rank the companies that you hate the most and then rank them by their amount of goverment regulation/support... the lists will usually be very similar.
A correlation between A and B is not necassarily a cause-effect relationship, and even if it is, it doesn't tell you which is the cause and which is the effect. In this case, it's just as likely that it's the other way around from what you are implying. I don't think it's that government influence causes the companies to become corrupt. It's that the companies that are already corrupt are more likely to try to influence the government in their favor than ones that aren't.
And your position with regards to Microsoft is not in agreement with the rest of your party. (yes, *party*. Note I used big-L when I spelled "Libertarian". That was on purpose.)
...except for those that require one to admit it is possible for a corporation to do something wrong. That admission isn't allowed by Libertarian dogma.
While I agree that those who claim the terrorists are after the US because they hate our freedom are full of it, so too are you. You claim that if freedom was the issue they'd just come here. Bull. The people who bring up the argument about freedom are NOT talking about the terrorists wanting MORE freedom. They are claiming the terrorists want there to be LESS freedom in the world, so NO, if their argument was right the terrorists would NOT want to move to where there is more freedom. You are arguing against the opposite of the opinion actually being held.
Buying an empty box and then seperately buying all the parts you add to it to make it functional as a computer is not something I'd count as buying a server computer, any more than buying a fiberglass unibody and a pile of engine parts counts as buying a car.
1 - The last decade of legislation proves that congress doesn't give a rat's ass about sticking to the constitution. In fact the very example you gave (of mandatory prayer in school) is one that requires a violation of the constitution.
2 - There is a large contingent of the Libertarian party that, due to their need to stick to the dogma that nothing can go wrong in a free market economy, automatically side with big business even in those cases where the business has reduced overall freedom (MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, etc). This comes from the deep rooted premise that freedom comes automatically from letting businesses do whatever they wish, which leads to the conclusion that any business that is big must be benevolent or it wouldn't have become so big.
I'm against giant organizations that have too much power. Government happens to be *one of them*, but unlike the Libertarians I don't believe it's the ONLY one. Some businesses are bad too.
I fail to understand how you couldn't see the sarcasm. I agree with everything you said, (excepting, of course, the implication that I don't agree with what you said.)
You mistake dispassion for rationality. Just because people give a damn about something doesn't mean they are dogmatic. And conversely, just because some people speak a point with dry inhuman statements doesn't automatically mean they are being rational.
The problem he's talking about fighting is CAUSED here in America (RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, DMCA, etc), so he's not in a position to do a whole lot about it in the political arena.
Libertarians are FAR closer to Republicans than they are to Greens or Democrats.
Only if the only issue you pay attention to is business. On the issue of freedom of (or from) religion, the libertarians are very far away from "the right" and much closer to "the left". On the issue of laws about "recreational" drugs, the Libertarians are much farther from the "right" than the "left". Basicly, when it comes to whether the government can tell you how to spend your money, the Libertarians are closer to the Republicans, but when it comes to whether or not the government can tell you how to *think*, and whether you can dissemate what you are thinking to others, they are closer to the Democrats.
And for me, the issue of being allowed to think how I want is more important than being allowed to spend how I want.
The location of DC was chosen deliberately for that reason. It was placed right smack on the border between two states, one part of the northern culture and one part of the southern, on land carved out to belong to neither. This was supposed to indicate that it was on neutral ground and not biased to any one region. Even back then before the civil war, the undercurrents of disagreement between north and south were obvious to all.
Next time try actually describing what on earth you're talking about in the summary when posting an article. "UT" is not descriptive enough to figure out you meant "unreal tournament". I shouldn't have to read the article to figure out whether or not I want to read the article.
It depends on the size of the network. The more nodes being served, the harder the servers are hit, and the more appealing it is to seperate them onto seperate machines, for workload reasons. But the question that matters is this: WHERE is that threshold where it starts to be worth it to use seperate boxes for each service? For Windows, that threshold is reached with fewer nodes than with Linux, assuming similarly capable hardware. Yes, for a giant busines center you want seperate machines for everything, but for a small office or mid-sized office, you shouldn't need it to be that way. In windows, it seems you do.
Also, I was taught in grade school math that the word "average" is a vague NON MATHEMATICAL term that refers to ANY ONE of the following mathematical measures: mean, median, mode, depending on the context. So it's a good idea to not use it in a math story problem, and if at any time we see a textbook using it, we should ask for clarification before assuming which one was meant.
After all, when people say "It was the average American Family", they don't mean a family that has two and a half children. They are referring to the mode, not the mean.
with regards to the difference between median and mean:
With a large enough population, the difference will be "smoothed out" to the point where it is well within the margin of error for the survey process anyway.
That is, assuming the measuring technique doesn't have some odd artifact in it like an inability to differentiate very high results from each other. (If a math test is easy enough that there are a lot of people getting the max score, that will flatten the high end results and lead to a huge differnece between mean and median. That's why *good* demographic tests are almost impossible to get a max score on. They are made very hard so that you can still differentiate the top scorers from each other.
Traditionally, you DO buy servers with an OS, but then quickly overwrite it with your site licensed version upon arrival. That is different from buying them without an OS. It's hard to find a vendor that will sell without at least SOMETHING pre-installed.
~Management and a few staff love Windows, the rest hate it for religious reasons.
Yes... of course... because it's impossible that maybe they have real reasons for hating it that make actual sense, oh, no, it can't possibly be that. No, let's just call them religious reasons.
I think it's because they are only measuring migrations, not designs of new projects that use Linux from the start. As time goes on, it becomes more and more likely that a project that is using linux is one that actually started in linux to begin with rather than having been migrated to linux from some other unix. It's not that the unix-minded people aren't using linux as much, it's that they got started on the switch earlier, and are now longtime users of it rather than people migrating to it just now for the first time.
There was no reason to "stop and start filming". Doing the sequence as stop-motion animation (as you seem to be implying was done) would have been more effort than making it smooth, and would have looked more obiviously a fake.
If only one nation made a law, it would be incorrect to call it "international". If a highway only ran through one state, it would be incorrect to call it an "interstate highway" (not that that stops it from happening occasionally). And if only one planet makes a law, it is incorrect to call it an interplanetary law.
Anything mined to be sold back on earth will have to be *sent* back to earth somehow. That's going to strongly limit how much material gets removed, down to the point where it won't be noticable to the naked eye.
And I find the concept of moon colonies giving off twinkling lights a lot more aesteticly pleasing than the current dead landscape I see today looking at the moon.
I don't care about mining the moon, but if the technology eventually exists to drasticly alter the surface of the moon, I fear it would be used to turn it into the world's biggest billboard.
I expect to eventually look up some day and see a big "CHA" carved onto the moon.
Also, presumably all the mass removed from the moon would eventually end up back on Earth, since that would be the whole point of mining it. So the mass of the earth/moon system would remain unchanged. All that changes is the ratio of mass on earth vs mass on the moon. Overall it won't matter much. All that would be affected would be: 1 - Strength of tides on earth become *slightly* lower. 2 - Length of a day becomes *slightly* longer as the Earth's current rotational inertia gets divided by slightly larger mass. In the long run this is actually a good thing, because if we start exploring space more we'll be REMOVING mass from the earth as we launch it out of the gravity well in the form of space stations, habitats, trade goods with colonies, spent rocket fuel, and so on, and the extra mass brought from the moon might help mitigate the changes.
Slashdot Mirror
And your position with regards to Microsoft is not in agreement with the rest of your party. (yes, *party*. Note I used big-L when I spelled "Libertarian". That was on purpose.)
If you had the attention span to read past the first sentence, you'd see that cross-platform ability was mentioned, something IE lacks.
...except for those that require one to admit it is possible for a corporation to do something wrong. That admission isn't allowed by Libertarian dogma.
While I agree that those who claim the terrorists are after the US because they hate our freedom are full of it, so too are you. You claim that if freedom was the issue they'd just come here. Bull. The people who bring up the argument about freedom are NOT talking about the terrorists wanting MORE freedom. They are claiming the terrorists want there to be LESS freedom in the world, so NO, if their argument was right the terrorists would NOT want to move to where there is more freedom. You are arguing against the opposite of the opinion actually being held.
And you are just as guilty as he when you assume the ones killed were all of his kind.
Buying an empty box and then seperately buying all the parts you add to it to make it functional as a computer is not something I'd count as buying a server computer, any more than buying a fiberglass unibody and a pile of engine parts counts as buying a car.
1 - The last decade of legislation proves that congress doesn't give a rat's ass about sticking to the constitution. In fact the very example you gave (of mandatory prayer in school) is one that requires a violation of the constitution.
2 - There is a large contingent of the Libertarian party that, due to their need to stick to the dogma that nothing can go wrong in a free market economy, automatically side with big business even in those cases where the business has reduced overall freedom (MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, etc). This comes from the deep rooted premise that freedom comes automatically from letting businesses do whatever they wish, which leads to the conclusion that any business that is big must be benevolent or it wouldn't have become so big.
I'm against giant organizations that have too much power. Government happens to be *one of them*, but unlike the Libertarians I don't believe it's the ONLY one. Some businesses are bad too.
I fail to understand how you couldn't see the sarcasm. I agree with everything you said, (excepting, of course, the implication that I don't agree with what you said.)
You mistake dispassion for rationality. Just because people give a damn about something doesn't mean they are dogmatic. And conversely, just because some people speak a point with dry inhuman statements doesn't automatically mean they are being rational.
The problem he's talking about fighting is CAUSED here in America (RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, DMCA, etc), so he's not in a position to do a whole lot about it in the political arena.
And for me, the issue of being allowed to think how I want is more important than being allowed to spend how I want.
The location of DC was chosen deliberately for that reason. It was placed right smack on the border between two states, one part of the northern culture and one part of the southern, on land carved out to belong to neither. This was supposed to indicate that it was on neutral ground and not biased to any one region. Even back then before the civil war, the undercurrents of disagreement between north and south were obvious to all.
Getting your name added to mailing lists and ruining your privacy as the price for obtaining a service is NOT an instance of the service being "free".
Next time try actually describing what on earth you're talking about in the summary when posting an article. "UT" is not descriptive enough to figure out you meant "unreal tournament". I shouldn't have to read the article to figure out whether or not I want to read the article.
Care to elaborate?
It depends on the size of the network. The more nodes being served, the harder the servers are hit, and the more appealing it is to seperate them onto seperate machines, for workload reasons. But the question that matters is this: WHERE is that threshold where it starts to be worth it to use seperate boxes for each service? For Windows, that threshold is reached with fewer nodes than with Linux, assuming similarly capable hardware. Yes, for a giant busines center you want seperate machines for everything, but for a small office or mid-sized office, you shouldn't need it to be that way. In windows, it seems you do.
After all, when people say "It was the average American Family", they don't mean a family that has two and a half children. They are referring to the mode, not the mean.
with regards to the difference between median and mean:
With a large enough population, the difference will be "smoothed out" to the point where it is well within the margin of error for the survey process anyway.
That is, assuming the measuring technique doesn't have some odd artifact in it like an inability to differentiate very high results from each other. (If a math test is easy enough that there are a lot of people getting the max score, that will flatten the high end results and lead to a huge differnece between mean and median. That's why *good* demographic tests are almost impossible to get a max score on. They are made very hard so that you can still differentiate the top scorers from each other.
Traditionally, you DO buy servers with an OS, but then quickly overwrite it with your site licensed version upon arrival. That is different from buying them without an OS. It's hard to find a vendor that will sell without at least SOMETHING pre-installed.
Yes... of course... because it's impossible that maybe they have real reasons for hating it that make actual sense, oh, no, it can't possibly be that. No, let's just call them religious reasons.
I think it's because they are only measuring migrations, not designs of new projects that use Linux from the start. As time goes on, it becomes more and more likely that a project that is using linux is one that actually started in linux to begin with rather than having been migrated to linux from some other unix. It's not that the unix-minded people aren't using linux as much, it's that they got started on the switch earlier, and are now longtime users of it rather than people migrating to it just now for the first time.
There was no reason to "stop and start filming". Doing the sequence as stop-motion animation (as you seem to be implying was done) would have been more effort than making it smooth, and would have looked more obiviously a fake.
If only one nation made a law, it would be incorrect to call it "international". If a highway only ran through one state, it would be incorrect to call it an "interstate highway" (not that that stops it from happening occasionally). And if only one planet makes a law, it is incorrect to call it an interplanetary law.
Anything mined to be sold back on earth will have to be *sent* back to earth somehow. That's going to strongly limit how much material gets removed, down to the point where it won't be noticable to the naked eye.
And I find the concept of moon colonies giving off twinkling lights a lot more aesteticly pleasing than the current dead landscape I see today looking at the moon.
I don't care about mining the moon, but if the technology eventually exists to drasticly alter the surface of the moon, I fear it would be used to turn it into the world's biggest billboard.
I expect to eventually look up some day and see a big "CHA" carved onto the moon.
Also, presumably all the mass removed from the moon would eventually end up back on Earth, since that would be the whole point of mining it. So the mass of the earth/moon system would remain unchanged. All that changes is the ratio of mass on earth vs mass on the moon. Overall it won't matter much. All that would be affected would be:
1 - Strength of tides on earth become *slightly* lower.
2 - Length of a day becomes *slightly* longer as the Earth's current rotational inertia gets divided by slightly larger mass. In the long run this is actually a good thing, because if we start exploring space more we'll be REMOVING mass from the earth as we launch it out of the gravity well in the form of space stations, habitats, trade goods with colonies, spent rocket fuel, and so on,
and the extra mass brought from the moon might help mitigate the changes.