Well it arrived yesterday, two days late, all I can say is that it is much nicer than my old wave keyboard that had the broken ‘z’ key (yeay! my ‘z’ key works now). I don’t like the mouse that came with it, mainly because I love my Logitech TrackMan Marble Wheel mouse. I won’t give it up until the day it stops working. At that point, I’ll get a new one. A full review with pictures will come after I get to test it for a while.
A common observation about the Democratic and Republican parties is that they try to be all things to all people and are thus indistinguishable from each other. When viewing the parties in a macro (generalized) fashion one could conclude that indeed both political parties are indistinguishable. This is realized when looking in to the overall function of each political party, which is to promote its ideologies and nominate candidates for elections. The truth is that one cannot say the Democratic and Republican parties are indistinguishable from each other because they are truly distinguishable when viewed in a ‘micro’ manner. The ideologies that each party represents are what distinguish one from the other. Democrats typically follow and promote the liberal ideology while Republicans typically follow and promote the conservative ideology.
The Democratic Party has in the past and continues to promote equality heavily over freedom and freedom over order, falling into the liberal ideological category, while the exact opposite can be said about the Republican Party. This does in a ‘micro’ manner distinguish the parties from each other since their respective ideologies will influence whom the party nominates and how their members will tend function. A common generalization is that Democrats tend to favor a larger government in terms of social programs while Republicans tend to favor a smaller government and a stronger military along with reduced taxes. In the real world we see that the two parties normally have issues when trying to operate in a bipartisan fashion. How can one say that they two parties are essentially the same if they parties clearly have different views on how the government should conduct itself.
The term bipartisan politics infers that the two political parties are working together and agree on a certain policy or set of policies. If the two parties were the same as the observation about political parties concludes then bipartisan politics would be a thing experienced all the time with both parties spear heading the same issues with the same or very similar approaches. Political parties could be classified as a type of interest group that also nominates and endorses candidates to represent their ideologies in the government. This in turn could be seen as conforming to the pluralist model which does represent a portion of how the United States’ government works. If the two parties were the same then the pluralist model would have less of an impact on the way that the US government operates (since they would operate in a bipartisan fashion) and then in turn diminishes the legitimacy of the United States’ democracy. Since there is often congressional gridlock, we can rest assured that the political parties aren’t one in the same (For the time being at least.) and as a result adhering to pluralist model essentially protecting the people.
If all political parties were the same as the common observation suggests then why doesn’t each party nominate the same candidate? The obvious answer is that they are not the same because of the fact that they don’t nominate and endorse the same candidate for elections. These facts bash the notion that the two political parties are indistinguishable. The one ‘exception’, George Washington, was never actually part of a political party therefore nullifying his significance in this statement.
The inability to operate in a bipartisan mode, differing political ideologies, and other general differences lead one to conclude that indeed the Democratic and Republican political parties are distinguishable and therefore non-homogeneous. Observing with macro precision leads one to conclude things that just are not true and are provably true when observing them with ‘micro’ precision.
The third paragraph in the body should be deleted and the conclusion should be re-written, in my mind at least, I still received a 4 out of 4 on it though.
According to the latest Longhorn requirements, keyboards and mice must not connect to the pc via PS/2 or Serial ports, and the BIOS must automatically support USB keyboards and mice. The document has some more interesting information. All monitors will have to be at the 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratios, and connect to the PC via DVI rather than d-sub. The 32bit system BIOS will have to support frame buffers of over 256MB for graphics accelerators, and a 64bit system BIOS will have to support at least 4GB dedicated RAM for graphic accelerators. USB 2.0 ports, and several of them, including a manditory 2 in the front make the list, along with manditory DVD Burners, S/PDIF out with support for 7.1 channels, and Gigabit ethernet, or 802.11 g/a support.
DEV-INP-02 New! Physically removable keyboards and mice connect to the PC by means other than PS/2 or the Serial (RS232) port
Externally attached (that is, physically removable) keyboards and mice must not use PS/2 or Serial (RS232) port for connectivity with the PC.
There is no decision for minimum CPU or memory, but I’m guessing a 32bit system will have to have a 3Ghz processor and 4GB DDR2 ram. 64bit systems will have to be at least a dual core 2.8Ghz chip with at least ~6GB of DDR2 memory. These are my estimates for a desktop pc, for a laptop, a Pentium M compatible, 2GHz ish processor (Dual core will probably required also) with about 2GB memory.
Longhorn better be something spectacular if all this stuff that MS is pushing for is actually needed.