Once you allow such decisions to be made on the basis of anything other than fact, you knock out the support beams of NASA as a scientific agency.
We're talking about the agency that promotes the cost savings of refurbishing the Space Shuttle SRBs even though it's more expensive than building new ones. That ship sailed in 1958.
But, the Big Bang *IS* a theory. NPOV would require it be referred to as a theory. Wikipedia calls it a theory; are they a tool of the Religious Right?
I'm an atheist and this doesn't sound wrong to me; it's a theory. What's the big deal in insisting it be called such? Is the truth so damaging to somebody's agenda here?
Already is with cruise control. The number of accidents bcos ppl aren't actively controlling the distance to the car in front is scary.
Also, using it in wet weather makes hydroplaning doubly dangerous, and doubly difficult from which to recover.
Cruise control is evil. I use it myself, but only under conditions where I've fully considered the implications, and if I start to get tired or something the first thing I do is turn it off. It should be wired to the windshield wipers so that if they're on, it isn't.
This finally proves conclusively my theory, to wit:
If you're looking for the best video card to buy at any given moment, all you have to do is ask me whether I have ATI or Nvidia, and then buy the highest-end model from the other manufacturer.
that this would help show to them how stupid the idea of software patents are.
Since the indications are that Microsoft stole this idea, and possibly code, from this guy, I doubt it'll do any such thing. More likely it'll convince them more that they're a good thing.
Insulation on the inside means you have to make the tank larger to hold more fuel.
Larger tank means more metal. More metal means more weight. More weight means more fuel. More fuel means more cold. Tricky balance there. Remember, this is the tank where they stopped painting the foam because the paint added too much weight.
Also, it'll be hard to find a porous material that doesn't absorb hydrogen, the smallest atoms in existence.
If I started going to the press and saying things my employer didn't like, they wouldn't do much about it as long as I wasn't wearing a company shirt, because I'm a peon. However, if a Senior Vice President of the company did so, you can damn well bet they'd muzzle him because he'd be perceived as speaking for the company.
This is exactly what any employer would do anywhere, and it's what any government agency would do under any President. Nothing to see here, just another desperate liberal attempt to find a hook upon which to hang their hatred.
Moreover, Google didn't have to censor its results. The Chinese government could have censored its results for them, as the Chinese government does with other web sites. But instead of Google letting the Chinese government do its thing, Google has volunteered to censor its own servers.
True, but by doing it themselves, they got the chance to add that little blurb about not being able to show the results. China wouldn't have.
And the liberal spin attempts to make this indictment sound like proof that the underlying investigation turned up a crime, when it in fact uncovered that no crime had been committed, continues at full speed.
Yes; but of not paying those taxes on illegally-gained money. It still had to be proven that he in fact possessed that money.
Libbey is being charged with saying he didn't talk to somebody when he did. They know he did because he showed up with a some notes and said "huh, according to these notes, looks like I DID talk to him. My bad."
Comparing this to Capone would be like if it was discovered that he was in fact not a mobster, he just ran a home-based business and didn't declare $200 of income, and we found that out because he testified to it, so we decided to indict him for tax evasion.
The only reason Apple isn't a monopoly is because Microsoft beat them to it. If the situation were reversed it would truly be reversed; Apple would fight to retain its monopoly just as it has fought to retain its IP.
If it was so openly-known, why does the evidence point strongly enough to Lewis Libby to indict him on five felony counts?
NONE of which are that he leaked the identity of an undercover operative. Read them again. He's being charged, basically, with lying about his role in something for which nobody is being directly charged with a crime.
If anything, this is pretty much proof they couldn't find a shred of evidence a crime was committed; if they think they can prove these charges (perjury in self-amended testimony? Come on!), then certainly they could indict on the core charge, wouldn't you think?
B) Jose Padilla. Private U.S. citizen. Held for 3+ years without being charged with a crime. He may have been guilty, but his 4th and 5th amendments rights were violated.
He wasn't "publicly humiliated" because of his "embarassing behavior". He was arrested for a crime, which is absolutely not the same thing. The highest federal court to give a ruling on his disposition so far has upheld it as being legal, not counting rulings subsequently thrown out by a higher court.
This is not an example of what you were asked to provide. This is yet another instance of responding to a question with an emotional outburst instead of logic, which is what the original questioner expected.
You guys should quietly slink off and admit the original emotional outburst was wrong, not keep trying to deflect with irrelevancies.
Doing business with Chinese businesses is not the same thing as supporting the government that murdered 77 million of them.
If China was a free-market capitalist society, you'd be correct; but as a socialist oligarchy, those businesses are essentially composed of 100% slave labor, with every dollar they take in being government property.
Not to mention the fact that some of those Chinese goods you're using were either manufactured in whole or part by, or exported by, Norinco, which is basically the Army.
It is a federal crime for anyone with authorized knowledge of the identity of an active or recently active undercover CIA operative to knowingly divulge it to persons not otherwise authorized to know it.
Yes, and so far the investigation appears to be indicating that:
1) It was an openly-known thing to the entire Washington press core before Bush took office. 2) She wasn't undercover.
Need I remind you that NOBODY has been charged with violating that law in this? The most they've managed is, after much scrambling, to accuse someone of lying about not remembering a conversation, based on his own notes that he delivered voluntarily?
Nevertheless, you were asked to provide the name of a private citizen. You provided the name of a government employee. There was a second condition you didn't meet, but I feel no need to waste time when all it takes is one to defeat your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you allow such decisions to be made on the basis of anything other than fact, you knock out the support beams of NASA as a scientific agency.
We're talking about the agency that promotes the cost savings of refurbishing the Space Shuttle SRBs even though it's more expensive than building new ones. That ship sailed in 1958.
But, the Big Bang *IS* a theory. NPOV would require it be referred to as a theory. Wikipedia calls it a theory; are they a tool of the Religious Right?
I'm an atheist and this doesn't sound wrong to me; it's a theory. What's the big deal in insisting it be called such? Is the truth so damaging to somebody's agenda here?
Heh, thanks for beating me to it.
However, I'm surprised we're not going into a flamewar over John Titor in this one, since we've got a good opportunity.
To repeat my words, I think he's "being" an idiot, not that he is an idiot.
Not only are "being" and "is" the present participle and third person singular present indicative of the same word, but "he's" has an "is" in it.
You are, in fact, arguing about what the meaning of "is" is. That's been tried; didn't come off so well.
Hey, I've got an idea; how about instead of selling security as an add-on package, we:
BUILD IT INTO THE FARKING OPERATING SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I don't see any compelling reason to believe that any work created since the term "DRM" was invented will ever go out of copyright.
Why the frack should they change? To please you?
How about to get their email without interruption?
Already is with cruise control. The number of accidents bcos ppl aren't actively controlling the distance to the car in front is scary.
Also, using it in wet weather makes hydroplaning doubly dangerous, and doubly difficult from which to recover.
Cruise control is evil. I use it myself, but only under conditions where I've fully considered the implications, and if I start to get tired or something the first thing I do is turn it off. It should be wired to the windshield wipers so that if they're on, it isn't.
That said, it seems like the #1 problem with drunk driving is staying in your lane and keeping the right speed.
Today that's the #1 problem, because driving is an active process that tends to keep you awake.
With this, it will become a passive process, and the drunks will fall asleep. Then the school bus in front of them will stop and let kids out.
Hilarity ensues.
This finally proves conclusively my theory, to wit:
If you're looking for the best video card to buy at any given moment, all you have to do is ask me whether I have ATI or Nvidia, and then buy the highest-end model from the other manufacturer.
that this would help show to them how stupid the idea of software patents are.
Since the indications are that Microsoft stole this idea, and possibly code, from this guy, I doubt it'll do any such thing. More likely it'll convince them more that they're a good thing.
Insulation on the inside means you have to make the tank larger to hold more fuel.
Larger tank means more metal. More metal means more weight. More weight means more fuel. More fuel means more cold. Tricky balance there. Remember, this is the tank where they stopped painting the foam because the paint added too much weight.
Also, it'll be hard to find a porous material that doesn't absorb hydrogen, the smallest atoms in existence.
There have been numerous claims refuting that that happened and it is strongly suspected the General had been put up .
A thousand liberals screaming something probably isn't true doesn't make it false.
he's exempt.
Then why did he say the following in the post:
(I am non-exempt)
I took that to mean he wasn't exempt. Is there some subtle interpretation of it I'm missing?
If I started going to the press and saying things my employer didn't like, they wouldn't do much about it as long as I wasn't wearing a company shirt, because I'm a peon. However, if a Senior Vice President of the company did so, you can damn well bet they'd muzzle him because he'd be perceived as speaking for the company.
This is exactly what any employer would do anywhere, and it's what any government agency would do under any President. Nothing to see here, just another desperate liberal attempt to find a hook upon which to hang their hatred.
Moreover, Google didn't have to censor its results. The Chinese government could have censored its results for them, as the Chinese government does with other web sites. But instead of Google letting the Chinese government do its thing, Google has volunteered to censor its own servers.
True, but by doing it themselves, they got the chance to add that little blurb about not being able to show the results. China wouldn't have.
But Usama bin-Laden may be hiding up them , along with the Iraqi Weapons of Mass destruction. So obviously they need to bomb it
1 24562.shtml
Nope, we know where those are:
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_2
Maybe we should test this giant-copper-slug idea on Syria first, though.
And the liberal spin attempts to make this indictment sound like proof that the underlying investigation turned up a crime, when it in fact uncovered that no crime had been committed, continues at full speed.
What country DOESN'T have defense plans regarding their nations' network infrastructure? Elbonia?
Capone was convicted of tax evasion.
Yes; but of not paying those taxes on illegally-gained money. It still had to be proven that he in fact possessed that money.
Libbey is being charged with saying he didn't talk to somebody when he did. They know he did because he showed up with a some notes and said "huh, according to these notes, looks like I DID talk to him. My bad."
Comparing this to Capone would be like if it was discovered that he was in fact not a mobster, he just ran a home-based business and didn't declare $200 of income, and we found that out because he testified to it, so we decided to indict him for tax evasion.
The only reason Apple isn't a monopoly is because Microsoft beat them to it. If the situation were reversed it would truly be reversed; Apple would fight to retain its monopoly just as it has fought to retain its IP.
If it was so openly-known, why does the evidence point strongly enough to Lewis Libby to indict him on five felony counts?
NONE of which are that he leaked the identity of an undercover operative. Read them again. He's being charged, basically, with lying about his role in something for which nobody is being directly charged with a crime.
If anything, this is pretty much proof they couldn't find a shred of evidence a crime was committed; if they think they can prove these charges (perjury in self-amended testimony? Come on!), then certainly they could indict on the core charge, wouldn't you think?
B) Jose Padilla. Private U.S. citizen. Held for 3+ years without being charged with a crime. He may have been guilty, but his 4th and 5th amendments rights were violated.
He wasn't "publicly humiliated" because of his "embarassing behavior". He was arrested for a crime, which is absolutely not the same thing. The highest federal court to give a ruling on his disposition so far has upheld it as being legal, not counting rulings subsequently thrown out by a higher court.
This is not an example of what you were asked to provide. This is yet another instance of responding to a question with an emotional outburst instead of logic, which is what the original questioner expected.
You guys should quietly slink off and admit the original emotional outburst was wrong, not keep trying to deflect with irrelevancies.
Doing business with Chinese businesses is not the same thing as supporting the government that murdered 77 million of them.
If China was a free-market capitalist society, you'd be correct; but as a socialist oligarchy, those businesses are essentially composed of 100% slave labor, with every dollar they take in being government property.
Not to mention the fact that some of those Chinese goods you're using were either manufactured in whole or part by, or exported by, Norinco, which is basically the Army.
It is a federal crime for anyone with authorized knowledge of the identity of an active or recently active undercover CIA operative to knowingly divulge it to persons not otherwise authorized to know it.
Yes, and so far the investigation appears to be indicating that:
1) It was an openly-known thing to the entire Washington press core before Bush took office.
2) She wasn't undercover.
Need I remind you that NOBODY has been charged with violating that law in this? The most they've managed is, after much scrambling, to accuse someone of lying about not remembering a conversation, based on his own notes that he delivered voluntarily?
Nevertheless, you were asked to provide the name of a private citizen. You provided the name of a government employee. There was a second condition you didn't meet, but I feel no need to waste time when all it takes is one to defeat your argument.