Daily Archives: November 6, 2006

All done!

I’m going to be upgrading WordPress to version 2.0.5 — please bear with me for about 20 minutes or so. I’ll update this post when I’m done. :)

All finished! :) Let me know if you run into issues.


A wacky NFL weekend

The NFL was nuts this weekend. Brady throws 4 INTs, the Steelers are all but out of the race to defend their title after losing to Denver, Da Bears were done in by the Dolphins (six turnovers and an Urlacher injury don’t help either — sorry Dan), and Nick Novak gets redemption for the Redskins on an unprecedented second-chance field goal set up by a Troy Vincent field goal block and a Cowboy grabbing Sean Taylor’s face mask (Ale and Duke were there). Crrrrrrazy.

The Chargers won again, beating the Browns, and the Panthers managed not to lose on their bye week, so that’s good, too.

What a whirlwind…I can’t believe we’re in the home stretch of the season. I’ll have to start doing some playoff projections soon, methinks…

RTM week at Microsoft…

Microsoft’s two major moneymakers are going to be tagged with the “finished product” label this week. Office 2007, in fact, has already gone gold, and Paul Thurrott has screenshots. I am in love with Office 2007, and can’t wait to get my hands on the final shipping code.

We’re all watching and waiting for Windows Vista to hit the “gold” milestone this week. Thurrott is saying it could be as early as today that Vista build 6000 is signed off as the final shipping version. It’ll be interesting to see the initial reactions from MSDN and TechNet subscribers concerning the quality of the final release. They’re expected to get their hands on it ten days after release to manufacturing. Mere mortals such as myself will likely have to wait until January 30th, which is actually a blessing in disguise: The current state of Vista drivers is still incredibly sad, so this will give hardware manufacturers enough time to get quality drivers out (though they have had API-stable versions of Vista since September to test against). I’m hoping to get my hands on a copy sooner than January 30, at least at work, so I can kick the tires and see if I’m going to upgrade at home. My experience with the betas has been decent but I’m hoping they saved their best performance tuning work for last, because I still don’t think Vista performs acceptably on my Athlon.

Election Day is tomorrow…

So tomorrow is Election Day, the culmination of a 2006 midterm campaign truly for the ages, with as much mudslinging as one possibly could imagine. It’s a sure sign the stakes are astronomical.

South Carolina’s not quite so much in the heat with the critical Senate races, and our red districts are likely to stay that way (though I’m going to try my best to change this), so we haven’t really seen too much. The governor’s race is the usual “he voted to raise taxes 23482342377423 times” and “he hates education blah blah blah” that we’ve seen in the last couple races. Here in Charleston, I’ve seen some ridiculous ads for candidates for the Charleston County School Board with atomic explosions and such. It’s utterly ridiculous.

The most ridiculous thing about this 2006 election, at least for issues I’ll be dealing with, is the infamous Marriage Amendment referendum, which would effectively limit the only type of recognized union between two people as licensed marriage between a man and a woman. This eliminates not only gay marriage but also common-law marriage, a man and a woman living together but not being wed yet, etc. It’s an incredibly broad amendment. Any chance of same-sex couples attaining any type of civil union will be pretty much gone, barring a major shift in ideology of the South Carolina government and another constitutional amendment.

I guess my question is why people feel so threatened by two people of the same sex wanting the same legal rights as others who are in a heterosexual union. I just don’t understand this one. It seems to be an issue of semantics; the government has adopted the term “marriage” from a legal standpoint, and I’m not sure I agree with this. “Union” seems to be a better legal term; let’s leave holy matrimony to the churches. If there is a church out there that wishes to marry a gay couple, I don’t see why anybody in government should have a problem with this, either. It seems that most of the opposition to gay marriage comes from a religious and not a legal standpoint, and I have a problem with this, because if a bloc is going to use their religious views to impose their legal will on people who may not share those views, then we run into some serious questions of equal protection and an endorsement of religion, and that just isn’t right.

Folks, let’s not legalize discrimination tomorrow. Please, say no to the Marriage Amendment.