kerry to have a serious discussion about the important issues to be decided in this election," a joint statement from the campaigns said. "Both President Bush and Senator Kerry are pleased with today's announcement and look forward to the debates."
and then we find out the format is this:
In each debate, according to the agreement, "the candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions."
Could somebody please tell me how you have a serious discussion about important issues to be decided in this election through the use of rhetorical questions when a rhetorical question is by defintion "one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply". Don't you guys on the right and left get it? This is the wool being pulled over your eyes.
Maybe the townhall "debate" will be interesting. Yeah, who am I kidding. This is a joke and a sham.
2 sides, same coin. Democrats and Republicans. Donkey tails they win, Elephant heads we lose.
Without the bleeding edge people finding the common/"D'oh" bugs, people like me will have a harder time.
:) Man, it's really not that bad. Especially compared to where we were last December, when I first moved to the platform. Actually, I'd say where we're at right now is pretty good.
o me/index.cfm?action=home
WIMP!
But I'm not just a bleeding edger finding bugs. I'm also someone who wants a competitive edge in a tight job market:
http://www.developwithamd.com/apppartnerprog/apph
I know where things are heading.
Actually, I hear what you're saying on the news. Oddly enough. In between stories about cities falling into fundamentalist hands, but it's not a quagmire.
s /story?id=1865386
Did it ever occur to you people who pick your sides and argue predictably and dogmatically, that maybe people who don't play your little left/right game, mean something different when they say things than what you've been conditioned to believe they mean?
Maybe I didn't mean quagmire in terms of military success(though having cities fall under fundamentlist rule doesn't seem very successful). Maybe I meant it in the sense, that we can not leave because the current political regime is not strong enough to keep order and the whole country would fall to fundamentalists if we did. And if we continue to stay, we undermine the legitimacy of the current political regime as representing the people of Iraq. That is the reality we're in right now, and it seems very much like a quagmire.
As for this comment:
Yes, there are Islamofascists killing people there, usually unarmed people as chickenshit dickheads usually do
So are our soliders chickenshit dickheads when they kill unarmed people? Or are you not ready to deal with that particular reality yet?
I caught an interesting thing on ESPN with regards to the Iraqi olympic soccer team:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer04/gen/column
Midfielder Ahmed Manajid told SI's Grant Wahl that if he weren't playing soccer, he'd be back in his home of Fallujah fighting the coalition. "I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?" he said. "Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq."
Yeah, but I'm sure this guy and his whole soccer team is a plant by the media to make it sound worse than they are. 90 percent of Iraqi's want us there of course. They sent us invitations in the mail. They are quite thankful we destroyed their water treatment plants, damanged hospitals, and killed(and continue killing) their people. I for one would welcome my new American bomb dropping, country invading, overlords if I were an Iraqi.
Except, you know, for the fact that he was honorably discharged, not an honor conferred upon them what don't show up. And the public record of Bush's attendance. And the expert opinion of Lt. Col. Lloyd given upon examining the records. And the dental check-up that you guys love to forget about.
What I find most ironic about this is, all of these arguments do no good for Kerry when it comes to the claims of the swiftboat vets. He was given an honorable discharge at the time, was awarded medals at the time, with all proper military paperwork behind them.
Not that I'm concerned about Kerry's campaign, I'm not voting for him and was never intending to. Kerry's the other side of the same coin in my opinion. I guess the only reason it matters is that I'm really sick of hearing the right and left turn the presidential "debate"(and I'm using this word loosely here) into being about things that ALLGEDLY happened 30 years ago. Both sides choosing to believe whatever dirt, from whatever source that suits their agenda. I know, I know, "they" started it, you're all just poor victims of the "other" side.
Meanwhile, our debt is soaring, our economy is on shaky ground, Iraq is a quagmire, and the legislation against our rights continues its slow and steady march. But you geniuses on the left and right want to sling mud about alleged events from 30 years ago.
Excuse me if I remain unimpressed with the democrats and republicans. Vote 3rd party, stop the circus.
You didn't RTFA. RTFA, check the performance numbers of 64bit apps under Linux, then look at your response and tell me what's wrong with it. Thanks.
Which is a nice way to "force" you to XP don't you think? Slowly drop support for minor details on older versions and make anyone feel "incomplete" who doesn't upgrade to the latest (and greatest?).
:)
That's what I think. Yes.
Some may say today that there's no need to switch to Longhorn and we can keep using what we have. Believe me, you will switch.
I know you mean this in general to windows users, but for me, I won't switch. I don't use Windows. No Windows, no problem.
That may be true for some, but I went AMD for one simple reason: More bang for the buck under Linux.
I mean c'mon. If Windows users had a shipping 64bit OS right now, are you trying to tell me they would settle for a 32bit processor? This has nothing to do with the david vs. Goliath mystique. I get a 64 bit processor for my 64bit operating system, today, here and now, for less than comparable Intel offerings and it performs better.
You can bet when Intel releases a better offering, people will change their tunes. I know I will.
Windows understands that there are two "virtual" processors, while linux treats them as two physical processors.
FYI: WindowsXP understands. According to Intel, you should have hyperthreading turned off running an older version of Windows.
As another poster pointed out, kernel 2.6 handles hyperthreading correctly. And I had thought actually, that 2.4.17 and up handled it too, but I don't know the whole story. Don't know where you're getting the AMD's QC issues getting worse bit from. It'd be nice if you could provide a source so we can all be informed.
Where I live, we would recoup the cost in something like 5-10 years. I live in a desert and have a good sized house(with seperate buildings on the property) and a total of 3 AC units. And where I live, the value of your house goes up about dollar for dollar with a solar system installed. Well, according to a realtor I talked to.
But still, I don't have that kind of money lying around. So, we wait till we refinance.
I tried to dig up the exact quote but I couldn't find it, so this is a rough estimate from memory. The system we looked at was ~14,000 for the hardware. The state will reimburse us about half, but this is after we've paid for it, and it takes months. Then the installation was another $12,000.
The thing that got me was they lure you in with some headline like "Complete system for 7,500!". Then you call the sales guy for a quote, find out you have to cough up 14,000 for the hardware, and then another $12,000 for the installation. It was just a shock, given the hook "complete system for 7500!" then you find out, no, try $20,000 after rebates, and $28,000 up front. Ouch.
You know what the real shocker is? The installation cost. It costs as much as the hardware in my area. We're going to do it, but we have to refinance our house in order to afford it. Fricking ouch.
Given the choice of: 1) a news media free and unfettered by government oversight; and 2) a news media where the courts or the government can impose its version of the "truth" on us, I'll take the free and uncensored version any time.
I largely agree, provided it's taken with the proverbial grain of salt. Personally, I think all news programs should have to show disclaimers at the beginning of their shows which basically say "This program is under no legal obligation to provide accurate or unbiased information." I think that would be a very fair "regulation" to have and I think it would be very beneficial to our people to be hit with that every time they watch the news.
s/companies/individuals and it's still true.
No, companies and individuals are two different things. Our system was setup to guarantee the rights of people, not companies. Our constitution was written to ensure the rights of people, not companies. There is a difference. People should be able to lobby the government, as individuals, but not as companies.
You can't stop like-minded people from forming groups to advocate their positions, whether it's through corporations, political parties, PACs, or 527s. (Well, you can try, but you'd fail in addition to trashing the 1st Amendment).
I disagree on certain points. I don't mind like-minded individuals forming groups to advocate their position, so long as those groups are not profit oriented. When they are, they should not be allowed in the political process(the groups that is). This is my opinion. I don't believe this is even a first amendment issue either, because I don't believe corporations/companies should have the same rights as individuals and in fact, there is a pretty clear legal precedent that exists for this. Corporations/companies do not have the right to vote. Are they being denied their constitutional rights because they can't vote? How then is it denying them a constitutional right by saying they can't, as corporate identities, fund political campaigns or seek to influence our politicians votes?
As for not being able to stop corporations from influencing politics, I see it this way: You can't stop all crime, but that does not mean you do away with the criminal justice system. There will always be people seeking to get around such laws, just as there are people who seek to get around laws now, but it would be better to make it clear up front that we do not want corporations funding our politicians by having laws in place than the way it is now. My opinion.
Actually I don't think I have to acknowledge any such thing. It doesn't change the fact that FOX argued for that, nor does it make it right.
If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that while I mentioned FOX specifically, which was appropriate given the post I was replying to, I also advised not trusting any media outlet. You can sugar coat what that case was about all you want, those guys want their right to spin news and be misleading. Just go through a list of the things they reported that were totally wrong before and during the early days of the Iraq war, all of them designed to instill fear through sensationalized news reporting. Those are the easiest examples to find in a collection that I know of.
Fox is not a trustworthy outlet for news and neither is anyone else. The best you can hope for is to get your news from as many different sources as possible and come to your own conlusions. Anyone trusting just one source can look forward to being misled. It is their "constitutional right" to mislead you after all.