Slashdot Mirror

There's no such thing as a meltdown prone nuclear reactor. We've had 4 or 5 meltdowns in the last 45 years, and there are hundreds of reactors.

http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/list_of_nuclear_accidents.html

I had to press PgDn 7 times to get over this list of nuclear accidents and that's until year 2000. (No Fukushima included)
Reality is closer to 1 accident per reactor then to your statistics.

Check out Theodore Sturgeon's "The Skills of Xanadu" for a sci-fi exploration of the idea of making the gathering of materials "fun":

tl;dr

Also, how much "labor" does a tree do to grow? It is possible then in theory to use just water, CO2, and a little bit of soil to make amazing things that are mostly carbon.

How useful is just one tree? If you want enough trees to be able to do something useful with, all growing consistently strong and to a consistent quality, it takes quite a good deal of labor.

In general, one could make the same argument about software or content.

Neither of which you can eat.

When robotics are really cheap, what is the difference between writing free software to run material gathering robots and gathering materials for "free"?

Robotics are far more expensive than Chinese labor.

I might have agreed if you had not used the word "only". :-) How far we have fallen in our aspirations:
http://www.fact-index.com/n/ne/next.html
"By 1987 NeXT finished construction of a completely automated factory for their first product, the NeXTcube."

My "only" still stands. You forget where the raw materials used by the factory came from, as well as how the factory was built to begin with.

It's true that essentially slave human labor is still cheaper than robots in some applications (though fewer and fewer applications as even essentially dirt-cheap slaves kept in dormitories can't keep up with the quality robots can produce and they also take more management.)

And yet there is still plenty of work available for cheap Mexican immigrants. Agriculture in Georgia practically collapsed when they tried to improve immigration enforcement.

But in any case, things are changing:
"Foxconn to rely more on robots; could use 1 million in 3 years"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-foxconn-robots-idUSTRE77016B20110801

That has more to do with the rise of a Chinese middle class than any global phenomena. There's still Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam...

"All require raw materials, none of which are "inherently fun" to obtain, especially not when it comes to obtaining useful quantities."

Check out Theodore Sturgeon's "The Skills of Xanadu" for a sci-fi exploration of the idea of making the gathering of materials "fun":
http://books.google.com/books?id=wpuJQrxHZXAC&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also, how much "labor" does a tree do to grow? It is possible then in theory to use just water, CO2, and a little bit of soil to make amazing things that are mostly carbon.

In general, one could make the same argument about software or content. People are never going to spend lots of time making free software or content to give away, and yet they do through GNU/Linux and Wikipedia.

"Money is used in exchange for labor. Labor takes up a person's time. A person's time is finite. One has only to look through the local obituary to realize that the scarcity is quite genuine."

When robotics are really cheap, what is the difference between writing free software to run material gathering robots and gathering materials for "free"?

"The 21st-century computer you composed this on is only possible because of people supplying raw materials and manufacturing in 19th-century conditions."

I might have agreed if you had not used the word "only". :-) How far we have fallen in our aspirations:
http://www.fact-index.com/n/ne/next.html
"By 1987 NeXT finished construction of a completely automated factory for their first product, the NeXTcube."

It's true that essentially slave human labor is still cheaper than robots in some applications (though fewer and fewer applications as even essentially dirt-cheap slaves kept in dormitories can't keep up with the quality robots can produce and they also take more management.)

But in any case, things are changing:
"Foxconn to rely more on robots; could use 1 million in 3 years"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-foxconn-robots-idUSTRE77016B20110801

Furthermore, it isn't even within the Wikimedia Foundation's power to grant an exclusive deal to anybody. Wikipedia's content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Everybody can use, copy, redistribute, and modify Wikipedia content without fear of violating any law (which is why you see many crap sites such as this one repackaging wikipedia content with ads). It's hard to see how anybody could make an exclusive deal with Wikipedia when the content is free for everybody to copy at will. In the worst case, Wikipedia could simply be forked.

or more recently vhs and beta.

interestingly, the vinyl music recording standards battle is one of the earliest format wars (discounting early pre-vinyl edison cylinders as their wasn't big industry behind differing designs). the major labels (columbia and rca victor) were trying to promote their differing designs to replace the 78 (ever wonder why their are 33 1/3, 45, 78's etc.?). here's some more links for the curious...

all that being said, i think it is really just the early adopters that get screwed and that is and will always be the risk of being one. in general, history usually shows that some competition in the market usually helps (but when there are too many choices, it can confuse consumers and backfire)...

Well, aaaaactually, homo sapiens has lived this long because of its generalization (in things they could control like choice of habitats, nutrition, etc.) not because of specialization. That's how lots of species die off. Bring on an ice age and *poof*.

"From a scientific standpoint, Homo sapiens certainly is among the most generalized species on Earth." http://www.fact-index.com/h/hu/human.html

"we are at this point one single, highly mobile and globally distributed species. We inhabit every single corner of the earth and every single kind of habitat" http://rwor.org/a/v24/1181-1190/1183/evolution.htm

The closer primates get to us in the evolutionary chain the more generalized they become. http://mason.gmu.edu/~jlawrey/biol471/humannotes.h tml

SOOOOOOOO, my point is that even if a person doesnt LOVE a certain subject (like computers, cars, construction, etc.) it would do him good to at least know more than just the basics *especially* when at this point in time information about anything can be so easily found.

There is no excuse. I'm not expecting everybody to be an expert or even average. It's just that some things are plain common sense.

For example, compare this to downloading sypware/malware. If a stranger gives me a bag and tells me this is a great fuel optimizer for my car, I have two choices: 1) I could put it in and suddenly realize my car doesnt work like it used to, or 2) I could stop and look at the bag and realize that it's labeled "SUGAR".

Enlightened self-interest, not simple self-interest. There's a very substantial difference. If everyone engaging this behaviour would help you, then by engaging in this behaviour yourself you're bringing about this desired result which is eventually to your own benefit.

It's not just selflessly "doing your bit for the world", either. Consider: There are presumably a lot of people are in situations similar to your own and have a similar mindset. Correspondingly, if you rationally decide to do $FOO [which happens to have positive externalities], it's likely that others who think like you will also decide to do $FOO, thus resulting in intended net effect. See superrationality.

Libertarians are often criticized for taking the position that greed is good. However, it's this more farsighted form of greed that we generally respect.

No.

You're thinking of Philip Henry Gosse's "Omphalos" hypothesis, which is kind of obsolete anyway now that Uniformitarianism is flying into the ground.

Since when are power plants built in downtown anywhere? If I had to choose between a coal plant or a nuclear one I'd pick nuclear any day.

So I ask again. Would you feel quite safe having a nuclear power plant right in the middle of town? If they're so clean and safe, how come you can't get insurance to build one, and how come they're always built away out in the wilds?

While giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward, Rice-Davies made the quip for which she is most remembered. When the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Astor denied having met her, she replied, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?"

OK, decided to google around myself and reply to my own post. Here's what I found about the "Premier" cigarettes:

http://www.fact-index.com/p/pr/premier_cigarette.h tml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_cigarette

I'm not entirely sure if this is the same thing. And apparently, they have tried a similar concept more recently, calling it "Eclipse".

Diebold didn't create the GEMS election system themselves. They bought the company Global Election Systems in 2002 in hopes to make money Congress was throwing around with the Help America Vote Act of 2001

Since they didn't have a voting system of their own at the time, they needed to purchase an existing company or product to get into the market quickly. Once they've made the first sale, they can offer bugfixes or upgrades to their current customers. If they didn't get to the contract, they are going to be purchasing those upgrades from someone else.

landing a helicopter without motor assistance is called "the sycamore landing".

For those interested, I believe the maneuver is more commonly referred to as an autorotation.

Yes, and and how many square miles is Sweden compared to the United States. Population density is an issue when it comes to broadband deployment. Taiwan, Japan, and other very densely populated countries have a huge advantage over more sparsely populated nations like the U.S.

Actually, USA (~29 inhabitants/square kilometer) has a higher population density than Sweden (~20 inhabitants/square kilometer) does.

http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/list_of_countries_b y_population_density.html
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/population _density_2.html

It didn't exactly take me much work to find this alternative list of circulation numbers

"The reason oil, coal and gas are called fossil fuels is that they once came from living organisms."

Actually, this 'fact' is still very much disputed: Fossil Fuels and Suspected Fuel

So, if "every ounce of coal and every last cubic foot of gas were burned by mankind" the world would be covered in an atmosphere of CO2 that makes Venus look like a pleasant place to vacation (not that all the ozone smog, radioactive and toxic chemicals output from burning the coal, and violent weather changes associated with climate change wouldn't kill us first, regardless of which theory of fossil fuels was true).

We'd all take the Secret Service a lot more seriously if they updated their name. Back in 1865 it may have been way cool to call your treasury cops a "secret service", but now it alternates between quaintness and confusion Since they're now part of DHS, how about "Homeland Enforcement"? Make a great TV show!

Hasn't anyone else seen the movie "The First 20 Million Dollars is always the Hardest"? http://www.fact-index.com/t/th/the_first_20_millio n_is_always_the_hardest.html

on a tank that can go 60-100 MPH on rough terrain?

:

Speed: 67 km/h (42 mph) (road) 48 km/h (30 mph) (off-road)

Agree. See subcomment here

But a compiler that targets this

LISP is easy iff the hardware has a stack.

(I think I want that on a Tshirt)

Well you had NAPLPS (more info & pics) which practically no one used (at least in the US) but did get some support from a few BBS packages and terminal programs.

Then there was RIP (aka RIPscript, pics) which got the most implementation, although the tools and actual BBS support were far behind what ANSI was capable of.

Then towards the end of the BBS era, you had Syncronet appear on the scene, which IIRC had ANSI and RIPScript support first, then added a custom terminal program with SVGA graphics. (not sure based on what presentation protocol, but I'm pretty sure it was proprietary) What's really interesting is it's been open sourced and is still in active development.

As a long time BBS operator (Xenogenesis BBS, Sysop HEX, 313 area, first running TAG software then Oblivion/2 which I'm listed as an author for although I never put out an "official release") I'd definately say ANSI was the standard. I still miss my Obv/2 setup and it's tight ANSI menu sets (all produced personally, I'd check out the scenes packs but made my own in TheDraw of course) and I'm hoping to put it up on the Internet someday from my backups.

Jonah Hex

Obviously have never had to program in CLIST

At my first computer programming job out of college, I was required to write scripts that processed JCL dumps. the scripting language of choice, back then, was CLIST. It was the most horrid "language" I have ever had to program in.

Fortunately, IBM had just released the first version of MVS/TSO that included support for REXX. Unaware that this was a recent thing, I grabbed the offical MVS/Rexx reference book (an internal IBM publication at the time, I believe), and took a week to self teach myself REXX, and ditched CLIST.

When IBM had their Great Layoff of '93, they purged all of the contractors first. As I wrapped up my project to hand over to my IBM supervisors, a look of shock and amazement came over their faces.

IBM'er: "You, you... programmed this in REXX!!!"

Me: "Yeah, so? It was a lot easier to do it that way."

IBM'er: "But, but... nobody here knows REXX!!! What are we going to do?!?!"

I was floored. Because I had a Computer Science degree, I was able to master a simple procedural programming language on my own, with one flimsy, poorly written internal reference document, within a week. The IBM'ers, on the other hand, had no degree, and were totally dependant on internal IBM training and certification in order to understand anything as "advanced" as a new programming language.

That, my friends, is the power of a good University degree.

obfuscated source code contests> .

( It should be clear to us that, without very strong safeguards against it, that is what patent lawyers would tend to make out of writing source code for software patent applications, just like what they have made out of the descriptive text for normal patent applications. )

I don't know about those "freaks over at PETA," but I can think of some other groups whose goal is to force the rest of us to live our lives exactly as they command us to, and they're not exactly liberal.

UCSD p-System

The UCSD p-System or UCSD Pascal System was a portable highly machine independent operating system developed in 1978 by the Institute for Information Systems of the University of California, San Diego to provide all students with a common operating system that could run on any of the then available microcomputers as well as campus PDP-11 minicomputers.

p-System started around 1977 as an idea of Prof. Kenneth Bowles at UCSD, who felt that the number of new platforms coming out at the time would make it difficult for new languages to gain acceptance.

This is also very similiar to Z-code that Infocom used (invented in 1979). All of their games where compiled to Z-code and then they just had to write an interpreter for each new system.

That's not enough actually. You can't just picture yourself in another country's shoes, as this is the same as doing something without asking, and may actually be considered more insulting. You can't as an American president, presume to know how a certain country would feel about U.S. military action anywhere. You have to go before the rest of the world, put forth a resolution, and tell them that this is what you want to do. At least that's the procedure that is currently in place.

And that's just the problem. I don't think Bush & co. have been taking seriously any of the input from the rest of the world.

The current administration tried to take the rest of the world seriously. They tried to play by the rules and Colin Powell went before the U.N. to try to convince them to support our resolution for action in Iraq. Multiple times, we tried to get the U.N. security council to back us unconditionally. Furthermore, many U.S. citizens desired U.N. support before taking military action in Iraq, so it was important for the administration to try to achieve this. They did not take the rest of the world lightly in this case.

However, as we all know, these attempts to gain support failed, and at this point maybe that's when the "global test" should have failed. This is when Colin Powell started his tour to find supportive nations, and when he had 49, the "global test" passed for the administration. That is where the controversy lies. There were supportive nations, but the fact that none of them were France, Germany, and Russia was a major issue. Probably the largest sticking point, was the fact that the U.N. Security Council did not back our actions, and we did not have support of all the permanent members.

That being said, the administration felt that it had enough global support to pass its definition of "global test", and made its decision to attack.

The Global Test is more of an abstract concept than a strictly defined set of rules.

And therein lies the problem, and why Bush appeared upset. Bush and Kerry have very different interpretations of what constitutes a "global test". The administration feels that they had enough support globally, but Kerry feels that this was not enough.

So what constitutes a global test? Is it enought to have N number of nations supporting your actions? Is it enought to have only the U.N. Security Council supporting your actions? Do you need more than this? It's a very slippery slope.

It appears, though, that no matter what we do, at least some of the rest of the world will not support us. If, for instance, Canada suddenly just bombed Detroit, I would find it had to believe, even in this case, that we would get overwhemling support in the U.N. to retaliate. Canada would most certainly be condemned by the U.N. for attacking the U.S., but it is doubtful whether the U.N. would support a U.S. attack on Canada. Furthermore, we wouldn't have the support of all the U.N. Security Council in this case. Most of Europe would probably not support action. So now what do we do? Retaliate, or just ignore the attacks?

You cannot take the opinion of the world upon any of your actions lightly, and this is why we went before the U.N., and why it was necessary to consult congress first before any action was taken.

The title is a classic Simpsons reference. Rainer Wolfcastle stars in a movie as radioactive man where Milhouse has to save him. As acid comes directly at him, the imitation Schwartzenegger screams, "My eyes...the goggles do nothing!" http://www.fact-index.com/m/mc/mcbain__the_simpson s_.html

What if you are guilty? That's why there are trials and juries and all that.

To see such optimism really warms my old heart... can I quote that above to these guys?

If you don't like the way the law and courts work, I would agree. It doesn't mean that what the RIAA is doing is wrong.

Don't you think that being sued in a civil court and running up thousands of dollars in legal fees is a threat? One that the RIAA/MPAA uses all the time. And even if you are innocent, stand your ground and defend yourself, the penalties that could be applied if you are wrongly convicted (see above) will ruin your life.

Copyright law needs to exist to protect the rights of the artists that produce the content , not the industry that doesn't compensate them and screws consumers, then blatantly thumbs their nose at the court ordered fix.

When the RIAA starts doing the right thing, then I'll start supporting their actions against those that infringe. Until then, this looks too much like a big criminal shaking down a smaller one.

See the nth Country Experiment. In 1967 it took only 3 man-years. Today much more info is in public, and there are much more powerful computers available in civilian sector.

Getting the materials in sufficient quantity and purity is seriously difficult, though.

Really? wow can you point the the part of the authority they gave him in which they said you must meet these conditions? Can you point to how he did not meet those conditions.

Yes, but why should I? It's all on Kerry's website- in his rather detailed response to why he voted FOR authority.

Congress (the peoples represenatives) really messed up, I would never give a blanket 'authorization' you either say yes were going to war or no were not. This was not the examploe of the president making war, congress made it.

Congress gave a true blanket authorization for Afghanistan- but not one for Iraq. Some say that the one for Afghanistan was for any country that harbored terrorists (and it was) the problem is that Iraq NEVER HARBORED TERRORISTS. Saddam prefered to be far more open.

I have seen many senators and congressmen say this is what they meant but I have never seen it in writing *within* the actual autorization.

Some would say that the *resolution* to give the president this authority itself is even unconstitutional: http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/declaration_of_war. html, and that to fullfill the resolution, he had to go BACK to Congress and present his evidence, which never happened. Right-wing bloggers like to quote only the first paragraph of the resolution, thus cutting out the conditions, but one can't escape the fact that for the fifth time in the last century, Article 1 of the constitution was overlooked.

Large portions of the patriot act were written by people that had a D beside their name.

Well, according to this, "Assistant attorney general, Viet D. Dinh, was the chief architect of the act." While he might count, I think you intended to imply party affiliation, not middle initial. :-)

The bill was introduced first in the House. The sponsor was Sensenbrenner, and the only cosponsor Oxley, both Republicans. Note that this 342 page bill was introduced on 10/23/2001, and passed by the House at 11:03 AM the next day.

It was received in the Senate that same day (the 24th) and passed without amendment the next day. I listed the wrong roll-call vote in another post... the UPA passed 98-1 with Feingold (D-WI) dissenting and Landrieu (D-LA) not voting. (Note that the Senate office building was attacked by anthrax on 10/15/2001, only 10 days before this vote.)

It was signed the next day, 10/26/2001, by the President and became law.

It seems to me that, although the list of Senatorial co-sponsors included many Democrats, none of the Senatorial co-sponsors appear to have had any effect whatsoever on the language of the bill. The House sponsor and cosponsor, neither of which are Democrats, are presumably the ones ultimately responsible for the bill's language.

So... which guys with a "D" next to their name helped write it, exactly? As I see it, most of Congress didn't have time to read it, let alone help write it.

Indeed, the group "Irgun Tsvai-Leumi" devoted to the creation of a Jewish state in Israel led by Ben Gurion conducted numerouse "terrorist" attacks in the region, and even setting off a bomb at the King David Hotel, which killed 91 people, most of them civilians. Interestingly enough, they were secretly supported by Poland.

These people are not commonly referred to as terrorists, yet their tactics reflect those of whom we now call terrorists.

There's some interesting information about the group here, including a list of the targets they bombed.

Here's a question: Why do you think a President ought to be chosen by popular vote? I'm sure your instinct will be to tell me that I'm asking that question the wrong way around. That's a sign that you've been thoroughly indoctrinated. Make an effort to cast aside your assumptions and try to build a case for chosing a President by a simple majority. If you're honest about it, you'll find it surprisingly difficult.

I am a monarchist and live in a hereditary monarchy with a parliamentary democracy, so I have been 'indoctrinated' the other way around. I indeed fail to see why executive government, or even worse a symbolic head of state or any other office held by a single person, ought to be elected. I will present some of arguments in favor of placing a random person on the throne instead of an elected one.

Paliaments, which legislate and control government, should be elected and (proportionally) represent the people. Parliament should send away an incompetent or disobedient government and appoint a new one.

A head of state, as a single person, can never represent the people's opinions proportionally. The fact that he is elected makes it problematic for him to demand loyalty from those who didn't elect him. Since many people naturally tend to be loyal it leads to an incumbency bonus in the next election. Also, because he has a popular mandate of his own, parliaments will rarely dare to send him away.

In most stable democracies the head of state is not directly elected. Often it is the republics with a strong elected head of government (think of Hitler's Germany, Napoleon III's France, Putin's Russia (?)) that degenerate into dictatorships. In the case of the USA it is loyalty to the Constitution that stabilizes the system which puts too much power in the hands of one person. In the case of monarchies it is the monarch which provides a symbolic and stable focus of loyalty. In the Netherlands it is sometimes said that the monarch represents the "right to be divided" (politicially) while still being united (in the loyalty to the crown).

Monarchs of course have the advantage over Constitutions that they can actually intervene, as in 1981 in Spain, to preserve freedom and democracy. On the other hand a stupid or frivolous monarch that interferes without broad public support is a danger to the system, so it is good to have a Constitution too.

Another advantage of monarchies is that they tend to be more progressive in changing the Constitution because such changes lead to less anxiety among the population as long as the monarchy itself remains unchanged (Dutch social-democrat politician in 1992: "since 1945 only war and threats to the Royal family can shake the foundations of the Nation").

There are other options, of course: the appointed head of state, the proportionally elected or appointed college as head of state (the preferred options of organized Republicans in the Netherlands),selection by lottery, or having no head of state at all. The last option does not solve the loyalty problem, because people wil simply redirect loyalty to the closest thing available (prime minister, constitution, flag, army).

Is that so shocking ?. That's just the point. In the Cold War, the US of A and USSR were in an even uglier deadlock - Mutually Assured Destruction. Here at least India has a No First Use agreement .

Also there's the relgion angle .. Ever heard about Moksha ?. Think about a terrorist who believes in COMING BACK after death.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police or RCMP are the national police force, are part of the Canadian Forces Reserves.

http://www.fact-index.com/m/mi/military_of_canada. html

See here.

According to this source, the maintenance-free life of the bearing is about 1300 years. Impressive!

I'm glad you are able to read Saddam's mind. Did you know that Ambassador Glaspie says she did explicitly warn Saddam not to invade Kuwait? Or that the only transcripts of the meeting are based on information released by Saddam's government?

And if we were responsible for any help we gave him in the past, does that mean we should have continued to help him? Or does it mean that once we recognized our mistake, we had an obligation to the Iraqi people to help correct it?

I agree Saddam wanted to be a pan-Arab leader. Hitler wanted to be a pan-European leader. What evidence do you have that he wanted to "win the hearts" of Arabs worldwide? Was it when he insisted on staying in Kuwait even though every single Arab government in the Middle East told him to leave? Was it when his soldiers were looting Kuwait and raping their women? Maybe when he was gassing the Kurds or the Persians or draining the marshes and destroying the culture of the Marsh Arabs.

... emergency medical treatment to anyone based on thier ability to pay since the 80's

So what are his choices - wait until it becomes an emergency? And after that, ('cuz emergency care is expensive) end up bankrupt? Sheesh.

As a percentage of the population more blacks commit more serious crimes

Two of the country's foremost researchers on race and capital punishment, law professor David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth, along with colleagues in Philadelphia, have conducted a careful analysis of race and the death penalty in Philadelphia which reveals that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times (3.9) higher if the defendant is black. These results were obtained after analyzing and controlling for case differences such as the severity of the crime and the background of the defendant. The data were subjected to various forms of analysis, but the conclusion was clear: blacks were being sentenced to death far in excess of other defendants for similar crimes.

As for the ketchup? i can both sides of that. If it is used inside a product them its ingredients need to be listed. if it is a condement then no. I havn't head anyhting of that happening here so i don't know how it was being used.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, proposed classifying ketchup as a vegetable as part of Reagan's budget cuts for federally financed school lunch programs (it would make it cheaper to satisfy the requirements on vegetable content of lunches). The suggestion was widely ridiculed and the proposal was killed.

Now for the effects of Bush's tax cuts killing off the middle class: just google for "tax cust shift burden - you'll get lots of hits showing that the rich (who need it the least) get the most benefit: one example: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000299.html

Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will leave middle-income taxpayers paying a greater share of all federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new analyses of the Bush administration's tax policies.

recent tax breaks that shift the burden disproportionately to those least able to pay it ...

So, to quote you, in all these cases,

you are either uuninformed or flat out lying...

All this also ignores the problem of the $5 Trillion Bush Deficit, which will have to be paid, meaning less money for social programs, health care, etc., and still more taxes on the middle class.

Oops wrong link for the critical mass. It should be this one

Shows how long you've been on the internet. I remember when hotmail was not owned/affiliated with Microsoft. Damn, that was back when the web was still fun.

Well, considering the British started by firing on ship on the high seas (among other things-including forced conscription) you could say the British started the war....

Is that what your teacher told you? Who wrote your text books, by the way? While you're pondering those questions, I'd like to point out that the Chesapeake was fired on because it refused to stop and be searched for British Navy deserters. Questionable whether or not it was an act of war, and even so, was not an attack on American soil.

Check these quotes: It is important to notice that the motives of the U.S. in this war were to gain Canada and to stop impressment. and ...it must be noted that Britain did not first declare war, but the United States... Reference here.

Anyway, you both seem to have missed a minor event that happened in 1941...

His point was that Hawaii was a U.S. possession or something in 1941. Some technicality, but he had a reason. In any case, it bears no consequence on the point I was making.

Personally, I received a good public education in the US-if one of you didn't in your repective system, well, you probably didn't want one...

What is your basis for that statement of probability? You're asserting that if one or both of us didn't receive a good public education, then there's a greater than 50% chance that we didn't want a good education. Could you please explain your reasoning, and give some references to back up you assumptions?

It's all psychological. Or settings. I've heard a few people say they didn't care for their CD systems' sound. Turns out, they aren't using their equalizers for anything.

Turn up the bass, and poof, sounds warmer.

Valves (tubes) also mutate the sound. They actually do add something to the sound that is extremely hard to reproduce with non-analog systems. You could argue (correctly) that valve systems don't reproduce the original sound as accurately as digital, but they do sound different. For systems where perfect reproduction is not the goal (EG: electric guitar and electric bass amps), valves are still the king.

Here's a great article that explains the whole thing.

People tend to confuse communism and fascism for socialism.

We are closer to fascism than most people think. Apparently some crazy leader shouting about the evils of the world (could be Hitler, could be Bush) gets people's nationalism at a high, at the same time they erode the rights of citizens. Then all it takes is candidates sponsored by the pharmaceutical/oil/(insert big business here) industry. Remember during WWII Italy was the Fascist Business Republic. Here is a good write up of where we are apparently heading.

Oh yeah and Sweden is socalist as well. They have their problems as well.

.

IBM tried the same strategy when it introduced MicroChannel architecture (MCA) for PS/2 in 1987.

MCA featured technical improvements that were appropriate for the times. Computers were speeding up and the bus was a bottleneck.

The verdict of history?

Although MCA was a huge improvement over ISA, it was limited only to IBM hardware. It was not compatible with either EISA or XT bus architecture so older cards cannot be used with it. This small market made for very high prices, and IBM didn't help matters by charging high licensing fees. MCA was largely ignored, and with the introduction of PCI, MCA swiftly disappeared.

Some good, brief, info on Square Enix's history (and list of games). http://www.fact-index.com/s/sq/squaresoft.html

i can't think of a single thing to date the chinese have ever created that has benifited humans

• movable type
• the printing press
• paper (as well as paper money)
• meritocratic civil service
• 'gaussian' elimination
• so-called 'arabic' numerals and the base-10 number system
• gunpowder and rocketry
• the post office
• restaurants
• umbrellas
• porcelain (also called, simply, 'china' or 'china-ware')
• ketsup
• silk
• rice
• and soybean (including tofu and soy-sauce)

I remember reading about the first round of Apple vs. Apple lawsuits in Mac Secrets.
(A *very* small summary here.)
You thought Apple Records went apeshit when Apple Computer started putting microphones with their machines, that was nothing! :)

Even the 6502 based Commodore computer series (PET, VC20, C64 et. al.) had some kind of HAL, it was called the Kernel ROM, and developers were strongly encouraged to use the I/O-Routines provided by the Kernel ROM instead of writing their own.

Actually, the Commodore KERNAL was more of an OS than a HAL. (though I suppose parts of it could be considered that way)

See? I *knew* that reading all 1800 pages of Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears would come in handy...

I know, it was only 800 pages. It just *felt* like 18000... That book would have been much better as a 400 page book.

Definition:

"A time-delaying tactic associated with the Senate and used by a minority in an effort to delay, modify or defeat a bill or amendment that probably would pass if voted on directly. The most common method is to take advantage of the Senate's rules permitting unlimited debate."

From http://www.acpa.nche.edu/govrel/terms.htm

The GOP used the same tactic against Clinton, but now it's the Dems who came up with this "crazy idea"?

This is the first time the filibuster has been used to block judicial appointments. The filibuster is used by the minority. During Clinton's second term, the Republicans were in the majority. No need to filibuster.

During Clinton's first term Democrats were the majority. I don't recall Republicans using a filibuster to block judicial nominations. I could be wrong. If someone could prove me wrong I would be glad to look at a source with the information.

Majority leaders:

http://www.fact-index.com/u/un/united_states_senat e_majority_leader.html