Or perhaps "deaths [that] range from hundreds of thousands to much higher figures [yearly]" and other harsh facts not figure into your political agenda? Do these people not matter to you? Who would you rather believe "malaria researchers" or "Greenpeace"? What are the agendas of these groups? Does greenpeace strive to save people? Do malaria researchers work for DOW chemical? What's their incentive behind wanting to use DDT?
Don't act like you didn't already know that millions of past deaths are on the hands of enviro-fascists and people like you who shove their foot in their mouths defending them all the time. Before you get your statist panties all worked up realize that humans are the most important thing on this planet, and if you don't think so then you're the sicko, not me.
There is a finite amount of farmland, organic food requires more farmland to grow, I'm not sure what the numbers are but take into account spoilage, pest infestation, smaller fruits, longer grow time, etc.. This is why organic foods cost more, they literally cost more to produce. Now take into account that the U.S. and many 1st world countries feed starving 3rd world countries. Organic foods drive up the cost of regular grain that would be exported to the starving masses because there is less farmland available to grow regular goods, and as more people buy organic foods "because it just feels good" or "because it's good for the endocrine" the more the cost of regular food, and subsequently rescue food, will go up. That means the amount of food given to the starving masses in any given aid country will go down proportionally.
So eat up! the more 'designer' food you eat the more the starving children in Africa will starve, but their used to that treatment, the same enclave of hippy bozos that brought us organic food also vies for the prohibition of DDT in developing countries where over a million people, mostly children below the age of 5, die each year from malaria. Because they want to watch out for the peregrine falcon and all, I mean, where will all the children dying of malaria and starving from lack of food get their whole wildlife appreciation thing from without the peregrine falcon?
The goal of the legislation is to make energy produced with fossil fuels more expensive. Even so many proponents of the bill claim it will not drive up the cost of energy. How stupid is that? The goal of the bill is to drive up the cost of energy!
And where does the money go? That's the stupidest part, is nobody really knows, it is as convoluted a scheme as anyone could ever come up with.
The only people who will benifit are the people who are lobbying for their little piece of the taxpayer pie right now. What's the very worst part? The senate approved the measure down party lines, squashing a filibuster, without reading even reading the god damn thing, AGAIN. In fact there was a 300+ page amendment to the 1500+ page bill at 3AM the MORNING OF THE VOTE! How can anyone who voted for this even claim to be responsible? This is political absurdity at what I hope to be its peak.
It's true that prior to the release of HL2 it was acknowledged that this was a work of ID. But that only came out after the source code was leaked and Valve's hand was forced. Gabe Newell represented Valve's "source" engine as a separate program from the Q2 engine. Of course my assertion that Gabe would not pay licensing fees to ID for his "source" engine is conjecture, because this never had a chance to occur, nobody will ever know, the theft prevented any underhandedness. If he lied for the fame or for the money is irrelevant to the fact he lied.
Valve rewrote the engine by replacing the goldsrc engine piece by piece
I do not call optimizing code rewriting code from scratch. The theft of the "source" engine showed everyone how "modified" it really was, which is to say hardly at all when compared to the GPL Q2 source. Gabe tries to take credit for making some revolutionary engine, but it's not, it was mostly written in 1992 by ID, it's not the next big thing. The proof is in the relicensing of "source" to Vivendi and before it was even written! If Vivendi knew that "source" was GPL Q2 with a few tweaks I assure you they would not have signed up with valve, more likely they would have used ID or EPIC. Valve does not make game engines. They make some decent games, but calling "source" a game engine is a misnomer, it would be like calling Counter Strike a game engine. It's just a modified version of the quake 2 engine.
I agree with Gabe that DRM is basically dumb. At best DRM does not work (can be cracked), at worst it causes the game to not work for legitimate customers. That said, Gabe Newell is a liar. This is the man that claimed to have written the source engine. Touted it at E3 as the next big thing, showed us demos and told every this is the greatest FPS code ever written. Then someone hacked his box, found out that the much lauded "source" was just a modified version of the Quake 2 engine and Gabe thought he could modify it enough to call it his own creation. I'm sure this plan would never come to fruition as Gabe Newall is a total programming novice and John Carmack would have typed his secret back door blowup code and demanded millions in licensing fees when it was discovered. As it is the hacker that exposed Gabe as a bald face liar saved him from millions of dollars in legal fees. I totally agree with Gabe "I made Quake 2" Newall in this instance, however, Gabe is still a liar and I will always see him as a liar for as long as he can pull air into his lungs. Sir, how dare you call 'your' engine source when you didn't even write the god damn source?! People don't forget Gabe! you fucked up brother!
You just proved my point when you said "state militia." The Second Amendment means the Federal government does not have the power to disarm the state militias.
"Militia" is not the national guard. The "Militia" referred to in the 2nd amendment is more along the lines of the minute men. It does not say "national guard", it does not say "state by state militia", it says "militia", as in the hundreds of well regulated Private militia forces, legally operating in the U.S. under 2nd amendment protection. Your idea that the 2nd amendment tells the government that it's OK to have a Militia is not well thought out. Every existing government has a tiered military starting with your local police, or is your argument that the 2nd amendment also prevents the federal government from disarming the police as well?
You claim the Declaration of Independence is "propaganda" but you don't have to know that much about it to realize the significance of the document, a legal document that held power over an entire country. And you totally misrepresent the reason for the 3/5th vote. to make it sound like people were trying to treat salves like less than a person. But it's really quite the opposite:
Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers.
The most annoying thing about your posts is you refuse to provide any information to backup your arguments. What you're saying, unless you can back it up with some sort of documentation, is just pure conjecture. I'm very aware that in your opinion the U.S. is an evil slave state that is irredeemable. I'm just asking that you provide some actual proof of the wild accusations you're making.
A simple google search for
second amendment slaves
But I guess you can't be bothered to show evidence to support your argument?
You're arugment really does not make since anyway. Why would "we the people" require weapons to put down a slave revolt? Couldn't the police, army or state militia put down a slave revolt? Just the same way the Army put down a city wide riot in the New York Draft Riots. And mind you thoes were not slaves, but full citizens that have a right to bear arms.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Also note that the U.S.A. was the first country in the world to abolish slavery, before France, before England. In fact some African, European, and Asian countries still support slavery today!
Perhaps you should read a bit of history about Abolitionism before you start throwing blame around. Realize the conservitive Republicans' were responsible for abolishing slavery. It's also interesting to note that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex was passed down party lines after Republicans overcame a 54 day filibuster by southern Democrats!
A lot of people don't know this, but Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, he was the first abolitionist president, he fought a bitter civil war to end slavery with Republicans in the north calling themselves The Union and Democrats in the south calling themselves Confederates attempting to cede from the union. Also, there is no refuting the huge role that the Christian Quakers played in the abolition of slavery.
Again, if you can provide me with some solid evidence to back up your claim I'm happy to read it, you claim it's "simple" to find, I did the search and just found a bunch of conspiracy theorist web sites and nothing that actually backs up your claim in the least bit. Our country was founeded on Stoic Natural Law. Stoics emphasized the universal ideas of individual worth, moral duty, and universal brotherhood. The idea of slavery is against Stoic Natural Law.
If I've failed to sway your opinion perhaps our friend Thomas Paine can. Just read the first few pages of this book and then tell me what you think of the 2nd amendment.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
- Thomas Jefferson
And he in large part wrote the constitution!
So perhaps you can rethink your previous statment? Or maybe you can link to a credible reference to back up your assertion?
I've used netflix on video over the internet for a year or two now. The way to solve the problem is to break the star ratings up into a few different categories. You can always leave an "overall" rating for the lazy people, but if someone really wants netflix to "get to know them" they need to be more specific about what they like in the movie.
Right now neflix tries to infer what it was in the movie you liked by looking at other movies. Why not just ask what they liked about the movie.
For instance, I'm very concerned about the production quality in a movie. The movie may have the best plot ever and great actors but it was shot on a home VHS camera. I would give the movie a 1 star because the production quality was so bad, on the other hand someone who likes plots may have rated it a 5 star. Now netflix will never know if I rated it 1 star because I don't like the genre or don't like the acting or the cinematography. It just sees I rated the whole movie as a 1 and any movies that have similar elements then lose their importance on my personal ratings. If I could tell netflix: don't show me movies shot on a VHS camera (e.g.: production 1 star) then I could tell netflix I love the genre, love the plot hate the production.
A good example is Blood Ryane - this movie absolutely sucks (insert government sponsored movies jab here), but I like the genre - now if I give this one star, as it deserves, netflix will think I really don't like the... whatever, it's most likely going to be wrong about it because it's pure conjecture.
I'm not a big movie nerd so I wouldn't be the best person to come up with the rating categories, but I'll give it a shot since this will never occur:
Of course this will never happen because netflix will not change their system to conform to my random idea on slashdot. And by this sentence I've just about exhausted all my interest in the subject.
One last comment: Why are all the online netflix movies so craptastic? Really, if it wasn't made 15 years ago, and it's in the "watch instantly" section, then it must really suck. They had a movie on there called "merc force".... OMG! The special FX were done with PBRUSH, and they used the microphone that was built into the directors handy cam the whole time. Yes, it was that crappy, I actually had to show this movie to other people so they would believe me. I'm not a producer or anything, but I could shit on a paper plate and kick it against a clean white wall, and that would make a better movie. Merc force.... I will never forget you.
The media is not supposed to be biased. There is this thing called journalistic ethics that says you must be a neutral party when reporting the news. There are things like opinion pages and editorials that are allowed to be biased and I think people mix this up with actual news. Actual news stories are absolutely not supposed to be biased, the problem is they are, and the WP has admitted to it as has ABC. Just about every other major news organization was in the corner for Obama and just doesn't have the balls to fess up.
There is a difference between a political pundit like Shawn Hannity and a reporter like Anderson Cooper. Hannity is allowed to state his opinion because he does so with the pundit hat on, Cooper on the other hand is not allowed to state his opinion because he is a reporter. This is journalism 101 and everyone here seems to think it's ok to ignore ethics so long as everyone else is doing it. This is the year that journalism died. And anyone who think's Fox news is in the tank for McCain obviously didn't watch a lick of Fox news. And even if you do believe that, it's undeniable that almost every single other print and TV media outlet was in Obama's corner. When You can't trust the press to give you honest news reports, where do you turn?
Obama won, and McCain lost, but the real looser is the press, they cannot be trusted to report the news without adding their own slant. And they provide this slant in the name of goodness and justice and to better mankind. Problem is I don't agree with their brand of politics. There is never any solution in government, government is the problem, and you succeed, not because of government, but in spite of government.
The greatest trick of the left is to redefine the language. The leftist would have you believe that the political spectrum on the far right is facisim. This is demonstratably false. The only facist governments in my memory have been leftist socialist governments, for example Germany's Hitler was a socialist, Italy's Mussolini was a socialist. The reason it has been redefined by the left is to scare people into thinking that if they are too rightest they will end up killing all the Jews or some such nonsense. In reality moving to the right produces nothing but less and less government.
Think of the political spectrum not as right and left but as MIN and MAX like a volume knob. Think of right as MIN government, and think of left as MAX government. When this country started we started at MIN government, and every year since then the government itself has lobbied for more and more government. Government, in this country and others, is self perpetuating, like a cancer that will continue to draw more and more blood from the healthy tissue to support the massive, and quite useless, tumor, so too will government continue to draw the blood of its people until they are left with nothing.
Government is not the solution to any problem. There will never be anyone who cares about your life and the problems of your family except you. You cannot force free people to give a damn about you. You cannot force free people to pay for other less fortunate people. You cannot force a free people to subsidize with their taxes ideas they disagree with.
We, the free people of this country, will eventual shed the tyrannical yoke of government again when the burden becomes too much. Hopefully we do this by voting to the right and make this government less and less until it stops the income tax! Stops the sales tax! Stops the property tax! For the first 150 years of this country these taxes did not exist and only with a massive shift to the left were these taxes even possible. Vote right and stop the spread of socialism and communism!
Freedom is not free and you can't just get it back once you have given it up!
The theory of more disks = more disk failures sounds totally logical. But in practice it does not work at all. For 5 years I ran 5 servers with various IDE RAID5 and RAID1 solutions (promise, highpoint). There was a total of about 20 IDE disks. I see a disk failure about once every two months. About 3 years ago I added a Dell poweredge 2600 running TWO SCSI U160 disks on a SCSI RAID1. A single disk fails about three times a year on the dell. I found a cheap NetApp F760 NAS. It has three disk shelves of 72gb fiber channel drives for a total of 28 disks (2TB) making up 4 RAID 4 volumes. I've had this for a little over a year running ISCSI for database servers and have yet to see a single disk failure. NetApp uses a technology, WAFL, that is exactly the same as ZFS and was in fact has been in production for more than a decade. But I digress.
My point here is, the number of disk failures in a particular IT system cannot be generalized upon. There is no global rule for disk failures. My guess is there are so many different reasons for failure that it is practically impossible to predict how a system will behave without looking at the system itself, not at the cloud of disk failures. In my case I had a bunch of IDE disks failing at one rate, a bunch of SCSI U160's failing even more frequently, and a whole lot more fiber channel disks that have yet to fail at all!
Also the whole premise of the article is emphasizing on the failure of RAID5 - then says enterprises won't be affected - but what typical home user even uses a RAID 5? If I were going to give my mother a RAID it would be a RAID 1, not a RAID 5. Furthermore the typical user doesn't even know what RAID is! The typical user still thinks his single HDD is safe! We (geeks) have a long way to go in educating the typical user before we get to the RAID5 is unsafe part, which is untrue anyway. A good disk controller will recover the data in your RAID 5, even with a URE of 10^14. As with most generalizations and statistics, this one is clearly false. I'm sure Seagate loves that Samsung's failure rate effects their drive's failure rate somehow! The title would be better phrased "Crappy disks and crappy disk controllers are crappy". Hmmmm, yes, I like that much better. The previous title was boring and pedantic.
I've read at least four posts that "ID supporters are going to go crazy about this". And I've read zero posts from ID supporters going crazy. The fact is that ID could mean anything from you believe in Vishnu to you believe in the Intergalactic space council that seeds terraformed planets and has planted here, long ago, alien DNA by visiting spacecraft now trapped in a small storage locker somewhere in the Alpha Centauri system. ID is SO vague it can't possibly be argued against, or taught outside of saying "Someone or something may have made all this".
It's sort of like saying my Science is better than your imaginary friend. If some lunatic fringe of the radical evangelical right wing Christians want to disbelieve obvious science fact does not mean that everyone who believes in ID is so naive. Even Christians believe in science, and a lot of them believe that god made physics! But it's not something you can, or should argue about, you end up looking like a bigger fool than the guy who believes in a geocentric universe or some such nonsense.
You shouldn't pigeonhole anyone who believes in something you can't possibly prove or disprove as someone who is inherently stupid and who rejects science. There are far too many scientists who believe in ID for that argument to be valid.
This has far reaching implications for all browsers. If you can't track a huge portion of the pie using google/yahoo analytics then it makes no since using 3rd party tracking software. The user in me cheers, the site administrator in me cringes.
The solution is for the web devs to stop coding to a browser, and do what they should have been doing all along: code to the standards.
Only someone who has never made a production web site would say such a thing. And I'm not talking about your grandma's photo gallery you made with iWeb. In the real world people do whatever it takes to get things done. Your flippant attitude towards IE tells me you're an elitist power user who could care less if a page renders properly in IEx. When you make web sites, you make sure they work in all browsers regardless of what the "standards" say, and regardless of how much you loath a particular browser.
I say "standards" in quotes because the standards are a joke. NO browser implements the "standards". As devs we are asked to use doctypes to engage standards mode, but more and more this is turning out to be a really bad idea. Since "standards" mode produces no coherent standard in any doctype what the hell is the point of making devs use the unimplemented standards? The current standard for a given doctype, oh lets say CSS2/HTML4.1, has been around for what, a decade? And no production browser has ever rendered this doctype properly! I'm happy as hell to code to a standard, but if nobody else [FF,IE,OP,SF] is going to pay attention to said standards, how do you suppose I'm going to do that? The state of standards in doctypes are so bad that every major web page that I know of uses quirks mode (no doctype) present site excluded. But even here on slashdot, they may use a doctype but they also use 'if ie' (non standard code) in their code to 'fix' the IE stuff. And don't think that means FF isn't being fixed, it's the FF 'fix' that's default and the IE 'fix' overrides the FF 'fix', and that's pretty typical!
You don't take advantage of browser-specific bugs when designing a site
No, I don't take advantage of them, and I can't remove them, so I whip them into place with browser specific code so the flaws don't appear to be flaws at all. The goal is to make the page look the same in all browsers, not to code to the "standards" because as I said earlier, it's worthless to do so if the result is shit.
Why don't you list the hundreds of major rendering flaws IE has in implementation of each standard, rather than the dozen or so minor flaws FF has overall, in the implementation of all the standards?
Well, I would first say, I'm not a bug tracker. But second I would say the topic is about a FF/IE plugin fixing rendering flaws in IE. Not an IE/FF plugin fixing rending flaws in FF. What I'm saying to the plugin devs is "People in glass houses should not throw rocks.".
IE is not to ignored, but it's not to be catered to either.
I'm sorry, you lost me, if you don't ignore it, you must be catering to it.
IE6 users
... should, at the very least, get IE7.
IE6 users are to be warned about the severe bugs their browser has and how much their experience will improve if they switch to a standards-based browser such as Firefox or Opera.
NOW that is quite a claim! If you really think that FF or Opera are "standards-based" or whatever your word for it is, why not go ask the FF or Opera dev community if their production browser passes the acid3 test? No? It doesn't? Oh.... well guess it's not as "standards-based" as you thought. Or maybe you knew that and you're just a troll. Until all browsers are truly standards based this argument is one for academia, meaning, people in the real world don't even care. I'll write my syntax to standards, meaning the W3C says it looks good, but I'm going to tweak out the page until it looks the same and behaves the same in every browser. This FF plugin just makes my job that much harder.
I have no love for any browser, I hate them all equally.
Did anyone think about pages that detect user agent strings? A lot of devs use the UA string to "fix" these rendering problems on a per browser basis. This plugin would "break" the pages that have already been "fixed" causing quite a headache to the devs who would never know that their page does not work correctly in this version of IEx because it has a nifty plugin to fix things. Sound like dev's will have yet another variable to watch out for.
And for thoes who say this plugin is somehow for devs: any developer who wants real cross browser compatibility will use the target browser not some add on crap. Any developer who says "I don't care what it looks like in IE" obviously does not have a job developing public web sites (or won't have a job doing so much longer). Even if you don't like the browser you don't ignore 70+% of your customers (or any % of your customers). I have every browser imaginable available to me to make sure my pages work properly in all browsers.
And as far as bashing IE for the rendering flaws it has, I would look first to fix FF's rending flaws. I'm not going to list the dozens of bugs and out-of-compliance standards FF has, anyone who thinks FF has no rendering bugs is seriously delusional. And no production browser has yet to pass the acid 3 test, that includes FF and IE. And even if one browser did pass the test, devs still have to cope with all the other browsers that didn't.
1. Any game requires rules, even if you don't like them. Breaking the rules, even if it's a stupid rule, still means you broke the rules.
2. Amongst other reasons, the age requirement is there because children under the age of 16 don't face the same pressures a 16 year old kid faces. This was thoroughly explained by the coach of the U.S. team. When you're 14, in the opinion of the rule makers, you are much more aware that you are competing in a global arena representing your country. When you're younger you see it as a game and you don't have nearly as much pressure.
3. Add this to the way the Chinese treat the U.S. gymnasts, by making them wait for a long time after they are called. It was done by the 'arena authorities' and not the IOC. They give no explanation why. They only do it to the U.S. gymnasts in the final round.
Add all these together and you get a insatiable lust for winning at any cost, not just a willingness to break "bad rules". China will do whatever it takes to win. Rules only apply to the weak [non communist].
The implication is that the tiny Chinese gymnasts (average size 4-foot-9, 74 pounds) have a big advantage, especially on the uneven bars. They're lighter and more agile than the other gymnasts.
Team coordinator Martha Karolyi claimed "psychological warfare" because Alicia Sacramone was made to wait a few minutes before beginning her fateful balance beam routine.
After a closer examination of the evidence it has come forth that the BSOD was actually CGI superimposed on the roof to make the U.S. audience viewing at home feel more familiar with Chinese technology. At selected venues around the world the BSOD was replaced with a kernel panic screen and even a Mac classic bomb.
I hate VIA if you didn't gather that already. I've spent more time puzzling over ACPI, bus mastering, faulty IRQ sharing, piss poor drivers that VIA has made than all other OEM's put together. Even if you have a fully functional Intel chipset board/w Intel chip and Intel video card - add a VIA USB card and POOF! There goes your stability. All I can hope for is that they go completely out of business and perhaps have a few higher-ups in the company spontaneously combust.
The pinholes are the lack of reflective emulsion. Depending on if you're talking about CDR or CD the data is in different places. In a regular CD the data is pressed into the top of the clear layer, then a layer of reflective emulsion is added over it, then a clear coat to protect the emulation. The reflective layer is so the laser in the CD drive has something to reflect off of, if you take this reflective surface away, the data, in all probibility, is unreadable although it is still stamped on the transparent disk. In a CDR pinholes are much more dire as the emulation is a photosensitive organic dye, if you get a pinhole in a CDR the data was the pinhole.
The pregroove is molded into the top side of the polycarbonate disc, where the pits and lands would be molded if it were a pressed (nonrecordable) Red Book CD; the bottom side, which faces the laser beam in the player or drive, is flat and smooth. The polycarbonate disc is coated on the pregroove side with a very thin layer of organic dye.
I saw a pro disk resurfacer at Comdex many years ago, and after a great deal of interrogation the guy trying to sell his gizmo admitted it's just a buffer that uses regular off the shelf car polish, and a good amount of pressure. I've never had any success with toothpaste, and sadly I don't care for my car, or cd's enough to warrant the car polish. I tried the toothpaste on my Freespace 2 disk which looked like a diagram for cloud computing on the silver side, no luck, still doesn't work, and looks much worse than before.
And if you didn't already know, if you can see pinholes of light through your disk, there's no recovering that portion of the disk, it's simply not there. This usually only happens with cheap CDR's but I have a few originals who's thick label has worn down past the data layer.
First Apple is late with the patch. Then the patch does not address the problem. And they do it again and again and again. Which is always met with great fanfare by Mac fans. Exhibit A is the first 50 posts here on slashdot. As long as Mac fans accept these BS patch fixes with a cheer, Apple will keep releasing patches that don't patch the probelm.
[sigh] even the article title is "DNS Clients Have Small Vector of Risk after Patch",,, where is the word 'small' in the/. title... ?
Unless lookupd is doing something really weird, this is a non-issue.
I don't understand how I can be vulnerable to this if I'm not running a DNS server. No open ports means no one can get in, unless I connect to them. If the DNS server I connect to is secured, how can anyone compromise my machine this way?
What it comes down to was Apple reported this patched fixed a problem that it did not fix. This means either they did not test the patch, incompetence, or they knew it didn't address the problem but told everyone it did, lies. All this defence of the indefensible makes people look like blithering idiots. If any company releases a patch that claims to patch something, then does not, that company deserves scorn, not this weak defence (oh it's not that bad!).
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should read the whole entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Criticism_of_restrictions_on_DDT_use
Or perhaps "deaths [that] range from hundreds of thousands to much higher figures [yearly]" and other harsh facts not figure into your political agenda? Do these people not matter to you? Who would you rather believe "malaria researchers" or "Greenpeace"? What are the agendas of these groups? Does greenpeace strive to save people? Do malaria researchers work for DOW chemical? What's their incentive behind wanting to use DDT?
Don't act like you didn't already know that millions of past deaths are on the hands of enviro-fascists and people like you who shove their foot in their mouths defending them all the time. Before you get your statist panties all worked up realize that humans are the most important thing on this planet, and if you don't think so then you're the sicko, not me.
There is a finite amount of farmland, organic food requires more farmland to grow, I'm not sure what the numbers are but take into account spoilage, pest infestation, smaller fruits, longer grow time, etc.. This is why organic foods cost more, they literally cost more to produce. Now take into account that the U.S. and many 1st world countries feed starving 3rd world countries. Organic foods drive up the cost of regular grain that would be exported to the starving masses because there is less farmland available to grow regular goods, and as more people buy organic foods "because it just feels good" or "because it's good for the endocrine" the more the cost of regular food, and subsequently rescue food, will go up. That means the amount of food given to the starving masses in any given aid country will go down proportionally.
So eat up! the more 'designer' food you eat the more the starving children in Africa will starve, but their used to that treatment, the same enclave of hippy bozos that brought us organic food also vies for the prohibition of DDT in developing countries where over a million people, mostly children below the age of 5, die each year from malaria. Because they want to watch out for the peregrine falcon and all, I mean, where will all the children dying of malaria and starving from lack of food get their whole wildlife appreciation thing from without the peregrine falcon?
The goal of the legislation is to make energy produced with fossil fuels more expensive. Even so many proponents of the bill claim it will not drive up the cost of energy. How stupid is that? The goal of the bill is to drive up the cost of energy!
And where does the money go? That's the stupidest part, is nobody really knows, it is as convoluted a scheme as anyone could ever come up with.
The only people who will benifit are the people who are lobbying for their little piece of the taxpayer pie right now. What's the very worst part? The senate approved the measure down party lines, squashing a filibuster, without reading even reading the god damn thing, AGAIN. In fact there was a 300+ page amendment to the 1500+ page bill at 3AM the MORNING OF THE VOTE! How can anyone who voted for this even claim to be responsible? This is political absurdity at what I hope to be its peak.
I do not call optimizing code rewriting code from scratch. The theft of the "source" engine showed everyone how "modified" it really was, which is to say hardly at all when compared to the GPL Q2 source. Gabe tries to take credit for making some revolutionary engine, but it's not, it was mostly written in 1992 by ID, it's not the next big thing. The proof is in the relicensing of "source" to Vivendi and before it was even written! If Vivendi knew that "source" was GPL Q2 with a few tweaks I assure you they would not have signed up with valve, more likely they would have used ID or EPIC. Valve does not make game engines. They make some decent games, but calling "source" a game engine is a misnomer, it would be like calling Counter Strike a game engine. It's just a modified version of the quake 2 engine.
I agree with Gabe that DRM is basically dumb. At best DRM does not work (can be cracked), at worst it causes the game to not work for legitimate customers. That said, Gabe Newell is a liar. This is the man that claimed to have written the source engine. Touted it at E3 as the next big thing, showed us demos and told every this is the greatest FPS code ever written. Then someone hacked his box, found out that the much lauded "source" was just a modified version of the Quake 2 engine and Gabe thought he could modify it enough to call it his own creation. I'm sure this plan would never come to fruition as Gabe Newall is a total programming novice and John Carmack would have typed his secret back door blowup code and demanded millions in licensing fees when it was discovered. As it is the hacker that exposed Gabe as a bald face liar saved him from millions of dollars in legal fees. I totally agree with Gabe "I made Quake 2" Newall in this instance, however, Gabe is still a liar and I will always see him as a liar for as long as he can pull air into his lungs. Sir, how dare you call 'your' engine source when you didn't even write the god damn source?! People don't forget Gabe! you fucked up brother!
"Militia" is not the national guard. The "Militia" referred to in the 2nd amendment is more along the lines of the minute men. It does not say "national guard", it does not say "state by state militia", it says "militia", as in the hundreds of well regulated Private militia forces, legally operating in the U.S. under 2nd amendment protection. Your idea that the 2nd amendment tells the government that it's OK to have a Militia is not well thought out. Every existing government has a tiered military starting with your local police, or is your argument that the 2nd amendment also prevents the federal government from disarming the police as well?
You claim the Declaration of Independence is "propaganda" but you don't have to know that much about it to realize the significance of the document, a legal document that held power over an entire country. And you totally misrepresent the reason for the 3/5th vote. to make it sound like people were trying to treat salves like less than a person. But it's really quite the opposite:
The most annoying thing about your posts is you refuse to provide any information to backup your arguments. What you're saying, unless you can back it up with some sort of documentation, is just pure conjecture. I'm very aware that in your opinion the U.S. is an evil slave state that is irredeemable. I'm just asking that you provide some actual proof of the wild accusations you're making.
But I guess you can't be bothered to show evidence to support your argument?
You're arugment really does not make since anyway. Why would "we the people" require weapons to put down a slave revolt? Couldn't the police, army or state militia put down a slave revolt? Just the same way the Army put down a city wide riot in the New York Draft Riots. And mind you thoes were not slaves, but full citizens that have a right to bear arms.
Seems to me you're in dire need of reading, in full, The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Just a single sentence from the Declaration of Independence refutes slavery.
Also note that the U.S.A. was the first country in the world to abolish slavery, before France, before England. In fact some African, European, and Asian countries still support slavery today!
Perhaps you should read a bit of history about Abolitionism before you start throwing blame around. Realize the conservitive Republicans' were responsible for abolishing slavery. It's also interesting to note that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex was passed down party lines after Republicans overcame a 54 day filibuster by southern Democrats!
A lot of people don't know this, but Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, he was the first abolitionist president, he fought a bitter civil war to end slavery with Republicans in the north calling themselves The Union and Democrats in the south calling themselves Confederates attempting to cede from the union. Also, there is no refuting the huge role that the Christian Quakers played in the abolition of slavery.
Again, if you can provide me with some solid evidence to back up your claim I'm happy to read it, you claim it's "simple" to find, I did the search and just found a bunch of conspiracy theorist web sites and nothing that actually backs up your claim in the least bit. Our country was founeded on Stoic Natural Law. Stoics emphasized the universal ideas of individual worth, moral duty, and universal brotherhood. The idea of slavery is against Stoic Natural Law.
If I've failed to sway your opinion perhaps our friend Thomas Paine can. Just read the first few pages of this book and then tell me what you think of the 2nd amendment.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=SCOTUS+
It's called SCOTUS not USSC.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pointing that out so you can better argue you points in the future.
And he in large part wrote the constitution!
So perhaps you can rethink your previous statment? Or maybe you can link to a credible reference to back up your assertion?
I've used netflix on video over the internet for a year or two now. The way to solve the problem is to break the star ratings up into a few different categories. You can always leave an "overall" rating for the lazy people, but if someone really wants netflix to "get to know them" they need to be more specific about what they like in the movie.
.... OMG! The special FX were done with PBRUSH, and they used the microphone that was built into the directors handy cam the whole time. Yes, it was that crappy, I actually had to show this movie to other people so they would believe me. I'm not a producer or anything, but I could shit on a paper plate and kick it against a clean white wall, and that would make a better movie. Merc force.... I will never forget you.
Right now neflix tries to infer what it was in the movie you liked by looking at other movies. Why not just ask what they liked about the movie.
For instance, I'm very concerned about the production quality in a movie. The movie may have the best plot ever and great actors but it was shot on a home VHS camera. I would give the movie a 1 star because the production quality was so bad, on the other hand someone who likes plots may have rated it a 5 star. Now netflix will never know if I rated it 1 star because I don't like the genre or don't like the acting or the cinematography. It just sees I rated the whole movie as a 1 and any movies that have similar elements then lose their importance on my personal ratings. If I could tell netflix: don't show me movies shot on a VHS camera (e.g.: production 1 star) then I could tell netflix I love the genre, love the plot hate the production.
A good example is Blood Ryane - this movie absolutely sucks (insert government sponsored movies jab here), but I like the genre - now if I give this one star, as it deserves, netflix will think I really don't like the... whatever, it's most likely going to be wrong about it because it's pure conjecture.
I'm not a big movie nerd so I wouldn't be the best person to come up with the rating categories, but I'll give it a shot since this will never occur:
1. Production Quality
2. Plot
3. Directing
4. Acting
5. Genre
Of course this will never happen because netflix will not change their system to conform to my random idea on slashdot. And by this sentence I've just about exhausted all my interest in the subject.
One last comment: Why are all the online netflix movies so craptastic? Really, if it wasn't made 15 years ago, and it's in the "watch instantly" section, then it must really suck. They had a movie on there called "merc force"
The media is not supposed to be biased. There is this thing called journalistic ethics that says you must be a neutral party when reporting the news. There are things like opinion pages and editorials that are allowed to be biased and I think people mix this up with actual news. Actual news stories are absolutely not supposed to be biased, the problem is they are, and the WP has admitted to it as has ABC. Just about every other major news organization was in the corner for Obama and just doesn't have the balls to fess up.
There is a difference between a political pundit like Shawn Hannity and a reporter like Anderson Cooper. Hannity is allowed to state his opinion because he does so with the pundit hat on, Cooper on the other hand is not allowed to state his opinion because he is a reporter. This is journalism 101 and everyone here seems to think it's ok to ignore ethics so long as everyone else is doing it. This is the year that journalism died. And anyone who think's Fox news is in the tank for McCain obviously didn't watch a lick of Fox news. And even if you do believe that, it's undeniable that almost every single other print and TV media outlet was in Obama's corner. When You can't trust the press to give you honest news reports, where do you turn?
Obama won, and McCain lost, but the real looser is the press, they cannot be trusted to report the news without adding their own slant. And they provide this slant in the name of goodness and justice and to better mankind. Problem is I don't agree with their brand of politics. There is never any solution in government, government is the problem, and you succeed, not because of government, but in spite of government.
The greatest trick of the left is to redefine the language. The leftist would have you believe that the political spectrum on the far right is facisim. This is demonstratably false. The only facist governments in my memory have been leftist socialist governments, for example Germany's Hitler was a socialist, Italy's Mussolini was a socialist. The reason it has been redefined by the left is to scare people into thinking that if they are too rightest they will end up killing all the Jews or some such nonsense. In reality moving to the right produces nothing but less and less government.
Think of the political spectrum not as right and left but as MIN and MAX like a volume knob. Think of right as MIN government, and think of left as MAX government. When this country started we started at MIN government, and every year since then the government itself has lobbied for more and more government. Government, in this country and others, is self perpetuating, like a cancer that will continue to draw more and more blood from the healthy tissue to support the massive, and quite useless, tumor, so too will government continue to draw the blood of its people until they are left with nothing.
Government is not the solution to any problem. There will never be anyone who cares about your life and the problems of your family except you. You cannot force free people to give a damn about you. You cannot force free people to pay for other less fortunate people. You cannot force a free people to subsidize with their taxes ideas they disagree with.
We, the free people of this country, will eventual shed the tyrannical yoke of government again when the burden becomes too much. Hopefully we do this by voting to the right and make this government less and less until it stops the income tax! Stops the sales tax! Stops the property tax! For the first 150 years of this country these taxes did not exist and only with a massive shift to the left were these taxes even possible. Vote right and stop the spread of socialism and communism!
Freedom is not free and you can't just get it back once you have given it up!
The theory of more disks = more disk failures sounds totally logical. But in practice it does not work at all. For 5 years I ran 5 servers with various IDE RAID5 and RAID1 solutions (promise, highpoint). There was a total of about 20 IDE disks. I see a disk failure about once every two months. About 3 years ago I added a Dell poweredge 2600 running TWO SCSI U160 disks on a SCSI RAID1. A single disk fails about three times a year on the dell. I found a cheap NetApp F760 NAS. It has three disk shelves of 72gb fiber channel drives for a total of 28 disks (2TB) making up 4 RAID 4 volumes. I've had this for a little over a year running ISCSI for database servers and have yet to see a single disk failure. NetApp uses a technology, WAFL, that is exactly the same as ZFS and was in fact has been in production for more than a decade. But I digress.
My point here is, the number of disk failures in a particular IT system cannot be generalized upon. There is no global rule for disk failures. My guess is there are so many different reasons for failure that it is practically impossible to predict how a system will behave without looking at the system itself, not at the cloud of disk failures. In my case I had a bunch of IDE disks failing at one rate, a bunch of SCSI U160's failing even more frequently, and a whole lot more fiber channel disks that have yet to fail at all!
Also the whole premise of the article is emphasizing on the failure of RAID5 - then says enterprises won't be affected - but what typical home user even uses a RAID 5? If I were going to give my mother a RAID it would be a RAID 1, not a RAID 5. Furthermore the typical user doesn't even know what RAID is! The typical user still thinks his single HDD is safe! We (geeks) have a long way to go in educating the typical user before we get to the RAID5 is unsafe part, which is untrue anyway. A good disk controller will recover the data in your RAID 5, even with a URE of 10^14. As with most generalizations and statistics, this one is clearly false. I'm sure Seagate loves that Samsung's failure rate effects their drive's failure rate somehow! The title would be better phrased "Crappy disks and crappy disk controllers are crappy". Hmmmm, yes, I like that much better. The previous title was boring and pedantic.
At long last the game has been released, but due to a mix-up in the marketing department it was accidentally released in the wrong galaxy.
I've read at least four posts that "ID supporters are going to go crazy about this". And I've read zero posts from ID supporters going crazy. The fact is that ID could mean anything from you believe in Vishnu to you believe in the Intergalactic space council that seeds terraformed planets and has planted here, long ago, alien DNA by visiting spacecraft now trapped in a small storage locker somewhere in the Alpha Centauri system. ID is SO vague it can't possibly be argued against, or taught outside of saying "Someone or something may have made all this".
It's sort of like saying my Science is better than your imaginary friend. If some lunatic fringe of the radical evangelical right wing Christians want to disbelieve obvious science fact does not mean that everyone who believes in ID is so naive. Even Christians believe in science, and a lot of them believe that god made physics! But it's not something you can, or should argue about, you end up looking like a bigger fool than the guy who believes in a geocentric universe or some such nonsense.
You shouldn't pigeonhole anyone who believes in something you can't possibly prove or disprove as someone who is inherently stupid and who rejects science. There are far too many scientists who believe in ID for that argument to be valid.
This has far reaching implications for all browsers. If you can't track a huge portion of the pie using google/yahoo analytics then it makes no since using 3rd party tracking software. The user in me cheers, the site administrator in me cringes.
Only someone who has never made a production web site would say such a thing. And I'm not talking about your grandma's photo gallery you made with iWeb. In the real world people do whatever it takes to get things done. Your flippant attitude towards IE tells me you're an elitist power user who could care less if a page renders properly in IEx. When you make web sites, you make sure they work in all browsers regardless of what the "standards" say, and regardless of how much you loath a particular browser.
I say "standards" in quotes because the standards are a joke. NO browser implements the "standards". As devs we are asked to use doctypes to engage standards mode, but more and more this is turning out to be a really bad idea. Since "standards" mode produces no coherent standard in any doctype what the hell is the point of making devs use the unimplemented standards? The current standard for a given doctype, oh lets say CSS2/HTML4.1, has been around for what, a decade? And no production browser has ever rendered this doctype properly! I'm happy as hell to code to a standard, but if nobody else [FF,IE,OP,SF] is going to pay attention to said standards, how do you suppose I'm going to do that? The state of standards in doctypes are so bad that every major web page that I know of uses quirks mode (no doctype) present site excluded. But even here on slashdot, they may use a doctype but they also use 'if ie' (non standard code) in their code to 'fix' the IE stuff. And don't think that means FF isn't being fixed, it's the FF 'fix' that's default and the IE 'fix' overrides the FF 'fix', and that's pretty typical!
No, I don't take advantage of them, and I can't remove them, so I whip them into place with browser specific code so the flaws don't appear to be flaws at all. The goal is to make the page look the same in all browsers, not to code to the "standards" because as I said earlier, it's worthless to do so if the result is shit.
Well, I would first say, I'm not a bug tracker. But second I would say the topic is about a FF/IE plugin fixing rendering flaws in IE. Not an IE/FF plugin fixing rending flaws in FF. What I'm saying to the plugin devs is "People in glass houses should not throw rocks.".
I'm sorry, you lost me, if you don't ignore it, you must be catering to it.
NOW that is quite a claim! If you really think that FF or Opera are "standards-based" or whatever your word for it is, why not go ask the FF or Opera dev community if their production browser passes the acid3 test? No? It doesn't? Oh.... well guess it's not as "standards-based" as you thought. Or maybe you knew that and you're just a troll. Until all browsers are truly standards based this argument is one for academia, meaning, people in the real world don't even care. I'll write my syntax to standards, meaning the W3C says it looks good, but I'm going to tweak out the page until it looks the same and behaves the same in every browser. This FF plugin just makes my job that much harder.
I have no love for any browser, I hate them all equally.
Did anyone think about pages that detect user agent strings? A lot of devs use the UA string to "fix" these rendering problems on a per browser basis. This plugin would "break" the pages that have already been "fixed" causing quite a headache to the devs who would never know that their page does not work correctly in this version of IEx because it has a nifty plugin to fix things. Sound like dev's will have yet another variable to watch out for.
And for thoes who say this plugin is somehow for devs: any developer who wants real cross browser compatibility will use the target browser not some add on crap. Any developer who says "I don't care what it looks like in IE" obviously does not have a job developing public web sites (or won't have a job doing so much longer). Even if you don't like the browser you don't ignore 70+% of your customers (or any % of your customers). I have every browser imaginable available to me to make sure my pages work properly in all browsers.
And as far as bashing IE for the rendering flaws it has, I would look first to fix FF's rending flaws. I'm not going to list the dozens of bugs and out-of-compliance standards FF has, anyone who thinks FF has no rendering bugs is seriously delusional. And no production browser has yet to pass the acid 3 test, that includes FF and IE. And even if one browser did pass the test, devs still have to cope with all the other browsers that didn't.
2. Amongst other reasons, the age requirement is there because children under the age of 16 don't face the same pressures a 16 year old kid faces. This was thoroughly explained by the coach of the U.S. team. When you're 14, in the opinion of the rule makers, you are much more aware that you are competing in a global arena representing your country. When you're younger you see it as a game and you don't have nearly as much pressure.
3. Add this to the way the Chinese treat the U.S. gymnasts, by making them wait for a long time after they are called. It was done by the 'arena authorities' and not the IOC. They give no explanation why. They only do it to the U.S. gymnasts in the final round.
Add all these together and you get a insatiable lust for winning at any cost, not just a willingness to break "bad rules". China will do whatever it takes to win. Rules only apply to the weak [non communist].
http://www.kansascity.com/495/story/747330.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/olympics/2008/writers/selena_roberts/08/13/china.gymnasts/?bcnn=yes
After a closer examination of the evidence it has come forth that the BSOD was actually CGI superimposed on the roof to make the U.S. audience viewing at home feel more familiar with Chinese technology. At selected venues around the world the BSOD was replaced with a kernel panic screen and even a Mac classic bomb.
Confirmed. It's a kill switch. http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/11/jobs-60-million-iphone-apps-downloaded-confirms-kill-switch/
No, I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Confirmed. It's a kill switch. What you've posted is pure conjecture. Read on! http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/11/jobs-60-million-iphone-apps-downloaded-confirms-kill-switch/
From hell's heart I stab at thee!
/w Intel chip and Intel video card - add a VIA USB card and POOF! There goes your stability. All I can hope for is that they go completely out of business and perhaps have a few higher-ups in the company spontaneously combust.
I hate VIA if you didn't gather that already. I've spent more time puzzling over ACPI, bus mastering, faulty IRQ sharing, piss poor drivers that VIA has made than all other OEM's put together. Even if you have a fully functional Intel chipset board
From wikipedia
I saw a pro disk resurfacer at Comdex many years ago, and after a great deal of interrogation the guy trying to sell his gizmo admitted it's just a buffer that uses regular off the shelf car polish, and a good amount of pressure. I've never had any success with toothpaste, and sadly I don't care for my car, or cd's enough to warrant the car polish. I tried the toothpaste on my Freespace 2 disk which looked like a diagram for cloud computing on the silver side, no luck, still doesn't work, and looks much worse than before.
And if you didn't already know, if you can see pinholes of light through your disk, there's no recovering that portion of the disk, it's simply not there. This usually only happens with cheap CDR's but I have a few originals who's thick label has worn down past the data layer.
What it comes down to was Apple reported this patched fixed a problem that it did not fix. This means either they did not test the patch, incompetence, or they knew it didn't address the problem but told everyone it did, lies. All this defence of the indefensible makes people look like blithering idiots. If any company releases a patch that claims to patch something, then does not, that company deserves scorn, not this weak defence (oh it's not that bad!).