There are multiple very good forum software projects, and I have no clear preference. phpBB and SMF are good standalone solutions; Drupal is powerful if you're looking to have much more than a forum. LAMP (as in PHP/MySQL) is by far the most popular technology. Ruby and Python might be more stylish, but most of the PHP software has had years of continual improvement. Best get several of them (Wikipedia has a complete list) and try them out locally for comparison.
Only two things I'd recommend against: - First, on absolutely no account try to write your own from scratch. The best projects now available have been in development for almost ten years (more in some cases). This is an extremely complex application with many pitfalls in design, database architecture, extendability, and security. If you were the best programmer in the world, it would take you months of constant testing and bugfixing before you had anything approaching stability; and you'd spend the coming years finding security holes and fixing design mistakes. - Second, avoid commercial solutions if possible. They're not usually better. Also, you should factor in not just the purchase price but the continual costs of upgrades and user-contributed addons. One good commercial board I've worked with is IPB, but that's only in recent versions after years of development - and I still prefer phpBB.
You'll find that what makes your post racist (as well as homophobic, as well as plain stupid) isn't any word that is contained in it, but the fuck who wrote it.
(Well, except for the partisan ones who were driven by wishful thinking, and broke down in tears at the outcome. Glenn Beck, looking at you.)
The ones who kept claiming the race was "too close to call" knew exactly what they were doing. Do you think they get paid for being right? They get paid for being watched. If all news commentators come to a consensus in early October and say "Romney can pack it in", then that's an entire month of people bored of following the Electionbowl on TV. The ratings would have plummeted.
The only idiots in this case were the Republican campaign managers, who bought so deeply into their own propaganda that they failed to see where their campaign was headed.
Finally we get a suite combining the security and reliability of the cloud with the speed of OpenOffice and Java. Just throw in the usability of MS Office, and you're done.
The 1937878 are a mathematical artifact. Even if 1937878 votes were superfluous (they're not, because they prevented endless court battles if the outcome had been in doubt), they didn't get disenfranchised. The guy they voted for won.
You're right on the rest, more or less, if you use the "deprived of power" definition rather than "right to vote" (which they clearly used).
But there's no way around that, electoral college or not, because there is only one Oval Office. You can only put one guy into it, and anywhere from zero to 49.9% of the voters (assuming a popular majority) have to suck it up. That's the case in every democracy with an elected leader - but when you compare the electoral processes of those other countries, you find that nowhere else do the losing voters routinely get this angry and disillusioned about it.
Why? Part of it is that you give the chief executive a hell of a lot of responsibility for one person. You've got him as head of state, head of government, head of the military, giving him the power to veto every law, appoint judges, etcetera.
Even more of the power is symbolic, and deeply ingrained in the public mind. Everyone knows that in theory the US president can't do much without the agreement of congress, but everyone also "knows" that the government and the nation is headed for disaster for four years whenever someone from the "enemy party" gets into the White House. That during those four years the only thing keeping the country from collapsing is a congress controlled by your own party blocking everything the president does, putting the government in a deadlock. (Vice versa, when your party takes the presidency, the most important thing is to take congress as well to prevent the "enemy party" from blocking everything.)
But the US congress is much more important than a group that either backs up or holds down the president depending on party colors. It's the actual decision-making part of the government, presidential powers notwithstanding. So what reduces them, in the public mind, to the president's backup-dancers/leash-holders? Out of 535 seats, all but two belong to one of the two parties (yours or the great enemy's), and the rest are just nominally independent.
The UK currently has over a dozen parties with seats (a coalition of over ten controlling one house with two in opposition, and vice versa); France has over six in both chambers; Germany has six in the Bundestag (three in government, three in opposition). These people have to compromise each and every day to get any work done. Promising to "reach across the aisle" in campaigns would be as likely as "coming in on time" or "showing up to work in a suit". They fight like hellcats, but every single person who voted for one of them knows that their voice is represented in government regardless of who is president or chancellor or prime minister or whatever. Even the ones with a single seat. You don't have people holding their nose and voting for Team Red because otherwise Team Blue might be in charge, because both will have to cooperate with Team Yellow and Team Green to get anywhere.
I kind of prefer the refreshing taste of straight-up racism. Much more honest than the veiled and coded kind that every GOP voter (apart from the ones like you) subscribes to.
Not sure what the idea is. Nate Silver does have an estimate, and it's currently at 86.1%. Not sure what to make of an analysis that is allegedly based on his predictions but comes up with different odds...
I gather that "Base-ballists" believe that there are nine players to what they call a "team" and they play with an oblong object they call "ball" which they alternately attempt to throw, catch or hit with a wooden club. That seems irreducibly complex to me. And yet Wikipedia claims that Baseball "evolved" from other games - that they themselves admit are difficult to trace. They refer to a 14th-century French manuscript (French!) that appears to suggest even clerics were not above playing a game resembling this "base-ball". Now I ask of you: Is it plausible that a game as absurd as this would develop naturally by random chance out of other games? Ball games just changing into one another? And look at who is at the forefront of promoting and perpetuating this supposed game: The hopelessly secular public highschools and elitist ivory-tower universities again.
You may claim I'm ignorant of "Base-ball" or sports in general, but I'm just seeing this with the common sense God gave me. "Base-ball" is a scam!
I feel relieved that, knowing that moderate funds and a scientific background are now sufficient to create a disease that could kill billions, or target entire ethnicities for genocide, at least the president is safe.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't tell if Gene Ray or David Mabus.
There are multiple very good forum software projects, and I have no clear preference. phpBB and SMF are good standalone solutions; Drupal is powerful if you're looking to have much more than a forum. LAMP (as in PHP/MySQL) is by far the most popular technology. Ruby and Python might be more stylish, but most of the PHP software has had years of continual improvement. Best get several of them (Wikipedia has a complete list) and try them out locally for comparison.
Only two things I'd recommend against:
- First, on absolutely no account try to write your own from scratch. The best projects now available have been in development for almost ten years (more in some cases). This is an extremely complex application with many pitfalls in design, database architecture, extendability, and security. If you were the best programmer in the world, it would take you months of constant testing and bugfixing before you had anything approaching stability; and you'd spend the coming years finding security holes and fixing design mistakes.
- Second, avoid commercial solutions if possible. They're not usually better. Also, you should factor in not just the purchase price but the continual costs of upgrades and user-contributed addons. One good commercial board I've worked with is IPB, but that's only in recent versions after years of development - and I still prefer phpBB.
You'll find that what makes your post racist (as well as homophobic, as well as plain stupid) isn't any word that is contained in it, but the fuck who wrote it.
Film at Eleven.
Who needs more than one pacemaker? I mean, unless you're from Gallifrey or something.
(...Yes, yes, I was just making a funny.)
Programmers programmers programmers PROGRAMMERS PROGRAMMERS PROGRAMMERS. *chairtoss*
Nah, doesn't flow off the tongue.
I'll stick with "developers".
The patent system isn't helping.
But even without the patent system, I kind of doubt you can obtain advanced microchip fabrication technology and use it in your garage.
(Well, except for the partisan ones who were driven by wishful thinking, and broke down in tears at the outcome. Glenn Beck, looking at you.)
The ones who kept claiming the race was "too close to call" knew exactly what they were doing. Do you think they get paid for being right? They get paid for being watched. If all news commentators come to a consensus in early October and say "Romney can pack it in", then that's an entire month of people bored of following the Electionbowl on TV. The ratings would have plummeted.
The only idiots in this case were the Republican campaign managers, who bought so deeply into their own propaganda that they failed to see where their campaign was headed.
Yeah, you never know, it might end up 303 vs 225 instead of 332 vs 206. And everyone knows 225 > 303 in Republican math.
All I'm hearing is "waaaaaah"...
Finally we get a suite combining the security and reliability of the cloud with the speed of OpenOffice and Java. Just throw in the usability of MS Office, and you're done.
So wait, let me get this straight: Obama was born in Kenya, but he is also President of Gabon? Man, who can keep track of this stuff?
The 1937878 are a mathematical artifact. Even if 1937878 votes were superfluous (they're not, because they prevented endless court battles if the outcome had been in doubt), they didn't get disenfranchised. The guy they voted for won.
You're right on the rest, more or less, if you use the "deprived of power" definition rather than "right to vote" (which they clearly used).
But there's no way around that, electoral college or not, because there is only one Oval Office. You can only put one guy into it, and anywhere from zero to 49.9% of the voters (assuming a popular majority) have to suck it up. That's the case in every democracy with an elected leader - but when you compare the electoral processes of those other countries, you find that nowhere else do the losing voters routinely get this angry and disillusioned about it.
Why? Part of it is that you give the chief executive a hell of a lot of responsibility for one person. You've got him as head of state, head of government, head of the military, giving him the power to veto every law, appoint judges, etcetera.
Even more of the power is symbolic, and deeply ingrained in the public mind. Everyone knows that in theory the US president can't do much without the agreement of congress, but everyone also "knows" that the government and the nation is headed for disaster for four years whenever someone from the "enemy party" gets into the White House. That during those four years the only thing keeping the country from collapsing is a congress controlled by your own party blocking everything the president does, putting the government in a deadlock. (Vice versa, when your party takes the presidency, the most important thing is to take congress as well to prevent the "enemy party" from blocking everything.)
But the US congress is much more important than a group that either backs up or holds down the president depending on party colors. It's the actual decision-making part of the government, presidential powers notwithstanding. So what reduces them, in the public mind, to the president's backup-dancers/leash-holders? Out of 535 seats, all but two belong to one of the two parties (yours or the great enemy's), and the rest are just nominally independent.
The UK currently has over a dozen parties with seats (a coalition of over ten controlling one house with two in opposition, and vice versa); France has over six in both chambers; Germany has six in the Bundestag (three in government, three in opposition). These people have to compromise each and every day to get any work done. Promising to "reach across the aisle" in campaigns would be as likely as "coming in on time" or "showing up to work in a suit". They fight like hellcats, but every single person who voted for one of them knows that their voice is represented in government regardless of who is president or chancellor or prime minister or whatever. Even the ones with a single seat. You don't have people holding their nose and voting for Team Red because otherwise Team Blue might be in charge, because both will have to cooperate with Team Yellow and Team Green to get anywhere.
I kind of prefer the refreshing taste of straight-up racism. Much more honest than the veiled and coded kind that every GOP voter (apart from the ones like you) subscribes to.
FYT
Whatever it was, considering present-day election campaigns it was clearly the most effective mechanism ever.
Not sure what the idea is. Nate Silver does have an estimate, and it's currently at 86.1%. Not sure what to make of an analysis that is allegedly based on his predictions but comes up with different odds...
Individually, five words. Collectively, in that order, the cause of me needing a new keyboard.
You know it's just a matter of time.
I just accidentally the United States of America.
Is this bad?
I gather that "Base-ballists" believe that there are nine players to what they call a "team" and they play with an oblong object they call "ball" which they alternately attempt to throw, catch or hit with a wooden club. That seems irreducibly complex to me. And yet Wikipedia claims that Baseball "evolved" from other games - that they themselves admit are difficult to trace. They refer to a 14th-century French manuscript (French!) that appears to suggest even clerics were not above playing a game resembling this "base-ball".
Now I ask of you: Is it plausible that a game as absurd as this would develop naturally by random chance out of other games? Ball games just changing into one another? And look at who is at the forefront of promoting and perpetuating this supposed game: The hopelessly secular public highschools and elitist ivory-tower universities again.
You may claim I'm ignorant of "Base-ball" or sports in general, but I'm just seeing this with the common sense God gave me. "Base-ball" is a scam!
I feel relieved that, knowing that moderate funds and a scientific background are now sufficient to create a disease that could kill billions, or target entire ethnicities for genocide, at least the president is safe.
Nah, I'd suspect on an iPhone map it would be Pakistan that's hard to find.
Does the SEC know of this?
Also, corners not rounded.