You're right, and I would criticize Bush II for not pushing for smaller government, less spending, etc. I don't criticize him for spending where government SHOULD spend.
On the other hand, we appear to want to spend more on a lot more programs now. It was bad enough with the spending by republicans; it appears that it will be worse with the spending by democrats.
There was a lot of big talk by Obama and democrats, too. But post-election, I have heard very little about "cutting spending." New cars for government employees doesn't exactly sound like "cutting unnecessary spending."
I will criticize republicans or democrats, I don't care. Right now, though, republicans are voting against spending, and I give them credit for that. Democrats, overwhelmingly, are for it, pushing for it, EXCITED about the government, gov't spending, and debt getting bigger. And their version of "bipartisan" means "republicans have to vote for this, too, but we're not changing anything in it." So, I'll criticize them for that.
Openly, you say? Didn't Obama, for example (I know, Obama != Congress), very much stress the problem of the spending the last 8 years? In his first week or so in office, has he done anything about it? Not really, but he sure is pushing other things (including abortion stuff). IMO, what you push for when you are first given the power to push shows where your real priorities are. Openly? Yeah, openly now, but he wasn't necessarily elected on a policy of "I want to spend more on unreformed government programs." At least, that's not the message I got.
Yeah, those annoying conservative types and their spending. What we need are some good liberals in Congress and the White House to cut spending. Especially in times of recession. Prime example of cutting spending, of course, is the current Democrat-formed stimulus bill!
Sarcasm aside, if you look at past recessions (even CNN did this), Reagan's presidency/Congress got the US out of a recession that apparently Carter put us into. Reagan did spend, but certainly not like FDR spent. It seems that most liberals/democrats (I realize there is a different, but they tend to go together in practice) like FDR's version better - spend more, bigger government. Cutting taxes always seems to bring the outcry of "But the government doesn't have enough income to CUT taxes!"... but then they want to spend MORE.
Obama is different, one might say? Well, he doesn't seem particularly interested in cutting spending, so far. He's trying to get Republican/Conservative support on basically a spending bill (the "stimulus" plan). I haven't seen him pushing democrats to cut spending yet. And I haven't heard any reform of the programs yet, either. Just more money. Wonder where the money will come from.
Great way to get the US out of a recession is to go further into debt. Yay.
And by the way, Clinton economics led TO a recession, not out of a recession. Recessions don't happen overnight, as seen with this one. Am I defending Bush II? Not exactly, although we DID get out of the recession that occurred right after Clinton's presidency (dot-com bubble bursting). But one also happened at the end of Bush II, and IMO he was far too spendy. But if he, a republican, was spending too much, I can't imagine what we're in for now.
desperate to get out of the expense of managing Windows machines
Not everyone is desperate. The summary, without reading the article, is obviously biased. It sounds like a disgruntled Windows users writing an article about disgruntled Windows users.
I love Linux and would personally rather use it, but I know plenty of people that are perfectly happy with Windows. And I know a lot of people that aren't. Typically, the ones that aren't are interested in Linux and Mac, and the ones that are happy don't switch. I guess that's "odd" behavior according to this guy, who does not appear to acknowledge that Windows EVER works. Considering the fact that most people use Windows, it's amazing anybody makes ANY money, if I take this viewpoint.
Headaches... it's an excellent question. There were LED lights decorating a place that I went to last year, and one particular strand of them made me sick/dizzy/lightheaded. All the others were fine, but these were definitely not.
Fluorescent lights can do the same thing, though. It's a "weird" light and does make quite a few people that I know feel somewhat sickish.
On the "beloved" point, I can't see loving animals like people.
Strange as it is, people tend to treat their pets better than their family. Dog does something "bad" and it is cute or somehow bad but usually the dog is treated sternly and nicely. Kid does something "bad" and gets yelled at.
They would first need to get rid of their bad reputation for people to treat them fairly.
What would that take, then? It doesn't appear that, with some people, they can ever do that, since every good thing they do is dismissed in some form of a conspiracy theory, basically.
It's not like Microsoft, as a business, is trying to hide that it is trying to make money. Most businesses try to do that. So yeah, they probably want to make money somehow with this open source software thing. Maybe supporting it, and thus encouraging people to use Windows, and thus encourages people to buy Windows, is a good thing to them. So what? As long as free software is getting financed somehow, helped along, etc., who does it hurt?
I know that. I was unclear, but I was pointing out that I neither care about GNU/Stallman nor Linux/Linus. It could be called the "Pickle Kernel" and I wouldn't particularly care.
Yeah, Stallman and Torvalds are both pretty cool guys and I'm glad they wrote what they did, but if they didn't, probably someone else would have... so in the spirit of the whole free software thing, I don't think I am obliged to bow down before their names or anything like that, whether the 'name' created the Linux kernel, GNU stuff, Windows, Mac, etc. I'm one of those annoying consumers that just uses it, I guess.:) If "Linux" ended up being called "Strident" or something, I wouldn't care. Even if a guy name Linus Torvalds created it. Or Stallman. Or whatever.
Seems to me that "free software" should be able to be called whatever 'it' wants to be, too, hehe.
Hm. Ignore the fact that almost all OS's still come in 32 bit and 64 bit? That some people run 32 bit still? Some devices don't have 64 bit drivers? Etc.
32 vs 64 bit isn't confusing for those that know what it is, and those that don't aren't going to know the difference. So why complain?
I am definitely not politically correct (I'm a white male, for one thing). But in dealing with the international audience on slashdot, I figured I would use the "scary" "quotes," hehe.
I think I left that to your worldview for consideration, not mine... since I don't adhere to an atheistic evolutionary standpoint, my basis for defining "natural" or "unnatural" is likely different.:)
I am aghast. Please use proper capitalization of "GNU." Your lack of respect for the roots of your operating system is disgusts me.
:P Seriously, I read the GNU website stuff (some of it) and... ok, I get the point, but it's almost like they're on an ego trip, whining about how people are giving them proper credit, and wanting everyone to know how important they are. Frankly, I don't honestly care that much about Linus. And why not give credit to people who created Unix, since it's hard to write an OS that isn't influenced by current OS's?
Meh. If "Free Software" and "Open Source" and "GNU/Linux" means that sort of elite "you need to remember your roots and never use non-free software no matter how much it costs you or anyone else! Refuse to make money using any non-free software! And don't forget who we are!" attitude... well, even Microsoft doesn't seem that bad:) And I LIKE free software. And donations. And Magnatune. And dislike Apple. And iTunes... [continue list of Slashdot Qualifications]
I presume a "yes." Things humans make aren't natural? What if a monkey learned to make something, would it be natural?
Obviously I have a point to make here. From the evolutionary standpoint that most say they hold, human machinery is just as natural as a monkey using a bone as a club (sorry, I just watched 2001: A Space Odyssey). It's time to define "nature" and why I don't get to be considered "natural." Which seems like it will be hard to do form the scientific/atheistic viewpoint. Even more so when people want to tell me that genetically modified stuff is just as natural as non GMO stuff... "natural" stuff. So on one hand, we can modify nature and be natural, and on the other hand we can't.
And yes, this is on topic, since "greenhouse gas emissions" implies that there are natural and unnatural things, and most of the time, "global warming" is linked to those horribly unnatural and wicked humans.
As opposed to whatever caused the last ice age when humans weren't around, I guess.
... In fact, not only is my name not actually my name nor am I even the person I actually am, I actually don't bank at the bank I have account with. It's all a ruse.
I'm always surprised that more "secure" websites don't let users use their own security question. It makes no sense to just always use "mother's maiden name" or "city of birth" or whatever. Why can't I use my own security question and pick something that I actually am one of the few people that know (me and maybe my wife or something)?
I'm not sure adding one more column to a database is going to produce a ton more overhead:)
Well, that depends on the developer and location, I suppose. But anyways, a full time developer on one project? Seems like, presuming the project isn't absolutely huge, that "good developer" should be able to get quite a bit done.
I agree that the sales people are generally pretty horrible (and incidentally, usually don't speak English clearly). But the store is still quite useful.
But hey, sales people online usually aren't very good, either;) I go to Fry's because it's a ton cheaper to pick up a case, hard drive, or whatever I need "right now" there than Best Buy or whatever.
May as well pass a low mandating all shoes to have "clicky" heels so that we can't sneak up on anyone. Silent shoes are the highest contributors to predatory actions!
Seriously, this is stupid. And besides, we all know someone will find a way to disable it, so it'll only make the non-bad people have to live with the click, right?
I guess legislators don't know what else to do with their time. You'd think they'd start, I don't know, spending less.... nah.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, and I would criticize Bush II for not pushing for smaller government, less spending, etc. I don't criticize him for spending where government SHOULD spend.
On the other hand, we appear to want to spend more on a lot more programs now. It was bad enough with the spending by republicans; it appears that it will be worse with the spending by democrats.
There was a lot of big talk by Obama and democrats, too. But post-election, I have heard very little about "cutting spending." New cars for government employees doesn't exactly sound like "cutting unnecessary spending."
I will criticize republicans or democrats, I don't care. Right now, though, republicans are voting against spending, and I give them credit for that. Democrats, overwhelmingly, are for it, pushing for it, EXCITED about the government, gov't spending, and debt getting bigger. And their version of "bipartisan" means "republicans have to vote for this, too, but we're not changing anything in it." So, I'll criticize them for that.
Openly, you say? Didn't Obama, for example (I know, Obama != Congress), very much stress the problem of the spending the last 8 years? In his first week or so in office, has he done anything about it? Not really, but he sure is pushing other things (including abortion stuff). IMO, what you push for when you are first given the power to push shows where your real priorities are. Openly? Yeah, openly now, but he wasn't necessarily elected on a policy of "I want to spend more on unreformed government programs." At least, that's not the message I got.
Yeah, those annoying conservative types and their spending. What we need are some good liberals in Congress and the White House to cut spending. Especially in times of recession. Prime example of cutting spending, of course, is the current Democrat-formed stimulus bill!
Sarcasm aside, if you look at past recessions (even CNN did this), Reagan's presidency/Congress got the US out of a recession that apparently Carter put us into. Reagan did spend, but certainly not like FDR spent. It seems that most liberals/democrats (I realize there is a different, but they tend to go together in practice) like FDR's version better - spend more, bigger government. Cutting taxes always seems to bring the outcry of "But the government doesn't have enough income to CUT taxes!" ... but then they want to spend MORE.
Obama is different, one might say? Well, he doesn't seem particularly interested in cutting spending, so far. He's trying to get Republican/Conservative support on basically a spending bill (the "stimulus" plan). I haven't seen him pushing democrats to cut spending yet. And I haven't heard any reform of the programs yet, either. Just more money. Wonder where the money will come from.
Great way to get the US out of a recession is to go further into debt. Yay.
And by the way, Clinton economics led TO a recession, not out of a recession. Recessions don't happen overnight, as seen with this one. Am I defending Bush II? Not exactly, although we DID get out of the recession that occurred right after Clinton's presidency (dot-com bubble bursting). But one also happened at the end of Bush II, and IMO he was far too spendy. But if he, a republican, was spending too much, I can't imagine what we're in for now.
desperate to get out of the expense of managing Windows machines
Not everyone is desperate. The summary, without reading the article, is obviously biased. It sounds like a disgruntled Windows users writing an article about disgruntled Windows users.
I love Linux and would personally rather use it, but I know plenty of people that are perfectly happy with Windows. And I know a lot of people that aren't. Typically, the ones that aren't are interested in Linux and Mac, and the ones that are happy don't switch. I guess that's "odd" behavior according to this guy, who does not appear to acknowledge that Windows EVER works. Considering the fact that most people use Windows, it's amazing anybody makes ANY money, if I take this viewpoint.
Are you posting to slashdot from work (with a browser)? ... like me?
;)
Maybe it would have gotten rid of them (should have happened when they went bankrupt, like what happens to most companies)...
Slightly sarcastic, but with a point.
Headaches... it's an excellent question. There were LED lights decorating a place that I went to last year, and one particular strand of them made me sick/dizzy/lightheaded. All the others were fine, but these were definitely not.
Fluorescent lights can do the same thing, though. It's a "weird" light and does make quite a few people that I know feel somewhat sickish.
Not siphon. Drink :)
Exactly. Not only doe sit not matter, but there *is* no matter (and won't be any matter afterwards) if the blackhole accident happens... ;)
On the "beloved" point, I can't see loving animals like people.
Strange as it is, people tend to treat their pets better than their family. Dog does something "bad" and it is cute or somehow bad but usually the dog is treated sternly and nicely. Kid does something "bad" and gets yelled at.
They would first need to get rid of their bad reputation for people to treat them fairly.
What would that take, then? It doesn't appear that, with some people, they can ever do that, since every good thing they do is dismissed in some form of a conspiracy theory, basically.
It's not like Microsoft, as a business, is trying to hide that it is trying to make money. Most businesses try to do that. So yeah, they probably want to make money somehow with this open source software thing. Maybe supporting it, and thus encouraging people to use Windows, and thus encourages people to buy Windows, is a good thing to them. So what? As long as free software is getting financed somehow, helped along, etc., who does it hurt?
I know that. I was unclear, but I was pointing out that I neither care about GNU/Stallman nor Linux/Linus. It could be called the "Pickle Kernel" and I wouldn't particularly care.
Yeah, Stallman and Torvalds are both pretty cool guys and I'm glad they wrote what they did, but if they didn't, probably someone else would have... so in the spirit of the whole free software thing, I don't think I am obliged to bow down before their names or anything like that, whether the 'name' created the Linux kernel, GNU stuff, Windows, Mac, etc. I'm one of those annoying consumers that just uses it, I guess. :) If "Linux" ended up being called "Strident" or something, I wouldn't care. Even if a guy name Linus Torvalds created it. Or Stallman. Or whatever.
Seems to me that "free software" should be able to be called whatever 'it' wants to be, too, hehe.
Hm. Ignore the fact that almost all OS's still come in 32 bit and 64 bit? That some people run 32 bit still? Some devices don't have 64 bit drivers? Etc.
32 vs 64 bit isn't confusing for those that know what it is, and those that don't aren't going to know the difference. So why complain?
I am definitely not politically correct (I'm a white male, for one thing). But in dealing with the international audience on slashdot, I figured I would use the "scary" "quotes," hehe.
I think I left that to your worldview for consideration, not mine... since I don't adhere to an atheistic evolutionary standpoint, my basis for defining "natural" or "unnatural" is likely different. :)
I am aghast. Please use proper capitalization of "GNU." Your lack of respect for the roots of your operating system is disgusts me.
:P Seriously, I read the GNU website stuff (some of it) and ... ok, I get the point, but it's almost like they're on an ego trip, whining about how people are giving them proper credit, and wanting everyone to know how important they are. Frankly, I don't honestly care that much about Linus. And why not give credit to people who created Unix, since it's hard to write an OS that isn't influenced by current OS's?
Meh. If "Free Software" and "Open Source" and "GNU/Linux" means that sort of elite "you need to remember your roots and never use non-free software no matter how much it costs you or anyone else! Refuse to make money using any non-free software! And don't forget who we are!" attitude... well, even Microsoft doesn't seem that bad :) And I LIKE free software. And donations. And Magnatune. And dislike Apple. And iTunes... [continue list of Slashdot Qualifications]
Oh and the shelby has 150mile range just so you know.
Depends on the speed. You can probably get upwards of 200 miles if you push it faster! ;)
Humans aren't natural?
I presume a "yes." Things humans make aren't natural? What if a monkey learned to make something, would it be natural?
Obviously I have a point to make here. From the evolutionary standpoint that most say they hold, human machinery is just as natural as a monkey using a bone as a club (sorry, I just watched 2001: A Space Odyssey). It's time to define "nature" and why I don't get to be considered "natural." Which seems like it will be hard to do form the scientific/atheistic viewpoint. Even more so when people want to tell me that genetically modified stuff is just as natural as non GMO stuff... "natural" stuff. So on one hand, we can modify nature and be natural, and on the other hand we can't.
And yes, this is on topic, since "greenhouse gas emissions" implies that there are natural and unnatural things, and most of the time, "global warming" is linked to those horribly unnatural and wicked humans.
As opposed to whatever caused the last ice age when humans weren't around, I guess.
/me runs away from the flamebait mods, hehe
I'm fairly certain rugby and even "soccer" (I know, it's "football" to everyone but Americans) also involve head knocking at times. Rugby especially.
... In fact, not only is my name not actually my name nor am I even the person I actually am, I actually don't bank at the bank I have account with. It's all a ruse.
We should all just go by the name of "Linus."
I'm always surprised that more "secure" websites don't let users use their own security question. It makes no sense to just always use "mother's maiden name" or "city of birth" or whatever. Why can't I use my own security question and pick something that I actually am one of the few people that know (me and maybe my wife or something)?
I'm not sure adding one more column to a database is going to produce a ton more overhead :)
it barely pays for a good developer for one year.
Well, that depends on the developer and location, I suppose. But anyways, a full time developer on one project? Seems like, presuming the project isn't absolutely huge, that "good developer" should be able to get quite a bit done.
hehe, that was funny :)
I agree that the sales people are generally pretty horrible (and incidentally, usually don't speak English clearly). But the store is still quite useful.
But hey, sales people online usually aren't very good, either ;) I go to Fry's because it's a ton cheaper to pick up a case, hard drive, or whatever I need "right now" there than Best Buy or whatever.
If you don't live on the west coast/near Fry's :)
May as well pass a low mandating all shoes to have "clicky" heels so that we can't sneak up on anyone. Silent shoes are the highest contributors to predatory actions!
Seriously, this is stupid. And besides, we all know someone will find a way to disable it, so it'll only make the non-bad people have to live with the click, right?
I guess legislators don't know what else to do with their time. You'd think they'd start, I don't know, spending less.... nah.