Didn't Nostradamus also say the world will end in 2012? Now I get it, what he meant by "world" was actually "analog television". Damn translation problems.
That is the cost to the economy of all the slashdot users having to waste a minute of their workday to google "Elastic Compute Cloud" because the editor couldn't be bothered to put one sentence in the summary. Yes, I worked it out.
I don't know but I looked up the author's (Carl Howe) writings on that site http://blackfriarsinc.com/blog/index.html and just about all the entries are positive comments about Apple and iPhone
How is this different from small Cesnas and what not that are buzzing around now, except that it folds up and drives you home from the airstrip? I don't think there would be problems with the licensing, its just another small plane. It won't be average drivers that will be flying this thing, you'll still need a pilots license as well as a drivers license.
You know, I did some J2EE development recently (after not touching Java for a while) and I thought I was learning a new language (and I don't mean a programming language): J2EE, J2SE, J2ME, JAF, JMS, JATO, JSF, JSS, JTA, JTS, JAXM, JAXP, JSS, JSSE... (if I got some of them wrong, no big deal, the way things are going they will be correct eventually).
How many different 3 letter combinations starting with J can still be available?
P.S please don't work it out, it was a rhetorical question
I don't think you understood my answer. Let me say it in simpler words:
Your point is that the UN doesn't do any good, or ok, a specific part of UN, the human rights commission (which by the way doesn't even exist any more). Is that right, that was your point?
My answer is that it is not enough to criticize something, you have to provide an alternative. What is your alternative?
Or let me put it in even simpler terms:
(Why is it that I can never get a clear answer to this simple question from UN bashers)
Would you give UN more power or less?
But you see that is not the problem with the UN but with the nation state system. Who gets to decide which country is a good citizen (USA in your opinion? Most people on this planet would disagree) and which one is a "rights-abusing monster"?
Here are the alternatives for ya, feel free to add your own:
1. A nation state is supreme, there are no meaningful international bodies: this creates a "might is right" situation that existed for most of the history, resulting in hell of a lot of killing. A situation that UN was created to correct in the first place.
2. There is a body above the nation state that has power to tell the nation state what to do (aka World Government): Listen Burma you better clean up your act or we will invade! OR Listen USA, we the UN have decided that your death penalty and gun laws are barbaric and we order you to change them!
3. An international forum where the sovereign states, good and bad, can come together and work on things in a peaceful way. Perhaps occasionally get the interests of sufficient number of them aligned to the point of doing something useful. This is pretty much what we have today. Not perfect, but what's your alternative?
I get your point. But my point is that at least there is a human rights commission. What would be achieved if you did away with it? If you are having a forum where all countries participate then you have to take the bad as well as the good and do the best you can.
BTW, given what's going on in Iraq, USA is not exactly in a position to say who should be on what commission. How about a "Commission for not illegally invading countries who do not present even a slightest threat to you and turning them into wastelands"? Would US get to be on it?
That's exactly what is confusing me. Usually the argument is that the UN doesn't do anything and allows dictators to do whatever they want, and countries to pay no attention to it, and wars to go on, and genocides to happen etc.
So the answer is that there should be a bigger, more powerful UN that will invade countries when they misbehave (Sudan, Burma....) and depose countries' leaders (Saddam, Milosevic etc....) and get involved in policing work and catching war criminals inside sovereign countries (Bosnia, Serbia) against their wishes etc etc.
Is this not basically an argument for a world government? I'm not saying its a bad thing, just that people who submit this argument would often say they are highly opposed to a world government (for example having powers to interfere in the internal affairs of the US).
UN does not have an army. It only has the power that the nations that make it up allow it to have, primarily the security council members. If the USA wanted to send the military into Sudan to stop the genocide nobody was stopping it. If the USA wanted to submit a resolution to the UN to form an international force to go in, nobody was stopping it either.
Why is it that the Americans generally think that the UN is pointless? Because they heard it said on fox or cnn? What exactly is your rationale for thinking that the world would be better off and not worse off without the UN?
I don't know why but this shit seems really hard to get right. Electronic stock trading, bank transactions, military systems etc - no problem. Electronic voting - disaster every time.
I tried the Santa Monica one and it sucks too much even for email checking. Its painfully slow and unreliable (at least it was a few months ago, my apologies to Santa Monica if they improved it since). If its worth the trouble and money to put it up, surely its worth a little bit more to make it good?
It is kind of silly. 3rd highest priority seems very high, far above organized crime, corruption, violent crimes etc. The article makes is sound as if FBI doesn't care about cybercrime when in fact its exactly the opposite.
I'm sure #1 is taking up about 90% of the agents or thereabouts (no it doesn't say so in the document, far too long and too pdf for me to read or even search through the whole thing). Because terrorist attacks are soooooo much more scary than the other 9. I think we should bump it up to 100% and just forget about every other problem except for those darn terrorists.
Priority 1 - Protect the United States from terrorist attack Priority 2 - Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage Priority 3 - Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and hightechnology crimes Priority 4 - Combat public corruption at all levels Priority 5 - Protect civil rights; Priority 6 - Combat transnational and national criminal organizations and enterprises Priority 7 - Combat major white-collar crime Priority 8 - Combat significant violent crime Priority 9 - Support federal, state, local and international partners Priority 10 - Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI's mission
What is so wild about it? So they took a scanner, OCR software, a translation engine and a printer and put them all in one box. Well actually not even that since it has to bee hooked up to a computer for the translation part.
How about replacing the translation engine with a spell checker? Hooray, call the patent office, I just invented a photocopier that fixes the spelling on the documents!
Slashdot Mirror
don't be surprised if 2012 becomes 2014 down the road.
Don't know about you, but I'd be very surprised if that happens
Didn't Nostradamus also say the world will end in 2012? Now I get it, what he meant by "world" was actually "analog television". Damn translation problems.
That is the cost to the economy of all the slashdot users having to waste a minute of their workday to google "Elastic Compute Cloud" because the editor couldn't be bothered to put one sentence in the summary. Yes, I worked it out.
Thanks kdawson
I don't know but I looked up the author's (Carl Howe) writings on that site http://blackfriarsinc.com/blog/index.html and just about all the entries are positive comments about Apple and iPhone
The article failed to mention where can I get some of this poison? I need to cut down on my heating bill this winter.
Ok, so if all this is true, the NSA is monitoring this post as well. Let's raise some red flags:
Bin Laden...terrorist attack....al qaeda...top secret message...embedded...in...goatse picture...here...nsa don't look....http://goatse.ca/hello.jpg
How is this different from small Cesnas and what not that are buzzing around now, except that it folds up and drives you home from the airstrip? I don't think there would be problems with the licensing, its just another small plane. It won't be average drivers that will be flying this thing, you'll still need a pilots license as well as a drivers license.
Yes, and the guy extracted vanilla flavor from cow dung because he was interested in gross profit
I live in Las Vegas. On a clear night I can see the Moon
You know, I did some J2EE development recently (after not touching Java for a while) and I thought I was learning a new language (and I don't mean a programming language): J2EE, J2SE, J2ME, JAF, JMS, JATO, JSF, JSS, JTA, JTS, JAXM, JAXP, JSS, JSSE... (if I got some of them wrong, no big deal, the way things are going they will be correct eventually).
How many different 3 letter combinations starting with J can still be available?
P.S please don't work it out, it was a rhetorical question
Using my mind reading technology I can tell that you are under extremely high level of stress. Would you like to:
a) Take a nap
b) Have a healthy snack
c) Continue working
AAAAARGH *fist crashes through the monitor*
rename the Centrino Pro as Intel Centrino with vPro Technology
Much better....
I don't think you understood my answer. Let me say it in simpler words: Your point is that the UN doesn't do any good, or ok, a specific part of UN, the human rights commission (which by the way doesn't even exist any more). Is that right, that was your point?
My answer is that it is not enough to criticize something, you have to provide an alternative. What is your alternative?
Or let me put it in even simpler terms: (Why is it that I can never get a clear answer to this simple question from UN bashers) Would you give UN more power or less?
But you see that is not the problem with the UN but with the nation state system. Who gets to decide which country is a good citizen (USA in your opinion? Most people on this planet would disagree) and which one is a "rights-abusing monster"?
Here are the alternatives for ya, feel free to add your own:
1. A nation state is supreme, there are no meaningful international bodies: this creates a "might is right" situation that existed for most of the history, resulting in hell of a lot of killing. A situation that UN was created to correct in the first place.
2. There is a body above the nation state that has power to tell the nation state what to do (aka World Government): Listen Burma you better clean up your act or we will invade! OR Listen USA, we the UN have decided that your death penalty and gun laws are barbaric and we order you to change them!
3. An international forum where the sovereign states, good and bad, can come together and work on things in a peaceful way. Perhaps occasionally get the interests of sufficient number of them aligned to the point of doing something useful. This is pretty much what we have today. Not perfect, but what's your alternative?
I get your point. But my point is that at least there is a human rights commission. What would be achieved if you did away with it? If you are having a forum where all countries participate then you have to take the bad as well as the good and do the best you can.
BTW, given what's going on in Iraq, USA is not exactly in a position to say who should be on what commission. How about a "Commission for not illegally invading countries who do not present even a slightest threat to you and turning them into wastelands"? Would US get to be on it?
That's exactly what is confusing me. Usually the argument is that the UN doesn't do anything and allows dictators to do whatever they want, and countries to pay no attention to it, and wars to go on, and genocides to happen etc. So the answer is that there should be a bigger, more powerful UN that will invade countries when they misbehave (Sudan, Burma....) and depose countries' leaders (Saddam, Milosevic etc....) and get involved in policing work and catching war criminals inside sovereign countries (Bosnia, Serbia) against their wishes etc etc. Is this not basically an argument for a world government? I'm not saying its a bad thing, just that people who submit this argument would often say they are highly opposed to a world government (for example having powers to interfere in the internal affairs of the US).
UN does not have an army. It only has the power that the nations that make it up allow it to have, primarily the security council members. If the USA wanted to send the military into Sudan to stop the genocide nobody was stopping it. If the USA wanted to submit a resolution to the UN to form an international force to go in, nobody was stopping it either.
Why is it that the Americans generally think that the UN is pointless? Because they heard it said on fox or cnn? What exactly is your rationale for thinking that the world would be better off and not worse off without the UN?
I don't know why but this shit seems really hard to get right. Electronic stock trading, bank transactions, military systems etc - no problem. Electronic voting - disaster every time.
I'm not in the fuckin mood for running around some stupid maze. And turn down those lights!
I tried the Santa Monica one and it sucks too much even for email checking. Its painfully slow and unreliable (at least it was a few months ago, my apologies to Santa Monica if they improved it since). If its worth the trouble and money to put it up, surely its worth a little bit more to make it good?
It is kind of silly. 3rd highest priority seems very high, far above organized crime, corruption, violent crimes etc. The article makes is sound as if FBI doesn't care about cybercrime when in fact its exactly the opposite.
I'm sure #1 is taking up about 90% of the agents or thereabouts (no it doesn't say so in the document, far too long and too pdf for me to read or even search through the whole thing). Because terrorist attacks are soooooo much more scary than the other 9. I think we should bump it up to 100% and just forget about every other problem except for those darn terrorists.
Priority 1 - Protect the United States from terrorist attack
Priority 2 - Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and
espionage
Priority 3 - Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and hightechnology
crimes
Priority 4 - Combat public corruption at all levels
Priority 5 - Protect civil rights;
Priority 6 - Combat transnational and national criminal organizations and enterprises
Priority 7 - Combat major white-collar crime
Priority 8 - Combat significant violent crime
Priority 9 - Support federal, state, local and international partners
Priority 10 - Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI's mission
What is so wild about it? So they took a scanner, OCR software, a translation engine and a printer and put them all in one box. Well actually not even that since it has to bee hooked up to a computer for the translation part. How about replacing the translation engine with a spell checker? Hooray, call the patent office, I just invented a photocopier that fixes the spelling on the documents!
You've obviously never seen myspace