Yeah, some people are enlightened enough to handle sex (polyamorous relationships), but most of the people are not like that and it leads to extreme feelings...
Everyone who wants to impose their values on the world, or proclaim their superiority, calls themselves "enlightened". It's a great word, because, who doesn't want to be enlightened? And, it's nice and vague. Mormans, Southern Baptists, and all sorts of religious extremists call themselves "enlightened". So do strong-atheists.
I object to your characterization of sex as polyamorous. While some people enjoy that, I don't particularly. I don't enjoy penises being inserted into me either though, so I recognize that it takes all types to make up the world. I enjoy my "intense feelings".
In today's world it is not a bad policy to excercise reasonable restraint on one's sexual behaviour (I'm thinking avoiding sleeping with everyone), because while violence is condemnable, sex causes violence.
I tend to avoid sleeping with girls who are unattractive because I don't want to. There's also an increased chance of STDs with more partners, etc. etc.
What's wrong with the violence that sex causes? I mean, you have to respect safe words, but other than that...
We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Well, Athens for one. That's also pretty poor logic. Since there had just been a rebellion against the British, then another where the Articles of Confederation were overturned, that's 27 rebellions, counting rebellions per state. Also, that would mean, by Jefferson's logic, as the number of states increased, so would the number of Rebellions. Taking into account the increased federal powers since Jefferson's time, we can in fact say that, using his logic (and numbers) we have had one revolution in one nation since the civil war elevated the federal government over the states (that revolution being the civil war). 2008-1865 = 143 state-years. 11*13 = 143 state-years. So, we're still on track people.
Any independent is better than Tweedledum or Tweedledee in my book...
Then you are contradicting yourself. You claimed that the reason your vote was not wasted was because you were moving one political party's platform more in line with the third party's ideals. If you don't care which third party, are you pushing the Republicans towards Nixon or Teddy Rosevelt? Are you moving the republicans towards FDR or Clinton?
So by their rational if the rest of us don't know about the new rules we get off the hook too right?
Well, kinda. If the government doesn't publish or provide any way to read the rules, you'd be off the hook. Otherwise, you just violated Catch-22... oh, I don't have to show it to you.
Different, but IMHO not any better. I voted for Nader hoping that it would help Gore to lose (I'm not in Florida tho), even though I think Republican politicians are complete scum
True, that's not a wasted vote - if that's your intent. But most people who vote for third-parties don't use that logic. They truely believe in that third party as an option.
I think the only way to bring the Dems back in line with their platform is to vote for independents and hope the Dems lose in the process
To my mind, this is too party-centric. While Democrats may have lost their way, Al Gore had (to my mind at least) not. Unfortunately, after Clinton and his centering ways, Gore got painted with the same brush. But as far as the economy, taxes, and the environment (hell, and tech issues too), I don't really see Gore as the same as a typically Dem. I'm not mad the Democrats lost the White House. I'm mad Al Gore lost the White House. He's the only politician who has ever amazed me. Gore for King!
I knew full well in 2000 that Bush was an accident looking for a place to happen, and voted for Nader realizing that. Bush exceeded my wildest expectations in that regard.
A bit of a pyrric victory that. If it will take 20 years of amazing leadership to recover, I'd rather have the 28 years of status quo, thank you very much.
While Barr may not have a chance of winning, Obama does have a chance of losing, and that is what I'm shooting for-- I just refuse to vote for McCain to try to accomplish it.
Why do you oppose McCain if Barr is your alternative? They seem fairly similar, especially on the things that a Democratic supporter (especially a left-of-the-party) would oppose.
White male businessmen. Occasional families. Very few minorities, and virtually no women travelling independently.
In the 60's, what other businessmen were there, other than white and male? To try to make something that was classist also racist and sexist, just because the classes back then were aligned that way, insults everyone's intelligence.
If you say "if you don't vote Democrat or Republican your vote is wasted", well if that's so then a vote for loser Gore was a wasted vote too, now wasn't it? You should have voted for Bush rather than wasting your vote on a loser. Just look at the popularity polls, vote for the guy you think has the best chance of winning and vote for him so you don't waste your vote.
Most votes are wasted. What good does it do to vote for a winner? Your vote is not wasted only if it influnces the outcome. This is a rare event. However, if 500 people had voted for Gore instead of Nader in Flordia, then the world would be different now.
My vote is always wasted. I know who will win my state already. So I can vote for whomever. However, it is a waste of a vote if there is a chance it will affect the outcome, and you nullify that chance by voting for someone who cannot win.
You think that the a Democratic president would have invaded Iraq? Imprisoned and tortured innocent people? Pushed for telecom immunity in the first place? Undermined the military? Publicly exposed the identity of undercover agents? Ignored New Orleans after Katrina? Undermined habeas corpus?
In all fairness, I don't think McCain or Obama would have done any of those things. Just because McCain is followed by a hyphen R, doesn't make him like Bush. I think he's further right than many of his independent supporters are willing to admit, I certanily trust him to not use torture. And certainly not to have let it enter the debate. The president sets the agenda, after all.
I doubt he would have invaded Iraq, as he seems competient enough to know the difference between various "people who talk different from me, and are darker to boot". And speaking of competience, Katrina was a lack thereof. McCain gets things done. He'll probably get more of the democractic agenda accomplished than Obama will.
And as for undercover agents, and supporting the military, McMcain has never shown any reason to doubt he'd take the correct path. He certainly seems patrotic.
However, the habeus corpus and telecom immunity scare me. I don't know where he stands on civil liberties.
Such as making sure there are no tapes that inconveniently crop up.
The difference is, Nixon ordered the taping mechanism installed, and then deleted 18.5 minutes. Which is why there isn't that much incriminating information (about Watergate) on the tapes. A bunch of embarassing things, sure. I think some talk of Watergate. But no orders to do it, etc.
The e-mails that were deleted, on the other hand, were ordered to be kept by Congress.
There's a difference between destroying the private notes you decided to take, before they are subponeaed (presumably), and destroying records you are legally obligated to keep.
So please protect the data and privacy of us non-Americans as well.
I've never heard of a U.S. (Note the proper syntax) non-American. I suppose that is the new term to describe Democrats. Well,as South Park proclaimed, if you don't like America, you can git out.
So actually, its only half a house and half a jetski. Better keep that in mind when you're bidding upwards of AU$300k.
It seems like you really are getting everything, and whatever arrangement he has with his ex has been resolved. But keep in mind, he gets to keep one set of clothes. So why is that important? Well, he has taken out loans against everything to buy a diamond studded suit!*
*I dunno if this is true, but it would be a clever way to liquidate all your assets while hocked to the gills, and have someone else have to pay back the loans.
You realize that the "postal convention" is broken onto seperate lines? And that partway through it doesn't suddenly get more specific ("slashdot.com/comments.pl" is "2.1/3" as far as general to specific goes)? That "postal convention" was designed to put the recipient first (since mail is to a recipient rather than a location, which is why it is illegal to open mail that came to your address under a different name; and why mail forwarding works), and the rest is only routing information? That's why user@address makes sense to people. Address.TLD does not. Even on/., which site do you expect to have more in commmon with google.com, google.net or microsoft.com. If the answer is google.net, then the TLD system was designed so poorly you don't even expect it to be meaningful anymore.
Lastly, the number of counter examples to what you claim as a standard are innumerable. Look at telephones (a far more apt analogy), Country Code - Area Code - Exchange - Extension.
Well, you don't have to test to be sure that your Flash app probably won't run correctly under Linux, or for users who care about security (and will thus disable it), or for users who've given up after be pummelled with Flash ads, or on platforms that Flash doesn't support.
Nice way to say "slashdot subscribers" many different ways, so the group can be counted multiple times. Fact is, Flash has something like a 98% install rate. Compare that to the penetration of browsers that can complete the Acid2 test. Hell, compare that to the penetration of browsers that don't mangle a couple common w3c standards. I'd rather lose Linux users than MS/IE users from my site (assuming that it's not an extremely technical site (I also dispute this assertion*).
I disable Flash and JavaScript until given a reason not to (for security and ad purposes). I think most people disable both or neither. I tend to find Flash less annoying, but that's only because it tends to be more self-contained.
Flash is supported on a ridiculous number of platforms. The Wii for instance. I don't know about the other consoles. Also, there is a huge by Adobe to get it onto cell phones.
With Flash, Adobe can pull the rug out from under you any time they like, as they did with their SVG plugin.
This statement is wrong. First, the swf file format is open*. Second, they pulled their plug on SVG, their Flash competitor, and then bought Flash for several billion dollars. Flash is ultimately what Java wanted to be, a universal language, albeit a simple one. It would be an impossible business case to discard Flash, unless it is so far in the future that the coding choice of www.whatever.com is no longer relavent.
* Since the.swf format is open, I doubt there is not a valid player for Linux.
He wants to be able to have it. Freedom is worth a lot even when you don't use it all.
He still wouldn't have it. He cannot have 10x the redundant infrastructure even if the government allowed it.
Whether government regulation, or market conditions, or corporate monopoly power, or whatnot, if there is an infringment on my freedom, my only question is "how can I remove it".
Since we won't really have companies stringing extra wires, I'd rather the government require utilities to share then have a theoretical, but unrealizable, freedom.
After all, it is only a freedom that you are not using if you can make use of it at a later date.
Seriously, the ordering is just a convention. It can go either way as long as it does so consistently.
Good job. You, like I, am a geek and understand this. My mother does not understand that [subdomain].her-bank.com is still her bank, and made me drive over because she was convinced that there was malware on her computer. No one types in "com.google", but most people don't understand that, at least theoretically, "google.com" and "microsoft.com" have more in common than "google.net" and "microsoft.net".
Further, there already is a convention in English, Spanish, Italian, German, Greek, Russian, pretty much all western countries of reading left to right. At least with e-mail I have the @ sign. X at Y dot com makes sense. X dot Y dot com, while I understand, does not to most people imply the same logical structure. Hell, filesystems put subdirectories on the right. Even URLs do this. As I type this, it is slashdot.org/comments.pl Notice that after the URL I revert to reading left to right.
flash, but now you'll be able to do them using a w3c standard that the vast majority of users will probably end up actually having supported in their browsers.
It may not by a w3c standard, but I'd rather use Flash. The vast majority of end users already have it downloaded, and it really is uniform across browsers/OSes, unlike w3c standards. At least I don't need 5 browsers and 2 boxes to test all the significant combinations.
Also, thanks to Adobe (probably the only think worth thanking them for) protecting the Flash name, Microsoft cannot do the embrace/extend/extinguish path on the name. HTML, JS, CSS, Microsoft was able to invent alternates for all these w3c standards. Even Java with J++. Not so with Flash.
So I guess my point is, I'm willing to bet on greater market penetration of Flash, then of w3c compliant browsers.
Hit trend with a $30M fine if they are found to have made a patent claim that turned out to be obviously bogus.
"Obviously bogus" is a standard legal test. Fact is, you have no way of knowning if it is a nonsensical patent claim or not. At least, you haven't given any indication of knowing. If by "nonsensical" you mean predated by prior art, it would seem hard to prove that they should/did know of the prior art's existence.
Fact is, litegation between two parties who care reduces the cost of patent approval in toto. Unless you can figure out a more efficent method.
I doubt "search.com" is making CNet as much money as "google.com" is making Google.
Sure, but when google.search redirects to msn.search (especially in a sneaky, but not trademark infringy way), people will start to use it more and more. And as custom TLD's become more and more commonplace, less people will think of.com or.co.[country code] as the standard..com's will become much like.net's or.org's.
What ICANN really messed up with was the TLD concept reading backwards. It should be tld.domain.www, or com.google.mail, com.google.search, com.google.etc. It confuses a lot of people to have the order the other way. And now, if TLD's spread like this, suddenly there are tons of people with.mail etc. that can all look more realistic than mail.google.com.
Basically, ICANN is trying to eliminate squatting by stealing all their profits. FTFA:
"If there is a dispute, we will try and get the parties together to work it out. But if that fails there will be an auction and the domain will go to the highest bidder."
I wonder how much.search will go for, my guess would be several hundred million at least.
Well, Hell, if I knew what my tasks were, I wouldn't need a project management tool. I gave up on it completely.
Yeah. One time I bought QuickBooks, and it wanted me to create a bunch of accounts and set up transactions and everything. Hell, if I knew anything about accounting, I wouldn't need accounting software.
Tools are sometimes designed to be used by professionals, as a means of them doing their job; not as a substitute for professionals with a 95% accurate wizard.
Nope. It was discovered in Denmark, not Norway. While the "[Scandanavian Country*] Blue" name may have inspired by Monty Python, it was not copied from Monty Python.
*Yes, Denmark is in Scandanavia, in spite of what some people think.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone who wants to impose their values on the world, or proclaim their superiority, calls themselves "enlightened". It's a great word, because, who doesn't want to be enlightened? And, it's nice and vague. Mormans, Southern Baptists, and all sorts of religious extremists call themselves "enlightened". So do strong-atheists.
I object to your characterization of sex as polyamorous. While some people enjoy that, I don't particularly. I don't enjoy penises being inserted into me either though, so I recognize that it takes all types to make up the world. I enjoy my "intense feelings".
I tend to avoid sleeping with girls who are unattractive because I don't want to. There's also an increased chance of STDs with more partners, etc. etc.
What's wrong with the violence that sex causes? I mean, you have to respect safe words, but other than that...
Well, Athens for one. That's also pretty poor logic. Since there had just been a rebellion against the British, then another where the Articles of Confederation were overturned, that's 27 rebellions, counting rebellions per state. Also, that would mean, by Jefferson's logic, as the number of states increased, so would the number of Rebellions. Taking into account the increased federal powers since Jefferson's time, we can in fact say that, using his logic (and numbers) we have had one revolution in one nation since the civil war elevated the federal government over the states (that revolution being the civil war). 2008-1865 = 143 state-years. 11*13 = 143 state-years. So, we're still on track people.
I always get cookies on the internet. Even Slashdot gives me cookies. But I keep opening my case and cannot find them. Anyone have any advice?
Then you are contradicting yourself. You claimed that the reason your vote was not wasted was because you were moving one political party's platform more in line with the third party's ideals. If you don't care which third party, are you pushing the Republicans towards Nixon or Teddy Rosevelt? Are you moving the republicans towards FDR or Clinton?
Well, kinda. If the government doesn't publish or provide any way to read the rules, you'd be off the hook. Otherwise, you just violated Catch-22... oh, I don't have to show it to you.
I'll trade you both of my Senators. They're idiots. Not as in "I disagree with them" but as in "I don't got no fancy book-lur-nin".
True, that's not a wasted vote - if that's your intent. But most people who vote for third-parties don't use that logic. They truely believe in that third party as an option.
To my mind, this is too party-centric. While Democrats may have lost their way, Al Gore had (to my mind at least) not. Unfortunately, after Clinton and his centering ways, Gore got painted with the same brush. But as far as the economy, taxes, and the environment (hell, and tech issues too), I don't really see Gore as the same as a typically Dem. I'm not mad the Democrats lost the White House. I'm mad Al Gore lost the White House. He's the only politician who has ever amazed me. Gore for King!
A bit of a pyrric victory that. If it will take 20 years of amazing leadership to recover, I'd rather have the 28 years of status quo, thank you very much.
Why do you oppose McCain if Barr is your alternative? They seem fairly similar, especially on the things that a Democratic supporter (especially a left-of-the-party) would oppose.
In the 60's, what other businessmen were there, other than white and male? To try to make something that was classist also racist and sexist, just because the classes back then were aligned that way, insults everyone's intelligence.
In all fairness, I don't think McCain or Obama would have done any of those things. Just because McCain is followed by a hyphen R, doesn't make him like Bush. I think he's further right than many of his independent supporters are willing to admit, I certanily trust him to not use torture. And certainly not to have let it enter the debate. The president sets the agenda, after all.
I doubt he would have invaded Iraq, as he seems competient enough to know the difference between various "people who talk different from me, and are darker to boot". And speaking of competience, Katrina was a lack thereof. McCain gets things done. He'll probably get more of the democractic agenda accomplished than Obama will.
And as for undercover agents, and supporting the military, McMcain has never shown any reason to doubt he'd take the correct path. He certainly seems patrotic.
However, the habeus corpus and telecom immunity scare me. I don't know where he stands on civil liberties.
The difference is, Nixon ordered the taping mechanism installed, and then deleted 18.5 minutes. Which is why there isn't that much incriminating information (about Watergate) on the tapes. A bunch of embarassing things, sure. I think some talk of Watergate. But no orders to do it, etc.
The e-mails that were deleted, on the other hand, were ordered to be kept by Congress.
There's a difference between destroying the private notes you decided to take, before they are subponeaed (presumably), and destroying records you are legally obligated to keep.
I've never heard of a U.S. (Note the proper syntax) non-American. I suppose that is the new term to describe Democrats. Well,as South Park proclaimed, if you don't like America, you can git out.
It seems like you really are getting everything, and whatever arrangement he has with his ex has been resolved. But keep in mind, he gets to keep one set of clothes. So why is that important? Well, he has taken out loans against everything to buy a diamond studded suit!*
*I dunno if this is true, but it would be a clever way to liquidate all your assets while hocked to the gills, and have someone else have to pay back the loans.
I'm glad to be below average. And I didn't think I would be.
You realize that the "postal convention" is broken onto seperate lines? And that partway through it doesn't suddenly get more specific ("slashdot.com/comments.pl" is "2.1/3" as far as general to specific goes)? That "postal convention" was designed to put the recipient first (since mail is to a recipient rather than a location, which is why it is illegal to open mail that came to your address under a different name; and why mail forwarding works), and the rest is only routing information? That's why user@address makes sense to people. Address.TLD does not. Even on /., which site do you expect to have more in commmon with google.com, google.net or microsoft.com. If the answer is google.net, then the TLD system was designed so poorly you don't even expect it to be meaningful anymore.
Lastly, the number of counter examples to what you claim as a standard are innumerable. Look at telephones (a far more apt analogy), Country Code - Area Code - Exchange - Extension.
Nice way to say "slashdot subscribers" many different ways, so the group can be counted multiple times. Fact is, Flash has something like a 98% install rate. Compare that to the penetration of browsers that can complete the Acid2 test. Hell, compare that to the penetration of browsers that don't mangle a couple common w3c standards. I'd rather lose Linux users than MS/IE users from my site (assuming that it's not an extremely technical site (I also dispute this assertion*).
I disable Flash and JavaScript until given a reason not to (for security and ad purposes). I think most people disable both or neither. I tend to find Flash less annoying, but that's only because it tends to be more self-contained.
Flash is supported on a ridiculous number of platforms. The Wii for instance. I don't know about the other consoles. Also, there is a huge by Adobe to get it onto cell phones.
This statement is wrong. First, the swf file format is open*. Second, they pulled their plug on SVG, their Flash competitor, and then bought Flash for several billion dollars. Flash is ultimately what Java wanted to be, a universal language, albeit a simple one. It would be an impossible business case to discard Flash, unless it is so far in the future that the coding choice of www.whatever.com is no longer relavent.
* Since the .swf format is open, I doubt there is not a valid player for Linux.
He still wouldn't have it. He cannot have 10x the redundant infrastructure even if the government allowed it.
Whether government regulation, or market conditions, or corporate monopoly power, or whatnot, if there is an infringment on my freedom, my only question is "how can I remove it".
Since we won't really have companies stringing extra wires, I'd rather the government require utilities to share then have a theoretical, but unrealizable, freedom.
After all, it is only a freedom that you are not using if you can make use of it at a later date.
Sorry, cut and paste mistake. Corrected.
Good job. You, like I, am a geek and understand this. My mother does not understand that [subdomain].her-bank.com is still her bank, and made me drive over because she was convinced that there was malware on her computer. No one types in "com.google", but most people don't understand that, at least theoretically, "google.com" and "microsoft.com" have more in common than "google.net" and "microsoft.net".
Further, there already is a convention in English, Spanish, Italian, German, Greek, Russian, pretty much all western countries of reading left to right. At least with e-mail I have the @ sign. X at Y dot com makes sense. X dot Y dot com, while I understand, does not to most people imply the same logical structure. Hell, filesystems put subdirectories on the right. Even URLs do this. As I type this, it is slashdot.org/comments.pl Notice that after the URL I revert to reading left to right.
It may not by a w3c standard, but I'd rather use Flash. The vast majority of end users already have it downloaded, and it really is uniform across browsers/OSes, unlike w3c standards. At least I don't need 5 browsers and 2 boxes to test all the significant combinations.
Also, thanks to Adobe (probably the only think worth thanking them for) protecting the Flash name, Microsoft cannot do the embrace/extend/extinguish path on the name. HTML, JS, CSS, Microsoft was able to invent alternates for all these w3c standards. Even Java with J++. Not so with Flash.
So I guess my point is, I'm willing to bet on greater market penetration of Flash, then of w3c compliant browsers.
"Obviously bogus" is a standard legal test. Fact is, you have no way of knowning if it is a nonsensical patent claim or not. At least, you haven't given any indication of knowing. If by "nonsensical" you mean predated by prior art, it would seem hard to prove that they should/did know of the prior art's existence.
Fact is, litegation between two parties who care reduces the cost of patent approval in toto. Unless you can figure out a more efficent method.
Sure, but when google.search redirects to msn.search (especially in a sneaky, but not trademark infringy way), people will start to use it more and more. And as custom TLD's become more and more commonplace, less people will think of .com or .co.[country code] as the standard. .com's will become much like .net's or .org's.
What ICANN really messed up with was the TLD concept reading backwards. It should be tld.domain.www, or com.google.mail, com.google.search, com.google.etc. It confuses a lot of people to have the order the other way. And now, if TLD's spread like this, suddenly there are tons of people with .mail etc. that can all look more realistic than mail.google.com.
Basically, ICANN is trying to eliminate squatting by stealing all their profits. FTFA:
I wonder how much .search will go for, my guess would be several hundred million at least.
Yeah. One time I bought QuickBooks, and it wanted me to create a bunch of accounts and set up transactions and everything. Hell, if I knew anything about accounting, I wouldn't need accounting software.
Tools are sometimes designed to be used by professionals, as a means of them doing their job; not as a substitute for professionals with a 95% accurate wizard.
Nope. It was discovered in Denmark, not Norway. While the "[Scandanavian Country*] Blue" name may have inspired by Monty Python, it was not copied from Monty Python.
*Yes, Denmark is in Scandanavia, in spite of what some people think.