Your slave analogy is both silly and ignorant. What the hell does this have to do with a modern marketplace? Did you just throw this in to support your view of the "evil market" because you have no real knowledge of how the market works?
Joshua can speak for himself, of course...
I don't think he (or I) was speaking as someone who is anti-markets.
The slave analogy is neither silly nor ignorant. It's relevant in that it shows what can happen when the bottom-line concerns of the marketplace crowd out moral issues. The enslavement (and "neo-enslavement", i.e. the cheap labor in the Third World) of peoples, which goes on even today, is one example. The bastardization (YMMV) of the GPL (with all these OSI-compliant "free" and open licenses), and the demonization (YMMV) of RMS (that psycho/utopian/commie/clue-starved Rasputin), may be another example.
Disclaimer: Smoke-Blowing Mode again.
--
The Marketplace: the new God of the new religion.
on
Miscellaneous GNU News
·
· Score: 1
I postponed my afternoon nap, so clarity wasn't one of my strong points. I'm slightly more lucid now. Here goes...
Slavery in the traditional sense still exists - every time I think of the southern Sudan, I (figuratively) hit my knees and pray for them.
Slavery in a modern sense exists. The difference between a sweatshop worker and a slave (or a corporate Third World farm worker and a slave) is that the escapees won't be hunted down; it's cheaper to hire a replacement. For now. On top of that, toxic work environments (due to either heavy pesticides in the fields or chemicals in the factory) shorten the lifespan of the workers.
Slavery in any form is heinous and immoral.
What CMP (and other publishers) did/do is merely cynical and amoral; they're not in the same league as Nike, Disney, United Brands, and the other Big Boys.
The Nielsens are a tool used by the cynical and amoral; a small number of teenage eyeballs influence the multi-megabuck decisions of programmers and advertisers, though the I Ching might make a more useful tool. Commercial broadcasting is all about the broadcaster "selling an audience" (measured by a ratings system) to potential advertisers. Again, cynical and amoral. And we are, either literally or by proxy, being trafficked, even though we don't suffer the same fate as slaves.
There but for the grace of God, etc etc...
--
The Marketplace: the new God of the new religion.
on
Miscellaneous GNU News
·
· Score: 1
In a true ``marketplace'', humans should be trafficked like anything else: children bought and sold and slaves available on the open market. After all, that's what people want! Cheap labor is important!
Humans are already trafficked, it's just not normally described so bluntly. Whether it's the transfer of manufacturing capital from the West to the Third World (cheap labor!), magazine publishers' mailing-lists (like the transfer from BYTE to Windows Magazine - the most valuable asset was the subscriber list, rather than the brand-name and archives), or the Nielsen Ratings, people are just marketplace commodities. But the whole thing is so ingrained that we give it little notice.
What's all this talk about browsers crashing Unix ? Isn't Linux a Unix variant ? Isn't Unix/Linux the most stable OS on the planet ? How can such a little browser crash such a robust OS ? Gosh maybe Linux and Unix aren't quite ready for the primetime yet huh ?
When the browser "crashes", it doesn't. If the original poster's problem is the same one I was having, Netscape slows to a crawl because it's spawning an endless series of dialogs. At worst, both Netscape and X hang - very rare. Sometimes Netscape hangs - also fairly rare. But Linux doesn't crash; it may only look like it. All it takes is a kill -9 (or an exit from the wm) to get out of the mess, but on those rare occasions, it's a chore.
...and no-one is there to hear it...yadda yadda yadda.
If the GNUstep GNUrus can't be bothered to answer this question, why should I be bothered to look into GNUstep for using it or for developing apps? They can't even be bothered to fix their mailing-list page.
If it could be gotten to work, I'm sure it would be a worthy addition to the toolkit/environment flame^H^H^H^H^Hwars. But as it is, it seems (to this outsider) to be no more than an ineffectual quilting-bee.
On all three machines I regularly run Netscape on I have a mysterious problem with it spawning error windows until the system crashes...
Oooh, I hate when that happens:) Try turning off Java - that worked for me. Of course, if applets weren't a common factor in the Omnivorously Spawning Haywire Dialogs From Hell, then please disregard or disembowel (or decipher) this message.
I wouldn't mind an IE5 for Linux either, would I? The more browser choice, the better, right? Feel free to insert your own "integrated in the OS" joke here.
For KDE or GNOME. And then I'll still probably not care. May I remind you of those Famous Words? And poor GNUstep doesn't even get more than the token namecheck amidst these silly turf wars.
J Pingouin Braithwaite-Guevara, proud mwm user. I don't need no steenkin' "environment":)
In an economy with low unemployment (USA), service related industries would get ticked at major corps that reduced the wages of their employees, because it would mean less money for the service industries. If wages were dropped too low, CEO's would begin being assassinated.
The funny thing is: nobody's wages have been cut. Some high-paying jobs have left the country; some low-paying (by US standards) have left the country as well, since there's always some third-world economy that features lower labor costs. The long-term effect is an overall lowering of wages, but that Hand is invisible, remember? The resultant increase in job/wage insecurity (which Comrade Greenspan often finds to be a Good Thing®) prevents (or subverts) the traditional upward wage pressures that "full employment" would bring. Again, no-one's getting their wages cut. Corps bring in scab labor in order to get some extra leverage against striking workers - that works to keep wage increases down or nonexistant, and often gives the corp carte blanche to move X number of jobs overseas. Again, not a cut, but it has helped keep down overall growth in wages. There will not be masses of people going postal - just as a frog won't jump out of the pot if you slowly raise the water temperature to boiling point.
Mine is a Micron desktop, where some Linux Native partitions were converted to "Amoeba".
In my case I suspect that an OEM installed utility had a role in changing the formatting type. [Or do you have S.M.A.R.T. utility on your desktop.]
In mine, it's a self-assembled box (DOS or Win9* originally), so there's no weird OEM utility AFAIK.
By the way, I believe it's PM version 4 that can format ext2 partitions.
I know, but his 4.0 and my 3.x versions seem to have a hard time convincing RH's install program that some ext2 partitions are really there - the unifying factor is that the original formatting and subsequent partition changes were done by PM (of course, I didn't have the benefit of being able to tweak ext2 partitions directly). Bug or Feature? RH's fault or PQ's? I've never found out.
You're forgetting the "invisible hand" of the market economy.
I know it all too well. It's a myth.
People are used to 5.50 or whatever an hour minumum.
Not in the Dominican Republic. Or [fill in the blank with any one of 150+ nations].
[If] minimum wage were to go away today, most employees would be paid the same contractually, and the others would fight for their wages or quit and go somewhere that they could make more.
Fight? Flight? This is not an option for most people. Phillips-Van Heusen closed down a plant in Central America (El Salvador?) rather than deal with a workforce that managed to win collective-bargaining rights (through an impossibly protracted process); they wanted a raise from 50 to 90 an hour. if they find work elsewhere, it'll probably be for 50 an hour.
There's six billion folks in the world, and the "invisible hand" uses that to force the terms of people's wages. While the DJIA has risen hundreds of percent (adjusted for inflation) in the last 20 years, average hourly wage in the nation that houses the Dow has gone down, IIRC, or flatlined. An example of the global effect of the "invisible hand". If people around the world were happy with The Hand, they wouldn't be heading for The West.
I both lament and benefit from this. This makes me a hypocrite. Or just brutally honest.
Falwell and Robertson are still struggling with Win31, or maybe DOS - they have flunkies who handle that newfangled Win95 stuff. RATM no doubt has PowerBooks (no LinuxPPC), because they "Think Different".
One of the only firm tenets of libertarianism is the non-coercion principle, which completely rejects the idea that people should be forced into something.
Unless it's a corporation saying "work for 50 an hour, work for somebody else for the same wage... or starve". Non-coercion? In the absence of labor laws (and other such regulations), the corporations become The Law, and coercion remains part of the equation.
Since there are no businesses in a socialist world, everyone is forced deal directly with the government for their needs, a violation of that principle.
From what I gather, the idea of "workers owning the means of production" does not preclude business, and doesn't necessarily have to involve government, other than, say, as a regulatory body, for example.
The first issue was partitioning the hard drive. I used partition magic and made linux partitions. However, RHL 5.2 did not want to recognize these partitions, so I deleted them. I could then repartition using disk druid.
I have this problem whenever I upgrade on a box that uses/used PartitionMagic 3.x; some (and sometimes all) of my ext2 partitions get labeled as "Amoeba" (IIRC), and if I'm not wary (like when I upgraded to RH5.2), Bad Things® will happen. If you use the fdisk (it that it?) program from the boot disk - mine was a CheapBytes CD, but I guess the real RH5.2 has it too - you can manually tell the install program that your ext2 partitions really are ext2.
I believe the stories about Bush's affair, but it was in poor taste to try to make it into a campaign issue, since FDR, JFK, and Eisenhower (his affair took place before he was in office) were let off the hook until well after the affairs occurred - in fact, they were all dead before their sex lives became public knowledge.
And what about all these allegations of the Chinese stealing our technology? And these allegations that the Clinton Administration did nothing for over two years upon learning of it???? Coincidence???? I don't think so.
The guy was a Reagan-era hire, wasn't he? And hadn't he already done enough by the time Bubba came to town to warrant arrest? The fault may lie with the various FBI directors, rather than any president.
See? I told you I could do better than just the liberal media (though they *are* liberal).!:-)
That's nothing compared to the various Murdoch connections, the Starr/Olson connections, the Starr/Goldberg connections, the Dwayne Andreas Bal Harbour mafia... There's a big vacuum in Big Media where liberal or left-wing views should be (e.g. the moderates who populate "the left" on Crossfire are a mush-mouthed nonentity). I think the liberalness left when Dan Schorr went to NPR; apparently nobody bothered to turn out the lights:) The vast majority of journalists frame a story from a conservative point of view. If you want to see the (often vast) difference between mainstream media and left-of-center views, check out FAIR and their ERR, or even the unfortunately-named World Socialist Web Site, which, despite its name, covers some of the nooks and crannies overlooked by the Big Boys. And then go wash their lefty ick off of you:)
doubt that you'll accept this, but Monica Lewinsky sure comes to my mind real easily.
That's fine, but so what. Real journalists have had the decency to not report on the sex lives of presidents; the only exception I can think of is a handful of idiots outed Bush's mistress while he was in office.
Another: King Hussein of Jordan's ill health (Drudge reported that the king was nearing death a full two weeks before the story crept into any other outlet that I know of).
I don't have a timeline, so I'll take your word.
I don't accept your definition of terms anyway, if by "second-hand reports" you are attempting to omit stories that Drudge learns others are about to publish (or spike, as in the Lewinsky matter and the Juanita Broaddrick rape case).
No, those are stories. But they are gossip-column items (Broaddrick's story is just as much "he said / she said" as is Anita Hill's); why don't you add the case of Kathleen Willey? Did Drudge report on her attempt to get Julie Hiatt Steele to vouch for her? I doubt it.
Secondly, what makes you think that I believe everything Drudge writes? I certainly don't believe everything I see on TV, hear on the radio or read in the NYTimes or Washington Post. I accord Drudge the same respect.
Fair enough. It's just that I don't see many people praise him unless it's unconditional praise; I assumed you were another one of those.
Drudge was wrong about Sidney Blumenthal's marital problems. He went to press with a story he had not checked at all, and was wrong. He published a retraction upon learning of the error (of course, this wasn't good enough for Sidney the Hatchet Man).
Drudge has made quite a buck from his Murdoch connections (yes I'll drag his name into it again), so I would be glad if Sidney managed to wring some $ out of him - it may teach Drudge to be a bit more careful.
Personally, I could not care less about your preposterous "list". As if conservatives couldn't fabricate something exactly similar for Bill & Co.
The best they've done is the old canard about the "liberal media". This media circus about impeachment has been driven by conservatives, and there are connections - I've only given you a handful. The Lewinsky matter was forced out into the open by Ken Starr, with help from Linda Tripp and her friend Lucianne Goldberg; I still fail to see what it has to do with Whitewater. Maybe we'll find out more if and when Starr's actions are investigated, though I suspect the major media outlets will be mum on the case, since some of their experts and guests could be implicated.
And it really has nothing whatever to do with the issue.
It does.
You were asked to present a single case where Drudge was wrong on a story. The instance you presented -- the love child -- was inadequate, because Drudge acknowledged the truth on his site.
Being a sporadic reader of his site (at best), I must have missed that; I'm more familiar with his radio work (and of those radio people who say "did you hear what Drudge said?"). I've already said elsewhere in these threads that he could have waited until after the DNA test, and that I still don't think his motives are pure.
You are still in the position of having failed in the one challenge you were given. A "rumor" that is not substantiated enough to suit you is not necessarily false (and yes, it's not necessarily true either).
From the Brill's article:
DRUDGE WORLD EXCLUSIVE: SECRET WHITE HOUSE VIDEO SHOWS CLINTON WITH OTHER INTERN!
But a few hours later he backtracked, changing the headline to:
SECRET WHITE HOUSE VIDEO SHOWS CLINTON WITH MYSTERY WOMAN!
I don't know if it's his reportage, but I'd like to know more about this "video". Was this one right or wrong? Were his reports on Willey, if there were any, right or wrong? I still say his report on the love child was reckless and wrong.
Drudge acknowledges that he is something of a gossip columnist. I don't think that anyone would question that. Nevertheless, he actually has broken some stories that others refused to cover. Whether you like it or not is another matter.
I'd like him to carry himself better than Hard Copy level, and I think in time he will - his anti-journalist lines are a cop-out, IMO.
Note, too, that Drudge also covered the news that Hyde and other Republicans had a less-than-pristine background themselves.
Every time I visit his site, it's Clinton stuff. I'll start looking more often for GOP needles in his haystack:) Again, I find it rotten (and suspicious) that there's this whole list of worthy Republicans to sling mud at, but it never generates critical mass. This isn't Drudge's fault, though. Or is he not slightly responsible at least?
I'm done with this thread; it really has nothing to do with customizing Slashdot!:-)
OK. I'm sick of the polluted waters of Yank media and politics; I had to vent:)
Matt Drudge never once claimed that Clinton fathered the child; the charge was alleged, and Drudge used this language. The New York Post (admittedly hardly the bastion of journalistic integrity) ran with this. Drudge was careful as always to use precise language.
Again, the Murdoch connection. Of course The Post and Drudge ran with it. The point is/was to kill Clinton by a thousand cuts. It's still wrong, both factually (because I have doubts about him using 100% precise CYA language, either in his print or mass-media explanations of the "case") and ethically. The time to report the story is after the DNA test anyway, if at all. No matter what CYA language Drudge used - and he takes full responsibility for what he reports - it's wrong, factually and ethically. He probably knew it as well, even though he blabbed his "scoop" on his WABC show, making it a talking point for several talk shows the next day. It adds to the exciting FUD, and distracts us from the boring details of day-to-day politics. Mission accomplished, truth be dammed.
Nyah.
Nyah backatcha. Wake me when Matt's 15 minutes are up.
How exactly is this "wrong", aside from opinions as to whether he should have reported it?
Why don't you start by giving me stories ("exclusives", not wire-service or second-hand reports) that he's gotten right? If I'm grasping at straws, it's because his gig seems to be mainly of propagating unsubstantiated rumors - seemingly more of a mudslinging act, however careful his wording is. Give me stories; I'll do some looking into them and gladly report back to you. Meanwhile, have you looked into my list? I might add the name of Sean ("The Drivetime King") Hannity to the list, and the correction that Ailes did an amazing job in transitioning Bush's image in 1987-88 - I'm not entirely sure about the Reagan reference.
What about the "Angry Hillary" story then? Can you prove it's true? Why is this, and Fox News' glee at reporting this, not a case of mudslinging as well? Note the Murdoch/Giuliani connection. One can name any number of good, well-researched, well-reported stories from reporters from NBC, CNN, etc. If they've had a rare fuck-up, so be it. They've also issued very public apologies. Has Drudge apologized (as WABC's Curtis Sliwa and others have asked for him to do) for propagating the love child story?
Drudge is still cheap thrills, a "shock jock" for alleged news, a hatchet man, until you can show me otherwise.
I submit that if this had been a "Henry Hyde lovechild", the Big Four plus the major newspapers would have been all over it. I assure you that had it been Clarence Thomas, they would have been all over it for certain (please note that Anita Hill had as much evidence as this "lovechild" woman does/did).
And as much as Jane Doe #5.
I trust that if you disapprove of the one, you would likewise disapprove of the other.
My disgust at Thomas dates back to his involvement with the Lincoln Review, but I had no interest in Professor Hill's charges, true or not. Nor did I have any interest in the dueling hatchet-jobs that both experienced. (One might add Justice Thomas' wife Ginny to the list of people with an axe to grind against the Clintons). As for Hyde, he's gotten a pretty free ride, considering his affair(s) and his role in one of the failed S&Ls - I used to like and respect the guy a lot; now I'm not so sure. Same deal with Lott and Barr's connections with the CCC (a modern-day White Citizens Council), inadequately explained away. If the media's so "liberal", why aren't those two guys in the spotlight?
I suppose I couldn't get you to spare a dollar or two for Julie Hiatt Steele's Defense Fund. If you haven't heard of her, that's because you've been paying too much attention to the shock jock.
I dunno. At, say, 16-24 kbps, a G2 encoded stream is better. But if anyone's mileage varies, that's fine - audio compression is a subjective thing. When rates are > 40 kbps, MP3 sounds better to me. Of course, a good encoder helps, as does good source material - some broadcasters fail to recognize the latter point.
William Jefferson Clinton did not father a child with a prostitute in Little Rock, Arkansas. Drudge was wrong, and the fact that so many people chow down on the shit he feeds people is yet another sign of the dumbing-down of America. You would do well to spend a few weeks investigating the links between Rupert Murdoch (rich right-wing megalomaniac and Clinton-despiser, owner of the New York Post and Fox News Channel), Lucianne Goldberg ("publicist" and former GOP dirty-trickster), Drudge (who, I would imagine, is God at Fox News, and was given a show at WABC-AM - 50,000 watts, reaching 38 states and eastern Canada - despite a lack of broadcasting know-how or talent), Roger Ailes (boss at Fox News, the man who created "Ronald Reagan"), Rudy Giuliani (mayor of the Big Apple, occasional host at WABC-AM, husband of a Murdoch employee at WNYW-TV - and Hillary Clinton's likely opponent in the New York senate race), and Phil What's-His-Name, the PD at WABC-AM in New York. It's a far more edifying (and real) story than anything Drudge can come up with.
Real's G2 is better than MP3 for low-bandwidth streaming. Cuban has a vested interest in milking that for all it's worth. MP3 is irrelevant to broadcast.com, therefore it's "dead" to them. Of course, that zombie will probably outlive broadcast.com.
How do you prove a negative? Look at the giant headline right now - Fox News has been circulating this story ("Hillary Exploded!") for days, without much corroboration; who are these "insiders" who feed Drudge the dirt? Do they really exist? How am I supposed to find out? Fox News and WABC and MSNBC give airtime to people like Drudge whose pronouncements are taken as givens, even though they often have no basis in fact, or conveniently fail to mention relevant details. The WSJ news department, one of the best in the English-speaking world, refused to run the Broaddrick rape-charges story; it took the politically-motivated editorial-page department to get the thing into print - the news people held their noses. Drudge didn't necessarily get the story (completely) wrong, but dirt != journalism. Recycling and perpetuating rumors is not journalism. Take his "exclusives" with a really big grain of salt. It's cheap thrills, well packaged. But don't mistake it for news.
Bill Clinton's black love child in Little Rock is laughing at you. Learn to think for yourself; don't take anybody's bull, even if you agree with them politically.
Drudge? Ewww. Why not include NationalEnquirer.com, too? Drudge is a self-aggrandizing cheap-shot artist who mistakes bogus rumors for news. Shun him, or at least wait until he takes Journalism 101. Better yet, give equal time to the Drudge Retort. It even has a handy/. link.
Gore wouldn't have made the statement unless he could back it up with something from the Congressional Record. It doesn't have to be necessarily the absolute truth, just some votes and sponsored amendments to bills. It's typical politico stuff, not unique to Our Al. Don't expect any clarification or apology from him.
But AFAIK, a lot of the events at the beginning of Cringely's Nerds 2.0.1 took place while Gore was a photographer in Vietnam. I could be wrong, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Joshua can speak for himself, of course...
I don't think he (or I) was speaking as someone who is anti-markets.
The slave analogy is neither silly nor ignorant. It's relevant in that it shows what can happen when the bottom-line concerns of the marketplace crowd out moral issues. The enslavement (and "neo-enslavement", i.e. the cheap labor in the Third World) of peoples, which goes on even today, is one example. The bastardization (YMMV) of the GPL (with all these OSI-compliant "free" and open licenses), and the demonization (YMMV) of RMS (that psycho/utopian/commie/clue-starved Rasputin), may be another example.
Disclaimer: Smoke-Blowing Mode again.
--
Slavery in the traditional sense still exists - every time I think of the southern Sudan, I (figuratively) hit my knees and pray for them.
Slavery in a modern sense exists. The difference between a sweatshop worker and a slave (or a corporate Third World farm worker and a slave) is that the escapees won't be hunted down; it's cheaper to hire a replacement. For now. On top of that, toxic work environments (due to either heavy pesticides in the fields or chemicals in the factory) shorten the lifespan of the workers.
Slavery in any form is heinous and immoral.
What CMP (and other publishers) did/do is merely cynical and amoral; they're not in the same league as Nike, Disney, United Brands, and the other Big Boys.
The Nielsens are a tool used by the cynical and amoral; a small number of teenage eyeballs influence the multi-megabuck decisions of programmers and advertisers, though the I Ching might make a more useful tool. Commercial broadcasting is all about the broadcaster "selling an audience" (measured by a ratings system) to potential advertisers. Again, cynical and amoral. And we are, either literally or by proxy, being trafficked, even though we don't suffer the same fate as slaves.
There but for the grace of God, etc etc...
--
Humans are already trafficked, it's just not normally described so bluntly. Whether it's the transfer of manufacturing capital from the West to the Third World (cheap labor!), magazine publishers' mailing-lists (like the transfer from BYTE to Windows Magazine - the most valuable asset was the subscriber list, rather than the brand-name and archives), or the Nielsen Ratings, people are just marketplace commodities. But the whole thing is so ingrained that we give it little notice.
I am not a target audience! I am not a number! :)
(With apologies to Coupland and McGoohan.)
--
When the browser "crashes", it doesn't. If the original poster's problem is the same one I was having, Netscape slows to a crawl because it's spawning an endless series of dialogs. At worst, both Netscape and X hang - very rare. Sometimes Netscape hangs - also fairly rare. But Linux doesn't crash; it may only look like it. All it takes is a kill -9 (or an exit from the wm) to get out of the mess, but on those rare occasions, it's a chore.
--
Noteworthy changes in version `0.5.5' =====================================
NOTE that the X/DPS backend is not supported at all in this release. Hopefully it will be fixed up in the next release.
Thanks for the heads-up. Back to the quilt, GNUrus...
--
If the GNUstep GNUrus can't be bothered to answer this question, why should I be bothered to look into GNUstep for using it or for developing apps? They can't even be bothered to fix their mailing-list page.
If it could be gotten to work, I'm sure it would be a worthy addition to the toolkit/environment flame^H^H^H^H^Hwars. But as it is, it seems (to this outsider) to be no more than an ineffectual quilting-bee.
Flames welcome. I'd like to learn more.
--
Oooh, I hate when that happens :) Try turning off Java - that worked for me. Of course, if applets weren't a common factor in the Omnivorously Spawning Haywire Dialogs From Hell, then please disregard or disembowel (or decipher) this message.
I wouldn't mind an IE5 for Linux either, would I? The more browser choice, the better, right? Feel free to insert your own "integrated in the OS" joke here.
--
J Pingouin Braithwaite-Guevara, proud mwm user. I don't need no steenkin' "environment" :)
--
The funny thing is: nobody's wages have been cut. Some high-paying jobs have left the country; some low-paying (by US standards) have left the country as well, since there's always some third-world economy that features lower labor costs. The long-term effect is an overall lowering of wages, but that Hand is invisible, remember? The resultant increase in job/wage insecurity (which Comrade Greenspan often finds to be a Good Thing®) prevents (or subverts) the traditional upward wage pressures that "full employment" would bring. Again, no-one's getting their wages cut. Corps bring in scab labor in order to get some extra leverage against striking workers - that works to keep wage increases down or nonexistant, and often gives the corp carte blanche to move X number of jobs overseas. Again, not a cut, but it has helped keep down overall growth in wages. There will not be masses of people going postal - just as a frog won't jump out of the pot if you slowly raise the water temperature to boiling point.
Mmmmmm. Frog legs!
Disclaimer: IANAE.
--
In my case I suspect that an OEM installed utility had a role in changing the formatting type. [Or do you have S.M.A.R.T. utility on your desktop.]
In mine, it's a self-assembled box (DOS or Win9* originally), so there's no weird OEM utility AFAIK.
By the way, I believe it's PM version 4 that can format ext2 partitions.
I know, but his 4.0 and my 3.x versions seem to have a hard time convincing RH's install program that some ext2 partitions are really there - the unifying factor is that the original formatting and subsequent partition changes were done by PM (of course, I didn't have the benefit of being able to tweak ext2 partitions directly). Bug or Feature? RH's fault or PQ's? I've never found out.
--
I know it all too well. It's a myth.
People are used to 5.50 or whatever an hour minumum.
Not in the Dominican Republic. Or [fill in the blank with any one of 150+ nations].
[If] minimum wage were to go away today, most employees would be paid the same contractually, and the others would fight for their wages or quit and go somewhere that they could make more.
Fight? Flight? This is not an option for most people. Phillips-Van Heusen closed down a plant in Central America (El Salvador?) rather than deal with a workforce that managed to win collective-bargaining rights (through an impossibly protracted process); they wanted a raise from 50 to 90 an hour. if they find work elsewhere, it'll probably be for 50 an hour.
There's six billion folks in the world, and the "invisible hand" uses that to force the terms of people's wages. While the DJIA has risen hundreds of percent (adjusted for inflation) in the last 20 years, average hourly wage in the nation that houses the Dow has gone down, IIRC, or flatlined. An example of the global effect of the "invisible hand". If people around the world were happy with The Hand, they wouldn't be heading for The West.
I both lament and benefit from this. This makes me a hypocrite. Or just brutally honest.
--
--
Unless it's a corporation saying "work for 50 an hour, work for somebody else for the same wage... or starve". Non-coercion? In the absence of labor laws (and other such regulations), the corporations become The Law, and coercion remains part of the equation.
Since there are no businesses in a socialist world, everyone is forced deal directly with the government for their needs, a violation of that principle.
From what I gather, the idea of "workers owning the means of production" does not preclude business, and doesn't necessarily have to involve government, other than, say, as a regulatory body, for example.
Dos centavos. Spend it wisely.
--
I have this problem whenever I upgrade on a box that uses/used PartitionMagic 3.x; some (and sometimes all) of my ext2 partitions get labeled as "Amoeba" (IIRC), and if I'm not wary (like when I upgraded to RH5.2), Bad Things® will happen. If you use the fdisk (it that it?) program from the boot disk - mine was a CheapBytes CD, but I guess the real RH5.2 has it too - you can manually tell the install program that your ext2 partitions really are ext2.
--
I believe the stories about Bush's affair, but it was in poor taste to try to make it into a campaign issue, since FDR, JFK, and Eisenhower (his affair took place before he was in office) were let off the hook until well after the affairs occurred - in fact, they were all dead before their sex lives became public knowledge.
And what about all these allegations of the Chinese stealing our technology? And these allegations that the Clinton Administration did nothing for over two years upon learning of it???? Coincidence???? I don't think so.
The guy was a Reagan-era hire, wasn't he? And hadn't he already done enough by the time Bubba came to town to warrant arrest? The fault may lie with the various FBI directors, rather than any president.
See? I told you I could do better than just the liberal media (though they *are* liberal).! :-)
That's nothing compared to the various Murdoch connections, the Starr/Olson connections, the Starr/Goldberg connections, the Dwayne Andreas Bal Harbour mafia... There's a big vacuum in Big Media where liberal or left-wing views should be (e.g. the moderates who populate "the left" on Crossfire are a mush-mouthed nonentity). I think the liberalness left when Dan Schorr went to NPR; apparently nobody bothered to turn out the lights :) The vast majority of journalists frame a story from a conservative point of view. If you want to see the (often vast) difference between mainstream media and left-of-center views, check out FAIR and their ERR, or even the unfortunately-named World Socialist Web Site, which, despite its name, covers some of the nooks and crannies overlooked by the Big Boys. And then go wash their lefty ick off of you :)
--
That's fine, but so what. Real journalists have had the decency to not report on the sex lives of presidents; the only exception I can think of is a handful of idiots outed Bush's mistress while he was in office.
Another: King Hussein of Jordan's ill health (Drudge reported that the king was nearing death a full two weeks before the story crept into any other outlet that I know of).
I don't have a timeline, so I'll take your word.
I don't accept your definition of terms anyway, if by "second-hand reports" you are attempting to omit stories that Drudge learns others are about to publish (or spike, as in the Lewinsky matter and the Juanita Broaddrick rape case).
No, those are stories. But they are gossip-column items (Broaddrick's story is just as much "he said / she said" as is Anita Hill's); why don't you add the case of Kathleen Willey? Did Drudge report on her attempt to get Julie Hiatt Steele to vouch for her? I doubt it.
Secondly, what makes you think that I believe everything Drudge writes? I certainly don't believe everything I see on TV, hear on the radio or read in the NYTimes or Washington Post. I accord Drudge the same respect.
Fair enough. It's just that I don't see many people praise him unless it's unconditional praise; I assumed you were another one of those.
Drudge was wrong about Sidney Blumenthal's marital problems. He went to press with a story he had not checked at all, and was wrong. He published a retraction upon learning of the error (of course, this wasn't good enough for Sidney the Hatchet Man).
Drudge has made quite a buck from his Murdoch connections (yes I'll drag his name into it again), so I would be glad if Sidney managed to wring some $ out of him - it may teach Drudge to be a bit more careful.
Personally, I could not care less about your preposterous "list". As if conservatives couldn't fabricate something exactly similar for Bill & Co.
The best they've done is the old canard about the "liberal media". This media circus about impeachment has been driven by conservatives, and there are connections - I've only given you a handful. The Lewinsky matter was forced out into the open by Ken Starr, with help from Linda Tripp and her friend Lucianne Goldberg; I still fail to see what it has to do with Whitewater. Maybe we'll find out more if and when Starr's actions are investigated, though I suspect the major media outlets will be mum on the case, since some of their experts and guests could be implicated.
And it really has nothing whatever to do with the issue.
It does.
You were asked to present a single case where Drudge was wrong on a story. The instance you presented -- the love child -- was inadequate, because Drudge acknowledged the truth on his site.
Being a sporadic reader of his site (at best), I must have missed that; I'm more familiar with his radio work (and of those radio people who say "did you hear what Drudge said?"). I've already said elsewhere in these threads that he could have waited until after the DNA test, and that I still don't think his motives are pure.
You are still in the position of having failed in the one challenge you were given. A "rumor" that is not substantiated enough to suit you is not necessarily false (and yes, it's not necessarily true either).
From the Brill's article:
I don't know if it's his reportage, but I'd like to know more about this "video". Was this one right or wrong? Were his reports on Willey, if there were any, right or wrong? I still say his report on the love child was reckless and wrong.
Drudge acknowledges that he is something of a gossip columnist. I don't think that anyone would question that. Nevertheless, he actually has broken some stories that others refused to cover. Whether you like it or not is another matter.
I'd like him to carry himself better than Hard Copy level, and I think in time he will - his anti-journalist lines are a cop-out, IMO.
Note, too, that Drudge also covered the news that Hyde and other Republicans had a less-than-pristine background themselves.
Every time I visit his site, it's Clinton stuff. I'll start looking more often for GOP needles in his haystack :) Again, I find it rotten (and suspicious) that there's this whole list of worthy Republicans to sling mud at, but it never generates critical mass. This isn't Drudge's fault, though. Or is he not slightly responsible at least?
I'm done with this thread; it really has nothing to do with customizing Slashdot! :-)
OK. I'm sick of the polluted waters of Yank media and politics; I had to vent :)
--
Again, the Murdoch connection. Of course The Post and Drudge ran with it. The point is/was to kill Clinton by a thousand cuts. It's still wrong, both factually (because I have doubts about him using 100% precise CYA language, either in his print or mass-media explanations of the "case") and ethically. The time to report the story is after the DNA test anyway, if at all. No matter what CYA language Drudge used - and he takes full responsibility for what he reports - it's wrong, factually and ethically. He probably knew it as well, even though he blabbed his "scoop" on his WABC show, making it a talking point for several talk shows the next day. It adds to the exciting FUD, and distracts us from the boring details of day-to-day politics. Mission accomplished, truth be dammed.
Nyah.
Nyah backatcha. Wake me when Matt's 15 minutes are up.
--
--
Why don't you start by giving me stories ("exclusives", not wire-service or second-hand reports) that he's gotten right? If I'm grasping at straws, it's because his gig seems to be mainly of propagating unsubstantiated rumors - seemingly more of a mudslinging act, however careful his wording is. Give me stories; I'll do some looking into them and gladly report back to you. Meanwhile, have you looked into my list? I might add the name of Sean ("The Drivetime King") Hannity to the list, and the correction that Ailes did an amazing job in transitioning Bush's image in 1987-88 - I'm not entirely sure about the Reagan reference.
What about the "Angry Hillary" story then? Can you prove it's true? Why is this, and Fox News' glee at reporting this, not a case of mudslinging as well? Note the Murdoch/Giuliani connection. One can name any number of good, well-researched, well-reported stories from reporters from NBC, CNN, etc. If they've had a rare fuck-up, so be it. They've also issued very public apologies. Has Drudge apologized (as WABC's Curtis Sliwa and others have asked for him to do) for propagating the love child story?
Drudge is still cheap thrills, a "shock jock" for alleged news, a hatchet man, until you can show me otherwise.
I submit that if this had been a "Henry Hyde lovechild", the Big Four plus the major newspapers would have been all over it. I assure you that had it been Clarence Thomas, they would have been all over it for certain (please note that Anita Hill had as much evidence as this "lovechild" woman does/did).
And as much as Jane Doe #5.
I trust that if you disapprove of the one, you would likewise disapprove of the other.
My disgust at Thomas dates back to his involvement with the Lincoln Review, but I had no interest in Professor Hill's charges, true or not. Nor did I have any interest in the dueling hatchet-jobs that both experienced. (One might add Justice Thomas' wife Ginny to the list of people with an axe to grind against the Clintons). As for Hyde, he's gotten a pretty free ride, considering his affair(s) and his role in one of the failed S&Ls - I used to like and respect the guy a lot; now I'm not so sure. Same deal with Lott and Barr's connections with the CCC (a modern-day White Citizens Council), inadequately explained away. If the media's so "liberal", why aren't those two guys in the spotlight?
I suppose I couldn't get you to spare a dollar or two for Julie Hiatt Steele's Defense Fund. If you haven't heard of her, that's because you've been paying too much attention to the shock jock.
--
--
William Jefferson Clinton did not father a child with a prostitute in Little Rock, Arkansas. Drudge was wrong, and the fact that so many people chow down on the shit he feeds people is yet another sign of the dumbing-down of America. You would do well to spend a few weeks investigating the links between Rupert Murdoch (rich right-wing megalomaniac and Clinton-despiser, owner of the New York Post and Fox News Channel), Lucianne Goldberg ("publicist" and former GOP dirty-trickster), Drudge (who, I would imagine, is God at Fox News, and was given a show at WABC-AM - 50,000 watts, reaching 38 states and eastern Canada - despite a lack of broadcasting know-how or talent), Roger Ailes (boss at Fox News, the man who created "Ronald Reagan"), Rudy Giuliani (mayor of the Big Apple, occasional host at WABC-AM, husband of a Murdoch employee at WNYW-TV - and Hillary Clinton's likely opponent in the New York senate race), and Phil What's-His-Name, the PD at WABC-AM in New York. It's a far more edifying (and real) story than anything Drudge can come up with.
I've put up. Now you, Brian, shut up.
--
--
How do you prove a negative? Look at the giant headline right now - Fox News has been circulating this story ("Hillary Exploded!") for days, without much corroboration; who are these "insiders" who feed Drudge the dirt? Do they really exist? How am I supposed to find out? Fox News and WABC and MSNBC give airtime to people like Drudge whose pronouncements are taken as givens, even though they often have no basis in fact, or conveniently fail to mention relevant details. The WSJ news department, one of the best in the English-speaking world, refused to run the Broaddrick rape-charges story; it took the politically-motivated editorial-page department to get the thing into print - the news people held their noses. Drudge didn't necessarily get the story (completely) wrong, but dirt != journalism. Recycling and perpetuating rumors is not journalism. Take his "exclusives" with a really big grain of salt. It's cheap thrills, well packaged. But don't mistake it for news.
Bill Clinton's black love child in Little Rock is laughing at you. Learn to think for yourself; don't take anybody's bull, even if you agree with them politically.
OK?
--
Disclaimer: IANAFOB.
--
But AFAIK, a lot of the events at the beginning of Cringely's Nerds 2.0.1 took place while Gore was a photographer in Vietnam. I could be wrong, though.
--