This error relates to Jan/Feb 2009 only. The problem has been identified quickly. It will be fixed quickly. No big deal.
Um, didn't they say that there would be NO ICE on the north pole in 2008? It's 2009 and there is still ice on the North Pole.
Now, I understand that scientists can be wrong. That's perfectly acceptable. We are all human, after all. However, based on the fact that scientists can be wrong, and in this case and many like it they are, I'm not willing to give up rights, like the ability to regulate the temperature in my own home or drive myself to work, based on data that can be, and in this case is, flawed.
There is a British "science writer" named Nigel Calder who claims that AGW is a huge fraud by the scientific establishment, and that counter-evidence is always suppressed. This little episode shows that Calder is speaking out of his anus, which means it may serve some useful purpose.
If this revelation were made in 2008, you'd have a point, but to make a prediction as dire as this one and then come out a year later and say "oops, the data was bad" a year after your prediction has been proved false proves Calder's point, not the other way around.
"We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data."
And our historical data shows terrible calamity awaiting us at every turn, and even if reality doesn't bear this out, it makes sense that we should continue to sound the alarm because if we do decide to face reality people may not take us and our hysterical blatherings seriously.
We'd rather just keep on using outdated modes of measurement and forecasting that give incorrect results every year because the results fit our hypothesis better. And what better to support a hypothesis than data that will back it up?
Right! If the data doesn't back our conclusions, use different data!
This is one of those things that grabbed by the neck and whipped around like a dog shaking a dead squirrel by the "It ain't warming up" folks.
Maybe it's because we are tired of people (read: activists and politicians) trying to take away our rights based on bunk data.
Why is it that people who refuse to show ID to board a plane because it "violates their rights" are the same ones that are perfectly happy letting the state of California change the thermostat settings in their home?
If you are going to call my house, you are making something happen inside my home, probably without my permission. If you are going to do that, I have a RIGHT to know who you are and where you are calling from.
Don't want me to know who you are? Fine, don't call me.
If you subscribe to a telephone service, you are paying for a service that is known to cause your phones to ring when your telephone number is dialed. You have the RIGHT to disable the ringer or not subscribe to the service.
Don't want to be interrupted? Disable your ringers or disconnect your phone line.
I've bolded the key part there for ya. Hope it helps you understand why MY right to know who is making my phone ring is more important than YOUR right to call me anonymously.
I pay for a phone so I can talk with family and friends, all of which understand that they may not call me without their number displaying on the caller ID. Is your "right" to contact me against my wishes more important than MY RIGHT to have a phone, especially when considering that I PAY for that phone service? Hell NO! Saying that it you should somehow be allowed to call me anonymously on the line I pay for is like me saying I have a RIGHT to turn on your car radio and pick the station! Oh, you don't like it? Then don't have a car radio, bitch!
Because that's over kill. There is no justification for requiring that the number be shown. The fact of the matter is that the number can be spoofed and some of us don't want our number to show up for one reason or another.
I shouldn't have to reveal my number just because the other party wants it, if they really want it they should have to ask. That way I get a say in whether or not my number ends up on a list.
Sort of like how you have to pay a fee to get out of the telephone book, why it is that the phone companies can put it in without permission is beyond me.
If you are going to call my house, you are making something happen inside my home, probably without my permission. If you are going to do that, I have a RIGHT to know who you are and where you are calling from.
Don't want me to know who you are? Fine, don't call me.
It has been said that all you need to do is see one child eating out of a garbage can to realize that maybe abortion is not such a bad idea.
Well, next time you see a kid eating out of a garbage can, why don't you ask him? Walk up to him, hand him a gun and say, "I think you would better off dead, but since I'm about the freedom of choice, I'll let you choose to be an aborted or not."
You see, we see it as killing babies. You may not think it's a baby, but a simple DNA test will prove that it really is a separate human than either the mother or the father.
I never said I was pro-choice, just that I don't want that to be the FOCUS of their platform. I mean, they really can't come up with more important stuff to discuss with all the problems we have these days? As for your request for citation... okay, so maybe I exaggerated a little bit, but I still felt like they were focusing on all the wrong things for about 40% of their campaign. To be fair, it was mostly Palin. I liked McCain for the most part.
OK, that's fair. But also keep in mind that what you hear may not be what the subject wants you to hear. For example, I've never heard Palin say that she was against abortion from a legal point of view. She's passed no laws in Alaska limiting abortion. I knew she was pro-life because of her actions. She walked the walk and had a Downs baby, even though she knew she was having a Downs baby. She was actually attacked for practicing what she preached. Same for her daughter. As for the media view, they painted Palin as a right-wing, kill-the-bunnies, ban-evolution redneck, where I saw a down to earth, real world, non-elitist working mother who buys diapers at Walmart... just like I have done. (When do you think the last time Obama, McCain or Biden entered a Walmart, K-Mart, or whatever other store that working, non-millionaire people shop in?)
Of course, all I heard about Obama is how eloquent he spoke, how big his heart was, how good looking he was, how good of shape he was in and how much he sacrificed for the poor.
My point is that abortion is not the FOCUS of the Republican platform. For that matter, I would say that it was less of an issue for Republicans than for Democrats. Republicans are (supposed to be) for lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, local control, strong defense and a general sense of ethics/justice. Unfortunately, that's not what gets the headlines and whatever the media focuses on becomes what the people see as the FOCUS of the platform.
When the republicans hoist up someone who has a plan for their office besides attacking abortion and gays...
Citation please.
OK, Republicans are against abortion, and for the most part, always will be. You see, we see it as killing babies. You may not think it's a baby, but a simple DNA test will prove that it really is a separate human than either the mother or the father. So, yeah, we see it as killing babies and will continue to stand against it. Neither a mother, nor anyone else should have the "right" to kill anyone else that is no threat and has committed no crime.
Besides, after eight years of a Republican president, many of those with a Republican controlled congress, we still have abortions and gays. So....
Watch the video. The "boat" that is towed behind you is smaller than the typical jet-ski and it is tethered to you. You fly where you want to go and the "boat" follows you. It actually looks pretty cool.
What exactly are the advantages over just simply using a boat?
Think of this as an uber-cool SeaDoo. A SeaDoo has no advantages over a boat other than it's more fun to drive. Same with this thing.
Actually, the pilot runs on beer. I know I'd have to be running on beer or some other common sense inhibiting drug to fly this thing before it becomes better tested.
This seems more of a limit on a jetpack than I'd be willing to accept. I mean, cruising along 100 feet over the ground (Well, the water) is fine until you hit a dock, or accidentally go over land. Then you've got 100 feet of free-fall.
As a bonus, you're almost guaranteed for this thing to ONLY fail when you're NOT over water, eliminating the only chance you have of surviving that big of a fall.
Right! Just like a jet-ski, boat or any other water craft tends to fail when pulled out of the water. Well, except on a jet-ski, you impact the pier at 50 mph whereas with this thing, you your jets fail and you fall on to the pier or bank. There is no mention of how this thing operates when it's pulled out of the water. The jets may die all at once, causing you to free-fall, or the pressure may drop over a few seconds, giving you are much softer landing.
Starting in Victorian England there was substantial labour reform to do away with child labour and improve working conditions. During the industrial revolution people had gotten the idea they could use abuse cheap and underpaid labour in new factories, and got away with it for a while, but this eventually lead to reform.
Now while I find it plausible the similar scenario of reform may happen in China, I doubt it will happen soon. What has happened to western nations is not necessarily directly transferable to China. But I do believe things may improve, but clearly China's labour conditions are not sustainable, things will change one way or another.
You will not see the government mandate that workers are treated better as long as the government owns the factories.
The bill isn't perfect, but the government putting cash into the economy is the whole point of the bill
Cutting taxes is the government putting money into the economy. The difference is that when taxes are cut, the people decide what to do with their money. People spend it or invest it. Those that invest do so with the intention of producing MORE money in the future. Those that spend it support those that invested and get something they want in return. Both stimulate jobs, which creates more spending, which creates more jobs and so on. It becomes a self sufficient ecosystem that is ever increasing. Economies need to increase or they die.
With the current stimulus bill, the GOVERNMENT is deciding what to do with the money. Government does not care about ROI, therefor, the government does not invest, just spend. Sure, it creates jobs in the short term, but these jobs are wholly dependent on the government. Once the money dries up, so do the jobs.
They advocate for affordable housing. They don't receive money to buy houses and rent them to poor people. Try reading the quote in it's entirety rather than just the two words you like.
Again, I'm not trying to defend ACORN. They're a little out there and their actions in the recent election was flat out wrong. But the notion that they are getting money from the stimulus to buy up houses and give them to poor people is just plain false.
And I would still like to hear your reasoning behind construction jobs being bad due to their temporary nature.
May I suggest you Google "acorn stimulus bill" (no quotes) for more information. In a nutshell:
...there is $5.2 billion for community-development block grants and "neighborhood stabilization activities," which ACORN is eligible to apply for.
Again, maybe it's a great plan, but tell me again how it creates jobs?
The notion that cutting taxes is the key to reversing the current financial crisis is laughable. The numerous tax cuts enacted over the course of the previous administration (which are still in effect) are proof enough of that. Not to say that tax cuts don't help. Indeed, there are many additional tax cuts present in the current stimulus bill. But, as has been pointed out by many others, the credit markets are locked up, and there is simply no institution in the United States right now with the resources to get things moving again except the federal government.
Really? Remember Alan Greenspan? If I recall, wasn't he hailed as a hero and called the "maestro of the best economic boom in American history"? Tax cuts increase the economy. The numerous tax cuts enacted over the course of the previous administration (which are still in effect) are proof enough of that. Also, the beauty of it is that tax CUTS don't cost the government any money. Look at the total government receipts (amount of money the government took in from taxpayers) and you'll see that it went UP during the Bush administration as taxes wend down.
Now the problem with building schools is.... well nothing, except when the federal government does it with the goal of "stimulating the economy". Please, tell me, how is building schools different than say hiring a bathroom attendant for every public restroom? These people will make money and spend it, right? Isn't that why you said building schools is a good idea?
See, like public restrooms, schools don't stimulate the economy, at least not within 20 years or so. Schools actually cost tax payers money to run and pay employees. Schools are not a financial credit. They are a debit. Schools are actually a drag on the economy since taxes are a drag and schools are paid for by taxes. Now, let's say, instead of a school, the government built a Walmart. First, you'd get the same construction benefits you would receive from building the school. Next, you employ about 600 people to work there, all of which pay taxes (to offset the cost). Don't forget that you add cheap, disposable, made in China products to the community and finally, YOU STIMULATE THE ECONOMY PERMANENTLY because those jobs do not go away when the project is done. As for the construction worker, they get more work as well. In my entire life, I've never seen a Walmart stand alone. There is always something that gets built around them to feed of the traffic that is generated by the store.
Now I have no problems building schools. I think schools are great, but it's not the federal government's job. Schools are local. Why should MY Texan tax dollars go to pay for a school to be built in Lansing MI? My Texan Taxes should stay here and build the schools that MY kids will go to. Let Lansing build their own damn schools!
further shows how wrong you are. Where do you think that all that money goes? It doesn't evaporate, it's paid to the workers, who in turn spend it, which in turn gets money moving again, which is what the whole stimulus bill is all about!
Sure. But for how long? See my Walmart example above. Maybe that will help you understand how local businesses mean more money for government, more jobs for the people and more local businesses, meaning more taxes, jobs, and businesses, meaning more.... Get the picture? Sure, there is some temporary economic benefit for building a school, but then it becomes a drag. The government must pay for the light bill, the water bill, teachers, busses and so on. Businesses, on the other hand, pay for all this stuff themselves and even PAY THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE TO DO IT!!!!!
So, like I said, I have nothing against schools. I do have a problem with stuff being put into bills that have nothing to do with the intention of the bill. Putting schools under stimulus is like putting a military base on a medical bill. It has little to nothing to do with what the bill is
I really would still like to hear how construction jobs aren't real jobs.
Nice try. The problems are not with construction jobs, but whose paying for it. You see, the federal government can not keep sending construction workers from school to school all across the country. They are going to build local schools with local companies and when those schools are built, those people will be laid off again and we'll be back where we started, only about a trillion dollars poorer.
Wouldn't it be better to cut taxes on small businesses and eliminate the capital gains taxes? Imagine if every small business in America were able to hire one extra person. Imagine the amount of investor capital that would be poured into big business to expand factories and plants. These wouldn't be temporary jobs, dependent upon the generosity of the tax payer, but permanent, productive jobs that are.... wait for it... here is the kicker STIMULATING THE ECONOMY!!!
How does allocating money so groups like ACORN can purchase houses and rent them out create jobs?
Seriously, I keep hearing this come up in Republican talking points, and it's just plain wrong. ACORN is not a real estate company. From Wikipedia:
ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is a community-based organization that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues.
They are an advocacy group. They aren't getting money to buy houses and give them to poor people. (I'm not trying to advocate for ACORN, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the whole OMG ACORN IS GETTING MONEY FOR HOUSES argument.)
Did you see where I bolded AFFORDABLE HOUSING? Wasn't providing billions of dollars so that people could have homes they couldn't afford what knocked down the first domino in all this? I have nothing against affordable housing, but I don't think that people should have homes they can't afford. I don't and I work my ass off! I also don't think that government money should be allocated to help a "charitable group", such as ACORN that is so obviously partisan.
In other words, don't let the facts cloud your preconceived judgment of "Republicans bad, Democrats good".
Maybe you should consider what you're saying before making stupid statements.
"Bipartisanship" isn't useful in this context, because one party is working from macroeconomic theory and reason, and the other party is working from the ideological mantra of "Spending Bad. Tax Cuts Good." To the Congressional Republicans, things like school construction won't result in jobs for construction workers: apparently magic pixies will simply drop the new schools out of the sky in exchange for our money.
President Obama needs to realize that it's the U.S. Congress, not the Snuggle-Senate, and beat some heads together to get good policy through. The $800b he proposed was too small to begin with, and all of these cuts make it more likely that we're not going to have enough stimulus to do anything useful.
Oh my God you are so full of crap. No one is saying that building schools won't employ people. What is being said is, "what happens to those jobs when the schools built?" These are not permanent jobs.
Also, building schools is not what Republicans object to. It's the millions to birth control programs. How does giving out condoms provide jobs? How is money to Amtrak going to produce jobs? Sure, it helps out the people working for Amtrak, but every passenger on Amtrak is NON-passenger on Greyhound or Delta. How does extending unemployment benefits create jobs? How does allocating money so groups like ACORN can purchase houses and rent them out create jobs?
Now these may be great ideas, but they do NOT belong in the "stimulus" package if they do not stimulate. Seriously, how big of a moron do you have to be to NOT understand that?
In other words, don't let the facts cloud your preconceived judgment of "Republicans bad, Democrats good".
Yep! Google confirms it. Since my mother is 60, I appreciate you paying attention to her. And even though she considers you to be only a small appetizer, you do keep her from calling me for about 3 minutes.
No, I'm not saying that at all. You have completely misunderstood me. I've done a lot of compiling and packaging in my time, and you sound like you don't understand the issues involved at all.
OK. So you are saying that unified package manager would require a unified library versioning across all distro's? Yeah, that could be a problem. It could be overcome, however, by using static libraries. It's not as disk efficient as shared libraries, but with TB size disks, I wouldn't be concerned. Besides, it seems to work pretty well with Windows. I can hit Best Buy and purchase a copy of Turbo Tax and be fairly certain that it will work with anything newer than NT4. Games are a different issue, but only because MS doesn't want to make new version of Direct X backward compatible, forcing an upgrade. Is this really something that Windows can do that Linux can't?
Tell me, how would your wonderful unified package manager cope with a C++ binary compiled with, for example, gcc-4.2.4 on a system where the C++ libraries were compiled with, say, gcc-3.4.6?
Would this not be solved by using precompiled binaries and/or the option to build from source like you can with apt and RPM? Is it really that big of a deal to have multiple copies of the same libraries with differing versions on one system? Granted, I don't code anymore so I won't guess as to how it can be done, but maybe my ignorance keeping me from thinking that it can't be done.
What you are proposing is "One True Distribution." Package managers are irrelevant. What defines a distribution (amongst other things) is the set of software that it comprises. The package manager is only there to help with installing and removing things and to warn when dependencies are missing. What you're really asking is that all distributions come with the same versions of the same libraries, applications and utilities, all compiled with the same options for the same processor architecture. In other words, a single distribution
No. Package manager != Distribution. Ubuntu, LinuxMint, Linspire, Debian and many others all use apt-get. With a little tweaking, there is no reason that the same apt package can't work on each distro. However, Ubuntu, LinuxMint, Debian and so on are all very different distributions. What makes a distro is the software it comes with, not how you install and maintain new software! You mentioned three different distro's that can use RPM right after saying that a unified package manager means the end of distinct distro's. Or do you think that Slack, Cent, and RH are all the same thing? Ubuntu can use RPM's via alien. Are you telling that there is no difference between Ubuntu and Slack?
Also, identical package management does not mean cookie cutter distro's. Take Gentoo for example. All Gentoo boxes share the same package manager (portage/emerge), but you would be hard pressed to find two identical Gentoo boxes. Also, when you consider that like apt-get, there are several distro's that use emerge, it drives the point home further.
Also, there's this thing called Java which has a portable VM, extensive, mature libraries and several languages to choose from... If only people wrote more applications for the Java platform. There is also WINE.
First, Java sux. Sure, it's a great idea, but in practice the performance, or lack thereof, kills it. Also, Java is not free (as in speech). Sun wholly owns it. WINE is also not a bad idea, but it's certainly nowhere near perfect. Some apps work. Some apps do not. And even those that work don't perform as well as they do on a native Windows box and usually require a bit of tweaking... LOTS of tweaking for some. And even if WINE was perfect in that all software worked flawlessly, it defeats the whole purpose of running a Linux box. The idea for many is to be free of MS. Depending on WINE being dependent of Redmond.
A unified package manager simply means that the same package can be installed on all distros that support it with no interaction from the user. It would allow developers to release one package of their software and be done with it. There would be no more converting the same app and all its upgrades to portage, apt-get, RPM, RPM-MDK and so on. It would be a one shot, here's the package that everyone can use release.
And just how to you propose to regulate, police and enforce the production of Linux distributions? Perhaps each should pay a fee to use the name "Linux?"
Linux distributions are like god: there as many different ones as there are people that believe in it.
Trying to artificially limit the production of Linux distributions would be complete against the whole Open Source and Free Software philosophies, and against freedom and human nature in general. It's an absurd idea, and Linus is right on this issue.
Impossibility of enforcement does not make something a good idea. Right now, the only thing Linux distro's share is the kernel code. Once compiled, even that varies wildly. This is not a bad thing, by the way, but it does cause confusion among prospective users and is a complete nightmare for developers.
What is needed is a unified package management system that is compatible among all Linux distro's. This would allow developers to concentrate their efforts on one installation routine and would remove the roadblock for commercial software developers to consider porting their current Windows apps to Linux. Linux will not take off until users can go to their local Best Buy or Walmart and purchase the software they need.
An example would be my parents. I would love to "convert" them, but as business owners, they need (or really like) Quickbooks to handle their day to day accounting. There is no Quickbooks equivalent for Linux, and even if there were an Open Source alternative, since it's not on the shelves, they will never hear about it. If they were to open up synaptic and look for it, it would take about two seconds for them to be lost in list of thousands of libraries and language options. It needs to be on the shelves or they will never find it. It will not be on the shelves until Intuit can release a version that will be guaranteed to install and work on any Linux distribution.
It's laughable that/. bashes Windows for it's SP2 is functional development but has little to no criticism for open source software(and especially KDE). If somebody releases x.0 I expect it to be functional with major bugs as they should be caught in alpha/beta/rc. Should we have to wait for KDE4.5 instead?
That's the beauty of Linux that you won't find in neither OSX nor Windows. We can bitch and moan about KDE while we log off and log back in using Gnome, XFCE, or even KDE 3.5. It's that simple.
Now if you don't like the new Windows or OSX interface... well, sorry. Life's a bitch! Get used to it. Oh, and thanx for the cash.
The problem was solved by new technologies invented, developed, an popularised by private individuals looking to either make a buck or solve a problem that they faced personally. Not by any committee of busybodies trying to save the world.
Which doesn't mean things this time will be the same.
Are you willing to bet the life sustaining characteristics of the earth on that?
Life has been found over 60 km beneath the Earth's surfaces. I think that 1.6 degrees or whatever change is not going to end life on Earth. The Earth has been much warmer in the past than the most alarmist GW predictions. It has been much colder than the the most alarmist GW predictions. After both, the Earth came out of it just fine with life intact. Life is flexible and mostly mobile. If it gets cold, we are capable of moving toward the equator. If it gets warm, we are capable of moving away from the equator. Creatures that can't move or adapt die and make room for those that can. It's Darwinism at its finest.
So stop with the "Sky is Falling!" rhetoric and get a life already. People like you are only hurting whatever cause you are trying to foster.
Uhh, I didn't say KDE 4 was great, but simply that GNOME sucks. I am still using KDE 3.5 myself and probably won't switch to 4 until 4.2 or probably 4.3. Everything you mentioned about KDE 4 is spot on and that's part of why I don't like it. It's also missing features, has stability issues and is much slower than 3.5. KWin still can't do compositing without visual glitches and major slowdowns on my machine, where KDE 3.5 did just fine and compiz also works great.
OK, all this I agree with.
Unfortunately, going back to 3.5 is not an option for me. Too many dependencies would be broke. I think this is the first time I wish a project was forked.
Slashdot Mirror
This error relates to Jan/Feb 2009 only. The problem has been identified quickly. It will be fixed quickly. No big deal.
Um, didn't they say that there would be NO ICE on the north pole in 2008? It's 2009 and there is still ice on the North Pole.
Now, I understand that scientists can be wrong. That's perfectly acceptable. We are all human, after all. However, based on the fact that scientists can be wrong, and in this case and many like it they are, I'm not willing to give up rights, like the ability to regulate the temperature in my own home or drive myself to work, based on data that can be, and in this case is, flawed.
There is a British "science writer" named Nigel Calder who claims that AGW is a huge fraud by the scientific establishment, and that counter-evidence is always suppressed. This little episode shows that Calder is speaking out of his anus, which means it may serve some useful purpose.
If this revelation were made in 2008, you'd have a point, but to make a prediction as dire as this one and then come out a year later and say "oops, the data was bad" a year after your prediction has been proved false proves Calder's point, not the other way around.
"We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data."
And our historical data shows terrible calamity awaiting us at every turn, and even if reality doesn't bear this out, it makes sense that we should continue to sound the alarm because if we do decide to face reality people may not take us and our hysterical blatherings seriously.
We'd rather just keep on using outdated modes of measurement and forecasting that give incorrect results every year because the results fit our hypothesis better. And what better to support a hypothesis than data that will back it up?
Right! If the data doesn't back our conclusions, use different data!
This is one of those things that grabbed by the neck and whipped around like a dog shaking a dead squirrel by the "It ain't warming up" folks.
Maybe it's because we are tired of people (read: activists and politicians) trying to take away our rights based on bunk data.
Why is it that people who refuse to show ID to board a plane because it "violates their rights" are the same ones that are perfectly happy letting the state of California change the thermostat settings in their home?
If you subscribe to a telephone service, you are paying for a service that is known to cause your phones to ring when your telephone number is dialed. You have the RIGHT to disable the ringer or not subscribe to the service.
Don't want to be interrupted? Disable your ringers or disconnect your phone line.
I've bolded the key part there for ya. Hope it helps you understand why MY right to know who is making my phone ring is more important than YOUR right to call me anonymously.
I pay for a phone so I can talk with family and friends, all of which understand that they may not call me without their number displaying on the caller ID. Is your "right" to contact me against my wishes more important than MY RIGHT to have a phone, especially when considering that I PAY for that phone service? Hell NO! Saying that it you should somehow be allowed to call me anonymously on the line I pay for is like me saying I have a RIGHT to turn on your car radio and pick the station! Oh, you don't like it? Then don't have a car radio, bitch!
Because that's over kill. There is no justification for requiring that the number be shown. The fact of the matter is that the number can be spoofed and some of us don't want our number to show up for one reason or another.
I shouldn't have to reveal my number just because the other party wants it, if they really want it they should have to ask. That way I get a say in whether or not my number ends up on a list.
Sort of like how you have to pay a fee to get out of the telephone book, why it is that the phone companies can put it in without permission is beyond me.
If you are going to call my house, you are making something happen inside my home, probably without my permission. If you are going to do that, I have a RIGHT to know who you are and where you are calling from.
Don't want me to know who you are? Fine, don't call me.
It has been said that all you need to do is see one child eating out of a garbage can to realize that maybe abortion is not such a bad idea.
Well, next time you see a kid eating out of a garbage can, why don't you ask him? Walk up to him, hand him a gun and say, "I think you would better off dead, but since I'm about the freedom of choice, I'll let you choose to be an aborted or not."
You see, we see it as killing babies. You may not think it's a baby, but a simple DNA test will prove that it really is a separate human than either the mother or the father.
I never said I was pro-choice, just that I don't want that to be the FOCUS of their platform. I mean, they really can't come up with more important stuff to discuss with all the problems we have these days? As for your request for citation... okay, so maybe I exaggerated a little bit, but I still felt like they were focusing on all the wrong things for about 40% of their campaign. To be fair, it was mostly Palin. I liked McCain for the most part.
OK, that's fair. But also keep in mind that what you hear may not be what the subject wants you to hear. For example, I've never heard Palin say that she was against abortion from a legal point of view. She's passed no laws in Alaska limiting abortion. I knew she was pro-life because of her actions. She walked the walk and had a Downs baby, even though she knew she was having a Downs baby. She was actually attacked for practicing what she preached. Same for her daughter. As for the media view, they painted Palin as a right-wing, kill-the-bunnies, ban-evolution redneck, where I saw a down to earth, real world, non-elitist working mother who buys diapers at Walmart... just like I have done. (When do you think the last time Obama, McCain or Biden entered a Walmart, K-Mart, or whatever other store that working, non-millionaire people shop in?)
Of course, all I heard about Obama is how eloquent he spoke, how big his heart was, how good looking he was, how good of shape he was in and how much he sacrificed for the poor.
My point is that abortion is not the FOCUS of the Republican platform. For that matter, I would say that it was less of an issue for Republicans than for Democrats. Republicans are (supposed to be) for lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, local control, strong defense and a general sense of ethics/justice. Unfortunately, that's not what gets the headlines and whatever the media focuses on becomes what the people see as the FOCUS of the platform.
When the republicans hoist up someone who has a plan for their office besides attacking abortion and gays...
Citation please.
OK, Republicans are against abortion, and for the most part, always will be. You see, we see it as killing babies. You may not think it's a baby, but a simple DNA test will prove that it really is a separate human than either the mother or the father. So, yeah, we see it as killing babies and will continue to stand against it. Neither a mother, nor anyone else should have the "right" to kill anyone else that is no threat and has committed no crime.
Besides, after eight years of a Republican president, many of those with a Republican controlled congress, we still have abortions and gays. So....
Citation please.
I assume this is dragging the boat after you.
Watch the video. The "boat" that is towed behind you is smaller than the typical jet-ski and it is tethered to you. You fly where you want to go and the "boat" follows you. It actually looks pretty cool.
What exactly are the advantages over just simply using a boat?
Think of this as an uber-cool SeaDoo. A SeaDoo has no advantages over a boat other than it's more fun to drive. Same with this thing.
More than likely that it runs on beer.
Actually, the pilot runs on beer. I know I'd have to be running on beer or some other common sense inhibiting drug to fly this thing before it becomes better tested.
This seems more of a limit on a jetpack than I'd be willing to accept. I mean, cruising along 100 feet over the ground (Well, the water) is fine until you hit a dock, or accidentally go over land. Then you've got 100 feet of free-fall.
As a bonus, you're almost guaranteed for this thing to ONLY fail when you're NOT over water, eliminating the only chance you have of surviving that big of a fall.
Right! Just like a jet-ski, boat or any other water craft tends to fail when pulled out of the water. Well, except on a jet-ski, you impact the pier at 50 mph whereas with this thing, you your jets fail and you fall on to the pier or bank. There is no mention of how this thing operates when it's pulled out of the water. The jets may die all at once, causing you to free-fall, or the pressure may drop over a few seconds, giving you are much softer landing.
Starting in Victorian England there was substantial labour reform to do away with child labour and improve working conditions. During the industrial revolution people had gotten the idea they could use abuse cheap and underpaid labour in new factories, and got away with it for a while, but this eventually lead to reform.
Now while I find it plausible the similar scenario of reform may happen in China, I doubt it will happen soon. What has happened to western nations is not necessarily directly transferable to China. But I do believe things may improve, but clearly China's labour conditions are not sustainable, things will change one way or another.
You will not see the government mandate that workers are treated better as long as the government owns the factories.
One thing stands out:
The bill isn't perfect, but the government putting cash into the economy is the whole point of the bill
Cutting taxes is the government putting money into the economy. The difference is that when taxes are cut, the people decide what to do with their money. People spend it or invest it. Those that invest do so with the intention of producing MORE money in the future. Those that spend it support those that invested and get something they want in return. Both stimulate jobs, which creates more spending, which creates more jobs and so on. It becomes a self sufficient ecosystem that is ever increasing. Economies need to increase or they die.
With the current stimulus bill, the GOVERNMENT is deciding what to do with the money. Government does not care about ROI, therefor, the government does not invest, just spend. Sure, it creates jobs in the short term, but these jobs are wholly dependent on the government. Once the money dries up, so do the jobs.
They advocate for affordable housing. They don't receive money to buy houses and rent them to poor people. Try reading the quote in it's entirety rather than just the two words you like.
Again, I'm not trying to defend ACORN. They're a little out there and their actions in the recent election was flat out wrong. But the notion that they are getting money from the stimulus to buy up houses and give them to poor people is just plain false.
And I would still like to hear your reasoning behind construction jobs being bad due to their temporary nature.
May I suggest you Google "acorn stimulus bill" (no quotes) for more information. In a nutshell:
...there is $5.2 billion for community-development block grants and "neighborhood stabilization activities," which ACORN is eligible to apply for.
Again, maybe it's a great plan, but tell me again how it creates jobs?
The notion that cutting taxes is the key to reversing the current financial crisis is laughable. The numerous tax cuts enacted over the course of the previous administration (which are still in effect) are proof enough of that. Not to say that tax cuts don't help. Indeed, there are many additional tax cuts present in the current stimulus bill. But, as has been pointed out by many others, the credit markets are locked up, and there is simply no institution in the United States right now with the resources to get things moving again except the federal government.
Really? Remember Alan Greenspan? If I recall, wasn't he hailed as a hero and called the "maestro of the best economic boom in American history"? Tax cuts increase the economy. The numerous tax cuts enacted over the course of the previous administration (which are still in effect) are proof enough of that. Also, the beauty of it is that tax CUTS don't cost the government any money. Look at the total government receipts (amount of money the government took in from taxpayers) and you'll see that it went UP during the Bush administration as taxes wend down.
Now the problem with building schools is.... well nothing, except when the federal government does it with the goal of "stimulating the economy". Please, tell me, how is building schools different than say hiring a bathroom attendant for every public restroom? These people will make money and spend it, right? Isn't that why you said building schools is a good idea?
See, like public restrooms, schools don't stimulate the economy, at least not within 20 years or so. Schools actually cost tax payers money to run and pay employees. Schools are not a financial credit. They are a debit. Schools are actually a drag on the economy since taxes are a drag and schools are paid for by taxes. Now, let's say, instead of a school, the government built a Walmart. First, you'd get the same construction benefits you would receive from building the school. Next, you employ about 600 people to work there, all of which pay taxes (to offset the cost). Don't forget that you add cheap, disposable, made in China products to the community and finally, YOU STIMULATE THE ECONOMY PERMANENTLY because those jobs do not go away when the project is done. As for the construction worker, they get more work as well. In my entire life, I've never seen a Walmart stand alone. There is always something that gets built around them to feed of the traffic that is generated by the store.
Now I have no problems building schools. I think schools are great, but it's not the federal government's job. Schools are local. Why should MY Texan tax dollars go to pay for a school to be built in Lansing MI? My Texan Taxes should stay here and build the schools that MY kids will go to. Let Lansing build their own damn schools!
further shows how wrong you are. Where do you think that all that money goes? It doesn't evaporate, it's paid to the workers, who in turn spend it, which in turn gets money moving again, which is what the whole stimulus bill is all about!
Sure. But for how long? See my Walmart example above. Maybe that will help you understand how local businesses mean more money for government, more jobs for the people and more local businesses, meaning more taxes, jobs, and businesses, meaning more.... Get the picture? Sure, there is some temporary economic benefit for building a school, but then it becomes a drag. The government must pay for the light bill, the water bill, teachers, busses and so on. Businesses, on the other hand, pay for all this stuff themselves and even PAY THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE TO DO IT!!!!!
So, like I said, I have nothing against schools. I do have a problem with stuff being put into bills that have nothing to do with the intention of the bill. Putting schools under stimulus is like putting a military base on a medical bill. It has little to nothing to do with what the bill is
I really would still like to hear how construction jobs aren't real jobs.
Nice try. The problems are not with construction jobs, but whose paying for it. You see, the federal government can not keep sending construction workers from school to school all across the country. They are going to build local schools with local companies and when those schools are built, those people will be laid off again and we'll be back where we started, only about a trillion dollars poorer.
Wouldn't it be better to cut taxes on small businesses and eliminate the capital gains taxes? Imagine if every small business in America were able to hire one extra person. Imagine the amount of investor capital that would be poured into big business to expand factories and plants. These wouldn't be temporary jobs, dependent upon the generosity of the tax payer, but permanent, productive jobs that are.... wait for it... here is the kicker STIMULATING THE ECONOMY!!!
How does allocating money so groups like ACORN can purchase houses and rent them out create jobs?
Seriously, I keep hearing this come up in Republican talking points, and it's just plain wrong. ACORN is not a real estate company. From Wikipedia:
They are an advocacy group. They aren't getting money to buy houses and give them to poor people. (I'm not trying to advocate for ACORN, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the whole OMG ACORN IS GETTING MONEY FOR HOUSES argument.)
Did you see where I bolded AFFORDABLE HOUSING? Wasn't providing billions of dollars so that people could have homes they couldn't afford what knocked down the first domino in all this? I have nothing against affordable housing, but I don't think that people should have homes they can't afford. I don't and I work my ass off! I also don't think that government money should be allocated to help a "charitable group", such as ACORN that is so obviously partisan.
In other words, don't let the facts cloud your preconceived judgment of "Republicans bad, Democrats good".
Maybe you should consider what you're saying before making stupid statements.
You should take your own advice on that one.
"Bipartisanship" isn't useful in this context, because one party is working from macroeconomic theory and reason, and the other party is working from the ideological mantra of "Spending Bad. Tax Cuts Good." To the Congressional Republicans, things like school construction won't result in jobs for construction workers: apparently magic pixies will simply drop the new schools out of the sky in exchange for our money.
President Obama needs to realize that it's the U.S. Congress, not the Snuggle-Senate, and beat some heads together to get good policy through. The $800b he proposed was too small to begin with, and all of these cuts make it more likely that we're not going to have enough stimulus to do anything useful.
Oh my God you are so full of crap. No one is saying that building schools won't employ people. What is being said is, "what happens to those jobs when the schools built?" These are not permanent jobs.
Also, building schools is not what Republicans object to. It's the millions to birth control programs. How does giving out condoms provide jobs? How is money to Amtrak going to produce jobs? Sure, it helps out the people working for Amtrak, but every passenger on Amtrak is NON-passenger on Greyhound or Delta. How does extending unemployment benefits create jobs? How does allocating money so groups like ACORN can purchase houses and rent them out create jobs?
Now these may be great ideas, but they do NOT belong in the "stimulus" package if they do not stimulate. Seriously, how big of a moron do you have to be to NOT understand that?
In other words, don't let the facts cloud your preconceived judgment of "Republicans bad, Democrats good".
Current location:
Your mom.
Yep! Google confirms it. Since my mother is 60, I appreciate you paying attention to her. And even though she considers you to be only a small appetizer, you do keep her from calling me for about 3 minutes.
No, I'm not saying that at all. You have completely misunderstood me. I've done a lot of compiling and packaging in my time, and you sound like you don't understand the issues involved at all.
OK. So you are saying that unified package manager would require a unified library versioning across all distro's? Yeah, that could be a problem. It could be overcome, however, by using static libraries. It's not as disk efficient as shared libraries, but with TB size disks, I wouldn't be concerned. Besides, it seems to work pretty well with Windows. I can hit Best Buy and purchase a copy of Turbo Tax and be fairly certain that it will work with anything newer than NT4. Games are a different issue, but only because MS doesn't want to make new version of Direct X backward compatible, forcing an upgrade. Is this really something that Windows can do that Linux can't?
Tell me, how would your wonderful unified package manager cope with a C++ binary compiled with, for example, gcc-4.2.4 on a system where the C++ libraries were compiled with, say, gcc-3.4.6?
Would this not be solved by using precompiled binaries and/or the option to build from source like you can with apt and RPM? Is it really that big of a deal to have multiple copies of the same libraries with differing versions on one system? Granted, I don't code anymore so I won't guess as to how it can be done, but maybe my ignorance keeping me from thinking that it can't be done.
What you are proposing is "One True Distribution." Package managers are irrelevant. What defines a distribution (amongst other things) is the set of software that it comprises. The package manager is only there to help with installing and removing things and to warn when dependencies are missing. What you're really asking is that all distributions come with the same versions of the same libraries, applications and utilities, all compiled with the same options for the same processor architecture. In other words, a single distribution
No. Package manager != Distribution. Ubuntu, LinuxMint, Linspire, Debian and many others all use apt-get. With a little tweaking, there is no reason that the same apt package can't work on each distro. However, Ubuntu, LinuxMint, Debian and so on are all very different distributions. What makes a distro is the software it comes with, not how you install and maintain new software! You mentioned three different distro's that can use RPM right after saying that a unified package manager means the end of distinct distro's. Or do you think that Slack, Cent, and RH are all the same thing? Ubuntu can use RPM's via alien. Are you telling that there is no difference between Ubuntu and Slack?
Also, identical package management does not mean cookie cutter distro's. Take Gentoo for example. All Gentoo boxes share the same package manager (portage/emerge), but you would be hard pressed to find two identical Gentoo boxes. Also, when you consider that like apt-get, there are several distro's that use emerge, it drives the point home further.
Also, there's this thing called Java which has a portable VM, extensive, mature libraries and several languages to choose from... If only people wrote more applications for the Java platform. There is also WINE.
First, Java sux. Sure, it's a great idea, but in practice the performance, or lack thereof, kills it. Also, Java is not free (as in speech). Sun wholly owns it.
WINE is also not a bad idea, but it's certainly nowhere near perfect. Some apps work. Some apps do not. And even those that work don't perform as well as they do on a native Windows box and usually require a bit of tweaking... LOTS of tweaking for some. And even if WINE was perfect in that all software worked flawlessly, it defeats the whole purpose of running a Linux box. The idea for many is to be free of MS. Depending on WINE being dependent of Redmond.
A unified package manager simply means that the same package can be installed on all distros that support it with no interaction from the user. It would allow developers to release one package of their software and be done with it. There would be no more converting the same app and all its upgrades to portage, apt-get, RPM, RPM-MDK and so on. It would be a one shot, here's the package that everyone can use release.
And just how to you propose to regulate, police and enforce the production of Linux distributions? Perhaps each should pay a fee to use the name "Linux?"
Linux distributions are like god: there as many different ones as there are people that believe in it.
Trying to artificially limit the production of Linux distributions would be complete against the whole Open Source and Free Software philosophies, and against freedom and human nature in general. It's an absurd idea, and Linus is right on this issue.
Impossibility of enforcement does not make something a good idea. Right now, the only thing Linux distro's share is the kernel code. Once compiled, even that varies wildly. This is not a bad thing, by the way, but it does cause confusion among prospective users and is a complete nightmare for developers.
What is needed is a unified package management system that is compatible among all Linux distro's. This would allow developers to concentrate their efforts on one installation routine and would remove the roadblock for commercial software developers to consider porting their current Windows apps to Linux. Linux will not take off until users can go to their local Best Buy or Walmart and purchase the software they need.
An example would be my parents. I would love to "convert" them, but as business owners, they need (or really like) Quickbooks to handle their day to day accounting. There is no Quickbooks equivalent for Linux, and even if there were an Open Source alternative, since it's not on the shelves, they will never hear about it. If they were to open up synaptic and look for it, it would take about two seconds for them to be lost in list of thousands of libraries and language options. It needs to be on the shelves or they will never find it. It will not be on the shelves until Intuit can release a version that will be guaranteed to install and work on any Linux distribution.
It's laughable that /. bashes Windows for it's SP2 is functional development but has little to no criticism for open source software(and especially KDE). If somebody releases x.0 I expect it to be functional with major bugs as they should be caught in alpha/beta/rc. Should we have to wait for KDE4.5 instead?
That's the beauty of Linux that you won't find in neither OSX nor Windows. We can bitch and moan about KDE while we log off and log back in using Gnome, XFCE, or even KDE 3.5. It's that simple.
Now if you don't like the new Windows or OSX interface... well, sorry. Life's a bitch! Get used to it. Oh, and thanx for the cash.
The problem was solved by new technologies invented, developed, an popularised by private individuals looking to either make a buck or solve a problem that they faced personally. Not by any committee of busybodies trying to save the world.
Which doesn't mean things this time will be the same.
Are you willing to bet the life sustaining characteristics of the earth on that?
Life has been found over 60 km beneath the Earth's surfaces. I think that 1.6 degrees or whatever change is not going to end life on Earth. The Earth has been much warmer in the past than the most alarmist GW predictions. It has been much colder than the the most alarmist GW predictions. After both, the Earth came out of it just fine with life intact. Life is flexible and mostly mobile. If it gets cold, we are capable of moving toward the equator. If it gets warm, we are capable of moving away from the equator. Creatures that can't move or adapt die and make room for those that can. It's Darwinism at its finest.
So stop with the "Sky is Falling!" rhetoric and get a life already. People like you are only hurting whatever cause you are trying to foster.
Uhh, I didn't say KDE 4 was great, but simply that GNOME sucks. I am still using KDE 3.5 myself and probably won't switch to 4 until 4.2 or probably 4.3. Everything you mentioned about KDE 4 is spot on and that's part of why I don't like it. It's also missing features, has stability issues and is much slower than 3.5. KWin still can't do compositing without visual glitches and major slowdowns on my machine, where KDE 3.5 did just fine and compiz also works great.
OK, all this I agree with.
Unfortunately, going back to 3.5 is not an option for me. Too many dependencies would be broke. I think this is the first time I wish a project was forked.