Slashdot has been stripping non-standard characters for a loooong time now. It's a little annoying. I semi-regularly used HTML entities in posts, but can't anymore.
Depends on what you need and where you look. Many readers of LEM are almost begging to give old hw/sw away so they don't have to throw it out. Before I moved this summer I had to throw away the guts of my C650...my first computer, purchased in fall 1993. That was a sad day. Other than the original hard drive dying, it worked fine.
My SE/30 (woodstock) runs NetBSD and is the fileserver for my home network. 80 MB RAM, 9 GB hard drive, and an 10bT NIC! Sometimes I fire up X just for kicks - with IceWM it's not too uncomfortable. I've got an accelerator, but it makes operation unstable, which is a bummer.
How did you get your box running a printserver? I've got a LW 4/600 I'd love to put on my network if I could figure out how. Everyone I've talked to is pretty sure it's not possible without a LT/EN hardware bridge, and even used they're expensive.
On my (work) WinXP machine, I use Opera 7.2 almost exclusively for browsing, and Thunderbird 0.2 for email. I just set these as the defaults and haven't had any problems. Give Thunderbird a try - it will probably get you back to using Opera.
The relevant bit, from the bottom of the aforementioned page...
All further development of the Quartz and Aqua tracks has been postponed until OpenOffice.org 2.0 due to gsl timeline. Initial delivery of 2.0 for Win32, Solaris, and Linux x86 expected in Q1 2005. Projected OS X X11 port availability expected to be Q2 2005. Projected OS X native availability of OpenOffice.org 2.0 is currently Q1 2006.
So don't hold your breath. If you want it sooner, go over and contribute your mad skillz! Surely there are some unemployed Mac geeks out there looking to bolster their resumes?
This is wonderful news. At work, my employer sprung for a 3 GHz Windows box, and I've been using OOo exclusively as my office suite. But at home, my main machine is a 300 MHz Mac which has been running YDL 2.3 and OOo on the desktop exclusively for almost 6 months now, and the speed boost will be greatly appreciated! I don't know why it can't be as fast as MS Word 5.1 though.
Maybe it's basic to you. It might be in the "whoa, cool" realm for someone else. I'm glad Slashdot caters to a large spectrum of geeks. I think the fact that you added "(!)" to your post in regards to using NFS on a handheld signifies the accomplishment is somewhat noteworthy.
What exactly do you mean? What's not "robust" about NetBSD?
NetBSD has a clean, lean design (forced upon it by the multi-architecture ideal) and a stable kernel. What you do with it beyond that is up to you. There are many (relatively speaking of course) people who find NetBSD to be a perfectly acceptable desktop OS.
I'm sure the VPs were very impressed by the fireball over Texas.
Not that there's much that could have been done to fix the problem (is launching another shuttle on a rescue mission an option?), but it makes it more tragic nonetheless. When will the VPs learn to listen to the "little guys" who aren't jockeying for position?
Where does one draw the distinction between these two? I'm fairly new to Linux on the desktop yet, and haven't tried customizing the whole experience very much yet. I've used KDE, Blackbox, and IceWM in their default configurations or with bare minimal tweaking. I know KDE and Gnome are DE's, while Blackbox and IceWM are WM's. Is XFce another DE? Some posts here suggest WindowMaker is a DE, but I thought it was a WM?
In some cases I like ultimate responsiveness, but Blackbox is almost too minimal. In some cases I'd like the additional features of a DE, but KDE is noticeably slow on my hardware. I'd like to try something lighter while knowing I'm not going to give up what I would by going back to a simple WM. I might give XFce a try, but at some point I might want to try to mix and match.
I've run IceWM on a 16MHz 68030, 80MB. It's fast enough for typical browsing/email/terminal situations, i.e. not real heavy load, even on this old box.
Having your drivers license revoked is not the same as capital punishment. We do it for drunk drivers, after all. In our society, you are presumed responsible enough to drive a car until you by your actions prove otherwise. This is exactly how it should be.
But drunks' have their licenses suspended after the offense, not before. Your suggestion is akin to making all drivers stick an alcohol monitor in their vein before their car will start. You assume that people will break the law, and pre-emptively take action. That's not "innocent until proven guilty" in my book.
Which is exactly what I propose to do. Under my proposal, you could buy a car that could go any speed, so long as you drive it responsibly when on public roads. You can drive as insanely as you wish on a track.
No, that's not what you're proposing. See above. You install breathalyzers on the ignitions of drunks after they've offended. You should install your speed-regulators in the cars of speeders only after they've offended. There's a difference.
The problem with that thinking, IMO, is that there will always be the crisis-of-the-moment to tackle, and we'll forever be diverted from solving the root problem. Maybe we should think "we've only got a couple more years to suffer the current calamity, let's endure it and work toward the long-term". To use your analogy, the bull has already wrecked the china; let's install the bull deterrent system now, which will automatically drive the bull out when complete as well as keeping future bulls away, else we waste energy bull-riding and the system never gets installed.
So you recognize the problem, understand the deeper issue underlying it, and empathize with the position. Yet you won't stand on your conviction because the system is biased against honest voters. But you fail to mention what you are doing to change the system. Are you lobbying your Congress-critters to change the electoral method? Are you informing yourself of the alternatives (such as Condorcetvoting) so that you can educate others to do the same? Until then, save your breath.
I consider myself a relatively outspoken advocate of electoral reform. Trying to push such a change through using the current system is going to be very difficult, possibly as difficult as electing a third party under the current system. It's a chicken-or-the-egg problem, but one of them has got to happen. I encourage everyone to do both: vote your conscience regardless of how "winnable" the candidate is, and promote electoral reform to anyone who will listen. Until more people see there is a problem, and are shown how to fix the problem, we're stuck with the problem. The problem doesn't solve itself by voting for the same ol' establishment Duopoly candidates.
Once again, IRV is not the solution it seems to be. The same problem exists, it's just better hidden. Condorcet is the way to go. You're right that it would make politics more interesting though. Since 1960, turnout for presidential elections has been declining, except in 1992 - the Perot year. People want more choices! Two choices is only one more than they had in the USSR. Politics is more complex than a one-dimensional spectrum.
Switchover from what, paper? That's going to happen no matter what EMR you use. If you're not overly concerned with importing old records then the problem should be reduced considerably. My last job was at a large hospital center (we used EMR and hoped to totally convert within a few years) and my new job is at a small private practice (still investigating EMR options). I've not heard of GNUMed before, but I'll be checking it out.
Lack of time keeps me from refuting these untruths. I'll post a link instead. Many other books have already been written regarding the faith of the Founders as well, and I don't have time to repeat that, either. (I know John Eidsmoe and Tim LaHaye have written some.) Maybe Jefferson and Franklin were deists, or at least not very orthodox, but the majority of the signers of the Declaration and Constitution were devout Christians, believing the central tenets of the faith, including creation, the divinity of Jesus, his sacrificial death, and bodily resurrection. Any plain reading of their own writings will find numerous references to their faith. Washington's first act after being sworn in as president was to lead the entire Congress to a church where they held a two-hour worship service. One of the first acts of Congress was to provide for a chaplain.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here. - Patrick Henry
My views... are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruption's of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others. - Thomas Jefferson
The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with those of Christianity. - John Quincy Adams
Every officer and man...to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country. - General Washington's first order to the continental army
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. - John Jay
The Bible is the foundation upon which our republic rests. - Andrew Jackson
Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son. - John Jay
O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. - from George Washington's personal prayer book
The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart. - Thomas Jefferson
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of our political institutions upon the capacity of Mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. - James Madison
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. - Charles Carroll, DoI signer
I regard private funding has handing your money over to to candidates, so that they decides what happens with your money. So what is the difference between that and having the Gov. give it?
The difference is that I will give my $10 to candidate A, but gov't will give $2 to candidates A, B, C, D, and E. I do not agree with what B-E stand for, yet I am forced (by virtue of the taxes used for public campaign financing) to support them. As T.J. says, that's wrong.
The campaign process is part of the electoral process. Whether you like it, or not.
No, I believe them to be distinct. We can draw a separation between how candidates spread their ideas (campaigning) and how we cast our ballots (voting). I support public funding for the mechanics of voting, but not campaigning. I will support a candidate's ideas if I find them worthy. If not, he has no right to force me to, but that's what public campaign financing is - a forced campaign contribution. In the US, two political parties will never accept public funds (should they ever qualify) on this principle: Libertarian and Constitution. This is a big reason I support these parties with my votes, and one of them with my time/effort.
Control of politics? You have no control of politics.
On the contrary, I believe that the people should be in control of their government. Government derives its just authority from the consent of the governed. Alas, we've drifted farther and farther from that ideal, but it is an ideal worth restoring.
Yes, unfortunately people are sheep. Most pols use ads not to educate, but to indoctrinate. And most people just soak it up without critiquing what they saw/heard. It's sad.
Then perhaps you find that Europe is not democratic?
Maybe the problem is they are too democratic? I prefer a republic. The Founders of the US knew democracy to be a tyrannical way to govern.
I don't know how long Slashdot lets us post, either. This thread is getting long and deep. We have strayed off the topic of Georgy anyway. Better forums for general political discussion are powervacuum.org (slash) and poliglut.org (phpnuke). I hope to start one of my own in the future (also based on slash), but I have no idea when that will be.
Good arguments against IRV and in favor of Condorcet. But I don't understand what you mean by complicated ballot sheets? The casting process of Condorcet is simple. (Can you put a "1" by your first pick, a "2" by your second pick, and so on? I knew you could.) The counting process is significantly more difficult, but this doesn't matter as very few people need to be routinely exposed to the mechanics of it. The best way to explain it to the masses is probably at the intuitive level, by staging comparisons of how the alternatives fall down while Condorcet doesn't. (Several already posted on this thread.) Obviously, if a system has to be complex to capture the true will of the electorate, that complexity should be in the counting rather than the casting if at all possible, so that voting is simplified and we get greater participation.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot has been stripping non-standard characters for a loooong time now. It's a little annoying. I semi-regularly used HTML entities in posts, but can't anymore.
Dude, iCab is way ahead of Netscape 2, and still actively developed for 68k hardware.
Depends on what you need and where you look. Many readers of LEM are almost begging to give old hw/sw away so they don't have to throw it out. Before I moved this summer I had to throw away the guts of my C650...my first computer, purchased in fall 1993. That was a sad day. Other than the original hard drive dying, it worked fine.
My SE/30 (woodstock) runs NetBSD and is the fileserver for my home network. 80 MB RAM, 9 GB hard drive, and an 10bT NIC! Sometimes I fire up X just for kicks - with IceWM it's not too uncomfortable. I've got an accelerator, but it makes operation unstable, which is a bummer.
How did you get your box running a printserver? I've got a LW 4/600 I'd love to put on my network if I could figure out how. Everyone I've talked to is pretty sure it's not possible without a LT/EN hardware bridge, and even used they're expensive.
I wouldn't say Mac IE always worked better than Netscape. Back in the day, Netscape was king for a reason. Did you ever actually use IE 2 or 3?
On my (work) WinXP machine, I use Opera 7.2 almost exclusively for browsing, and Thunderbird 0.2 for email. I just set these as the defaults and haven't had any problems. Give Thunderbird a try - it will probably get you back to using Opera.
Will they be working on getting everything to compile with gcc 3 while they're at it?
The relevant bit, from the bottom of the aforementioned page...
So don't hold your breath. If you want it sooner, go over and contribute your mad skillz! Surely there are some unemployed Mac geeks out there looking to bolster their resumes?
This is wonderful news. At work, my employer sprung for a 3 GHz Windows box, and I've been using OOo exclusively as my office suite. But at home, my main machine is a 300 MHz Mac which has been running YDL 2.3 and OOo on the desktop exclusively for almost 6 months now, and the speed boost will be greatly appreciated! I don't know why it can't be as fast as MS Word 5.1 though.
How about some of these?
Maybe it's basic to you. It might be in the "whoa, cool" realm for someone else. I'm glad Slashdot caters to a large spectrum of geeks. I think the fact that you added "(!)" to your post in regards to using NFS on a handheld signifies the accomplishment is somewhat noteworthy.
What exactly do you mean? What's not "robust" about NetBSD?
NetBSD has a clean, lean design (forced upon it by the multi-architecture ideal) and a stable kernel. What you do with it beyond that is up to you. There are many (relatively speaking of course) people who find NetBSD to be a perfectly acceptable desktop OS.
I'm sure the VPs were very impressed by the fireball over Texas.
Not that there's much that could have been done to fix the problem (is launching another shuttle on a rescue mission an option?), but it makes it more tragic nonetheless. When will the VPs learn to listen to the "little guys" who aren't jockeying for position?
Where does one draw the distinction between these two? I'm fairly new to Linux on the desktop yet, and haven't tried customizing the whole experience very much yet. I've used KDE, Blackbox, and IceWM in their default configurations or with bare minimal tweaking. I know KDE and Gnome are DE's, while Blackbox and IceWM are WM's. Is XFce another DE? Some posts here suggest WindowMaker is a DE, but I thought it was a WM?
In some cases I like ultimate responsiveness, but Blackbox is almost too minimal. In some cases I'd like the additional features of a DE, but KDE is noticeably slow on my hardware. I'd like to try something lighter while knowing I'm not going to give up what I would by going back to a simple WM. I might give XFce a try, but at some point I might want to try to mix and match.
I've run IceWM on a 16MHz 68030, 80MB. It's fast enough for typical browsing/email/terminal situations, i.e. not real heavy load, even on this old box.
So you're saying that running a record label is a bit like being a loan shark?
But drunks' have their licenses suspended after the offense, not before. Your suggestion is akin to making all drivers stick an alcohol monitor in their vein before their car will start. You assume that people will break the law, and pre-emptively take action. That's not "innocent until proven guilty" in my book.
No, that's not what you're proposing. See above. You install breathalyzers on the ignitions of drunks after they've offended. You should install your speed-regulators in the cars of speeders only after they've offended. There's a difference.
The problem with that thinking, IMO, is that there will always be the crisis-of-the-moment to tackle, and we'll forever be diverted from solving the root problem. Maybe we should think "we've only got a couple more years to suffer the current calamity, let's endure it and work toward the long-term". To use your analogy, the bull has already wrecked the china; let's install the bull deterrent system now, which will automatically drive the bull out when complete as well as keeping future bulls away, else we waste energy bull-riding and the system never gets installed.
A reasonable relaxation of Arrow's definition of the IIAC criterion would allow Condorcet to pass.
So you recognize the problem, understand the deeper issue underlying it, and empathize with the position. Yet you won't stand on your conviction because the system is biased against honest voters. But you fail to mention what you are doing to change the system. Are you lobbying your Congress-critters to change the electoral method? Are you informing yourself of the alternatives (such as Condorcet voting) so that you can educate others to do the same? Until then, save your breath.
I consider myself a relatively outspoken advocate of electoral reform. Trying to push such a change through using the current system is going to be very difficult, possibly as difficult as electing a third party under the current system. It's a chicken-or-the-egg problem, but one of them has got to happen. I encourage everyone to do both: vote your conscience regardless of how "winnable" the candidate is, and promote electoral reform to anyone who will listen. Until more people see there is a problem, and are shown how to fix the problem, we're stuck with the problem. The problem doesn't solve itself by voting for the same ol' establishment Duopoly candidates.
Once again, IRV is not the solution it seems to be. The same problem exists, it's just better hidden. Condorcet is the way to go. You're right that it would make politics more interesting though. Since 1960, turnout for presidential elections has been declining, except in 1992 - the Perot year. People want more choices! Two choices is only one more than they had in the USSR. Politics is more complex than a one-dimensional spectrum.
Switchover from what, paper? That's going to happen no matter what EMR you use. If you're not overly concerned with importing old records then the problem should be reduced considerably. My last job was at a large hospital center (we used EMR and hoped to totally convert within a few years) and my new job is at a small private practice (still investigating EMR options). I've not heard of GNUMed before, but I'll be checking it out.
Lack of time keeps me from refuting these untruths. I'll post a link instead. Many other books have already been written regarding the faith of the Founders as well, and I don't have time to repeat that, either. (I know John Eidsmoe and Tim LaHaye have written some.) Maybe Jefferson and Franklin were deists, or at least not very orthodox, but the majority of the signers of the Declaration and Constitution were devout Christians, believing the central tenets of the faith, including creation, the divinity of Jesus, his sacrificial death, and bodily resurrection. Any plain reading of their own writings will find numerous references to their faith. Washington's first act after being sworn in as president was to lead the entire Congress to a church where they held a two-hour worship service. One of the first acts of Congress was to provide for a chaplain.
Hardly sounds like the voices of deists to me.
The difference is that I will give my $10 to candidate A, but gov't will give $2 to candidates A, B, C, D, and E. I do not agree with what B-E stand for, yet I am forced (by virtue of the taxes used for public campaign financing) to support them. As T.J. says, that's wrong.
No, I believe them to be distinct. We can draw a separation between how candidates spread their ideas (campaigning) and how we cast our ballots (voting). I support public funding for the mechanics of voting, but not campaigning. I will support a candidate's ideas if I find them worthy. If not, he has no right to force me to, but that's what public campaign financing is - a forced campaign contribution. In the US, two political parties will never accept public funds (should they ever qualify) on this principle: Libertarian and Constitution. This is a big reason I support these parties with my votes, and one of them with my time/effort.
On the contrary, I believe that the people should be in control of their government. Government derives its just authority from the consent of the governed. Alas, we've drifted farther and farther from that ideal, but it is an ideal worth restoring.
Yes, unfortunately people are sheep. Most pols use ads not to educate, but to indoctrinate. And most people just soak it up without critiquing what they saw/heard. It's sad.
Maybe the problem is they are too democratic? I prefer a republic. The Founders of the US knew democracy to be a tyrannical way to govern.
I don't know how long Slashdot lets us post, either. This thread is getting long and deep. We have strayed off the topic of Georgy anyway. Better forums for general political discussion are powervacuum.org (slash) and poliglut.org (phpnuke). I hope to start one of my own in the future (also based on slash), but I have no idea when that will be.
Good arguments against IRV and in favor of Condorcet. But I don't understand what you mean by complicated ballot sheets? The casting process of Condorcet is simple. (Can you put a "1" by your first pick, a "2" by your second pick, and so on? I knew you could.) The counting process is significantly more difficult, but this doesn't matter as very few people need to be routinely exposed to the mechanics of it. The best way to explain it to the masses is probably at the intuitive level, by staging comparisons of how the alternatives fall down while Condorcet doesn't. (Several already posted on this thread.) Obviously, if a system has to be complex to capture the true will of the electorate, that complexity should be in the counting rather than the casting if at all possible, so that voting is simplified and we get greater participation.