...they would get me to go: Arm me to the teeth, and train me in the proper use of the weapon(s). If I had to go over there as a civilian, I want to be an armed one. If, however, they want to put me in a military uniform to go, that's okay with me.
The al-Quaeda fanatics need to be stopped. They don't care about anyone but themselves. Everything they are doing is only hurting the Iraqi people.
I'm guessing that this is a dupe, because of how long it's been since it was put online, but i'll say it anyway:
Brown has to be on some serious crack. Why else would he choose to contradict people who know what they are talking about? This guy seems to know less about operating systems than _I_ do......and although I couldn't write one by myself, I know that it is possible by anyone that has a clue how to do it...
...about when he worked for IBM, back in the 1970s.
He said that when they itemized their bills, they had to use code numbers. When they had especially thick folk to deal with, they'd list "Code 33". It's much like the ID10T or PEBKAC terms, but much more cryptic.;)
When I was in college in 1993, one of my classmates decided to call a local tech shop to ask them what the difference was between the 486SX and the 486DX. He was told, "'SX' is SUPER-X!".
Needless to say, we made it a point to avoid that tech shop.
For example: in the North East, something like this should be required in the winter months, so that if there "happens" to be a snow storm (all too likely up here, thank you!), any misplaced hikers could be located in a reasonable amount of time, and it may even save the poor soul's life. There were a couple incidents this past winter that could have been avoided with a system like this in place.
In the "good weather", they could be simply disabled, and there's no problems.
Isn't that what scientific theories are about? One makes an observation about something (whether it is known or not), then forms an explanation that works. When the theory can be applied and demonstrated, then it could then be considered a "law", right? (It has been a while since I dealt with physics, so I have to admit that I have forgotten what is required for a theory to become a "law". I know that (macro)evolution, as it is currently defined, has yet to be demonstrated or reproduced; I am not entirely certain that it qualifies for the scientific definition of a theory.)
[religion] has to move the boundry beteween known and unknown so that more stuff that was known becomes unknown. Science is the opposite, and is all about the push to try to move that boundry in the opposite direction.
I'm not certain I agree with that. I think that religion might be better considered as one way of explaining the world around us. The difference between religion and what most consider "science" is that one admits that there is a Supreme Being (God) and attributes the Universe's wonders to Him, while the other does everything it can to avoid coming to the conclusion that a Supreme Being exists.
I am immensely amused that the same people that vehemently and categorically deny the existence of God openly admit that they do not know everything there is to know about the Universe.
...teaching evolution is a non-issue in Finland, and I believe it's the same way in the rest of Europe.
That's interesting.
It's hard for me to understand the creationist viewpoint that has come up in the States;
Considering the fact that many of the European immigrants were coming to the New World for religious reasons, I suppose that this shouldn't surprise me. (Not for any other reason than that those who came here felt the need to mingle their schooling with their faith, yet [theoretically, at least] draw the line at having a State-Sanctioned religion. Some of the original colonies had their different rules about that, but the Federal government here tried not to pick favorites.)
we try to keep religion away from science. On the other hand we do keep in mind that simple Darwinian evolution may not be the whole truth.
I would like to submit that it may be extremely difficult to keep religion away from science, since there are some who take their beliefs about nature to the level of religion. <shrug>
...there must be something real behind UFO sightings, ghost stories etc. Our knowledge of the world is not complete.
What does your school system tell you to say about evolution? How does that affect what you teach the kids in your class?
Currently working as a highschool science teacher, I try to convey the idea of having an open mind towards things, not judging things too early. It's dangerous to assume that science is complete and anything we don't currently understand is bogus. On the other hand it's dangerous to believe everything you're told.
Indeed. Myself, I try to see both sides of any given issue, to see which has more merit. Even then, there are few things that I would consider "set in stone".
My current employer has a problem: they are Win-only. Couple that with a hard dependence on Office (specifically Outlook), and you can see why I want to cry.
They will not be easily swayed to the Right Side (Linux on the desktop) unless there is something to show. Exchange Server replacement would be nice too.
I know about Ximian's software, but it's not an option at the moment...
Of course, being a financial institution (a local bank), I find it interesting that when I start making in-roads on the idea of switching to other platforms, my boss falls on the "FDIC" card. (apparently, in order to placate the FDIC, one has to be able to meet certain criteria. I am not familiar with this, so I don't know what to argue that would satisfy him and the FDIC. Perhaps that would be a great "Ask Slashdot" quiestion...)
It's a classic argument for "NIMBY": Animals get killed when electricity is generated by .
I am all for taking care of our environment so that it lasts longer, but there is only so far we can take it. If the Animal Rights activists had their way, the solution to our energy woes would be to slaughter PEOPLE. They are, after all, the REASON that all this energy is necessary, and people ARE the reason for all the <insert global theory here>.
Mod this as a troll if you want, but you know it's true. There's only so much one can do to protect one's environment. If we can't generate power with nuclear plants, it has to come from SOMEWHERE.
I first got started with Linux back at kernel version 0.99pl10, thanks to my Dad, who sent me a box of Slackware floppies.
I switched to Red Hat sometime in the 5.x series. When I refer to which "version" i have, it is almost always the kernel revision first, then (if they ask), the RH version. (I am currently at 2.4.20 and 9, respectively.)
I don't know right now if I will go with Fedora. the founder of the Worcester LUG likes SUsE, which I tried once before (many moons ago), so I might go that route. My 'Net connection at home (a dial-up) is too slow to warrant Gentoo, so I'll nip that one in the bud now.;)
Socially, it's just wrong. You may get excited about knowing who may be a viable candidate for mothering your Legion of Doom, but most women still consider that sort of information to be Highly Classified(tm).
A few years back, a major supermarket in my area had kiosks that one could use to find out where certain items are located. Aparently, they were only there as a test, because they are not there anymore. Something like this would be GREAT-- I could ask where something is, and it would tell me.
If they wanted to list the various vendors for that item, the respective prices (sales, etc), that's fine. I don't want it to talk to me. It's nobody's business when the last time was that I bought Happy Paper, and I think I am quite safe in saying that there aren't many women that want it advertized that they are looking for tampons or sanitary napkins.
How does "under God" make it a prayer? If your son chooses to not say the pledge of allegiance, that is his business, and no punishment should be rendered. One could easily choose to be honest and true to one's nation without having to utter one sylable of the pledge. I did it. (For the record, I did not become a Christian until very near the end of my first enlistment in the Navy. Until that point, I was agnostic, and would refuse to say "under God" when I said the pledge. Nothing happened to me because of it.)
I will not allow anyone, or anything, or any government to mandate which set of religious babble I will allow to spew from my mouth.
Look into the similarities between "religion" and "humanism". You will be shocked.
Would you deny then, that legally mandating citizens (their young children actually, which I find all the more sad) of this country to pledge to the Christian God every morning for most of the year isn't playing favorites with religion?
Legally mandating? yes. However, participation in reciting the Pledge is not required, at least not on a Federal level, and certainly not where I live or grew up (Massachusetts and Maine, respectively).
I happen to know a few people personally (perhaps you know of them, or have heard myths about these elusive folk) that happen to not believe in / worship God as Christians know it to be. I would be angered at my children having to pledge to some Higher Power contrary to the one my family worhips, in any country, and I would be doubly ashamed to have this happen in America to boot.
Funny you should mention that. As a teenager, I opted to leave out the "under God" part because (at the time) I did not believe in God. I was not punished for my action (or lack thereof). In America, we have the the freedom to worship (or not) as we please. Many other nations (most of the Arab nations come to mind) do not give you that option. By the same token, I do not see how "under God" could possibly be construed as worship.
Is Congress 'knock'ing one religion down? It seems more like Congress is raising one up above the others (would that be playing favorites?) by making it required by law to pledge your personal allegiance to its' God.
Well, let's see what has happened in December over the last few years: people or civic groups want to put up a display of some sort to commemorate the season, but the moment a cross, creche, or menorah is put into the picture, someone (usually an agnostic; there are no true 'atheists') complains. Last time I checked, Christmas, celebrated December 25, was supposed to be a celebration of the birth of Jesus. Hannachah, in its many spellings, is a Jewish celebration that takes place in the last half of December. What is wrong with some symbolism of the holiday? Are the agnostic people pissed off because they don't have a holiday of their own? I'll let them have April 1, if they want it.
I don't recall any counties where children are made to worship to Allah, Shiva or contemplate the knowledge that Buddha offers us.
You really need to pay a little more attention to what goes on in the world. Google gives these for the keywords 'California', 'class', 'Islam':
It is interesting that Associated Press and Reuters don't have anything in their archives for those keywords.
Sure seems like some religion is being chosen as a 'favorite' to me.
I disagree. I see people becoming quite vocal (in the newspapers and on the TV news) against anything that involves teaching Christianity (such as the fact that although some of the Founding Fathers were Deists, like Jefferson, there were many that were faithful Christians. You would be hard-pressed to learn about that in school today, though.), while the Politically Correct tend to embrace anything that is NOT Christian (Islam, Buddhism, and Hindu, to name a few, and if you care to consider Scientology a religion [not valid in Germany!], then you can put that on the list, too.).
From where I sit, the Liberal Left only want things their way. They like the idea of "diversity" as long as the White Male and anything associated with him is discriminated against, and as soon as their hypocracy is pointed out, they proclaim the dissenter to be a "closed minded and racist bigot" and change the subject to something else. Why else would they tolerate the likes of Louis Farakhan and Jesse Jackson, but detest the likes of Buchannan? As Wiley put it, "same song, different arrangement." I'm not saying any of these three men are right (all three are wrong), but that is what is happening.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Yes, I do, and YES, I HAVE. I have several printed copies of it, with at least one where I can look through it any time I have to argue points about the Constitution against people like you. I suppose you think that the Second Amandment is suposed to refer to groups like the National Guard?
Having been in the military, I know first-hand that when one is sworn into the military, one swears to uphold the Constitution and to follow the lawful orders of the officers appointed over (me).
Yeah, it's different for Joe Civilian, but I'll tell you what: one of my jobs (as I see it) is to protect the form of government that the Constitution provides for, "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" [stress mine]. That means that if some Socialist twit <cough that sounds remarkably like "Hillary"> tries to rise against it, something should be done in the event that the laws currently in place do not work.
I am proud to be an American, even though this country has made its share of mistakes.
It is high time that people pay attention to the facts, instead of listening to the Liberal Left folk who are so vocal that one cannot hear any other point of view. There are folks (in the military and out of it) that fully support the troops in Iraq, have no problem with the troops being there, and (if you can believe it!) have a clear conscience in the fact that they are there. I am one of their supporters.
Should the "under God" phrase be in the Pledge? Damn straight! It's been there for 50 years. Lots of time has passed in which someone could have complained about its presence, but nobody said anything. The Supreme Court has ignored the matter for all that time, not once complaining about any so-called "seperation of church and state". If someone doesn't like it, too bad. Cope.
<rant> While I'm on that subject, there is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution. The whole idea was taken from a personal letter of Jefferson's. Yeah Jefferson penned the Constitution. So what. Before it got passed and ratified, it went through a rather thorough rehash by about 50 men. People that try to use the First Amendment to support the idea NEVER FINISH READING IT. The rest of the amendment goes on to say that Congress shall make no laws RESTRICTING THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF! For those that need a primer, it basically states in no uncertain terms that Congress shall not play favorites, when it comes to religion. By the same token, it also means that Congress shall NOT knock one religion down just because some loud mouth doesn't like it.
I'm getting off my soap box now. My fingers are getting tired. </rant>
I have my Apple IIgs that I bought in June of 1990 (I still have the receipt, thank you!). I also have a Mac LC that I use as a go-between (since I can't get my Shiva box to work with the IIgs and IP). Although the LC is also circa 1990, I didn't get it until about 1999.
I still use the IIgs to play games, play around with 6502 (yeah, it's a 65C816 system, but the assembly books i have are 6502-based), and stuff like that...
Does this mean that all slashdotter parents will be dressing up their children (or themselves as they see fit) as evil SCO's for Halloween this year?
I wasn't planning to, but now that you mention it, I suppose I could put on a three-piece suit and go around spreading FUD.... i'd probably get quite a bit... instead of "trick or treat", i could yell something like "treat or I'll bill you for damages that my dentist might miss out on"...:)
They can't use Symbol font as a substitution cypher!!! I did that in 3rd grade!!! I demand they pay me $699 for each character encrypted with the Symbol Font Substitution Cypher (tm)(R)(c)(MD)(DDS)!!!
Hm. Let's see... I did that when I learned the Greek alphabet, using phonetic spelling, when I was in 10th grade, which pegs the year at 1982. I was doing it the old fashioned way: with pen and paper!
The high school I went to had a DEC PDP-11/70 running RSTS/E (version 3, I think), and the personal-sized computers were Apple II+ systems. Neither the Apples nor the DEC were rigged to handle the Greek alphabet, as far as I am aware.
I'll charge SCO $2500 per character, since UNIX is a multi-user OS, and split it with you...;)
So why exactly did Apple switch from Integer basic to a Microsoft version?
I think the only three people on the face of the earth that can answer that with any level of truth are Gates, Jobs, and Wozniak... <shrug>
Of course, as far as I know (and I might be wrong on this, since it has been quite a while since I was using the Apple II in high school), Applesoft has always been part of the Apple II, beginning with the II+... I think the II had it on a floppy, as well as Integer BASIC. In order to use Integer, though, you had to have the 16k Language Card.
Mid eighties? That's far too late. In 1977, this Apple II advertisement did note that Apple Integer Basic boasted Any length variable names (ALPHA, BETA$).
INTEGER BASIC, yes. Applesoft BASIC, on the other hand, was limited to two-character variable names.
If you really want me to check my info, I have the books here AND I still have my Apple IIgs sitting on a shelf.
SCO can try to get me to pay for a license. It will never happen. (For starters, I don't have that kind of money around, else I would have something better than a P2/400!)
I'll switch over to FreeBSD first....not that that would be a bad thing, but my preferences put Linux first, FreeBSD next...
Slashdot Mirror
...they would get me to go: Arm me to the teeth, and train me in the proper use of the weapon(s). If I had to go over there as a civilian, I want to be an armed one. If, however, they want to put me in a military uniform to go, that's okay with me.
The al-Quaeda fanatics need to be stopped. They don't care about anyone but themselves. Everything they are doing is only hurting the Iraqi people.
I'm guessing that this is a dupe, because of how long it's been since it was put online, but i'll say it anyway:
...and although I couldn't write one by myself, I know that it is possible by anyone that has a clue how to do it...
Brown has to be on some serious crack. Why else would he choose to contradict people who know what they are talking about? This guy seems to know less about operating systems than _I_ do...
...about when he worked for IBM, back in the 1970s.
;)
He said that when they itemized their bills, they had to use code numbers. When they had especially thick folk to deal with, they'd list "Code 33". It's much like the ID10T or PEBKAC terms, but much more cryptic.
When I was in college in 1993, one of my classmates decided to call a local tech shop to ask them what the difference was between the 486SX and the 486DX. He was told, "'SX' is SUPER-X!".
Needless to say, we made it a point to avoid that tech shop.
...then by all means REQUIRE it.
For example: in the North East, something like this should be required in the winter months, so that if there "happens" to be a snow storm (all too likely up here, thank you!), any misplaced hikers could be located in a reasonable amount of time, and it may even save the poor soul's life. There were a couple incidents this past winter that could have been avoided with a system like this in place.
In the "good weather", they could be simply disabled, and there's no problems.
Religion is speculation about the unknown.
Isn't that what scientific theories are about? One makes an observation about something (whether it is known or not), then forms an explanation that works. When the theory can be applied and demonstrated, then it could then be considered a "law", right? (It has been a while since I dealt with physics, so I have to admit that I have forgotten what is required for a theory to become a "law". I know that (macro)evolution, as it is currently defined, has yet to be demonstrated or reproduced; I am not entirely certain that it qualifies for the scientific definition of a theory.)
[religion] has to move the boundry beteween known and unknown so that more stuff that was known becomes unknown. Science is the opposite, and is all about the push to try to move that boundry in the opposite direction.
I'm not certain I agree with that. I think that religion might be better considered as one way of explaining the world around us. The difference between religion and what most consider "science" is that one admits that there is a Supreme Being (God) and attributes the Universe's wonders to Him, while the other does everything it can to avoid coming to the conclusion that a Supreme Being exists.
I am immensely amused that the same people that vehemently and categorically deny the existence of God openly admit that they do not know everything there is to know about the Universe.
That's interesting.
It's hard for me to understand the creationist viewpoint that has come up in the States;
Considering the fact that many of the European immigrants were coming to the New World for religious reasons, I suppose that this shouldn't surprise me. (Not for any other reason than that those who came here felt the need to mingle their schooling with their faith, yet [theoretically, at least] draw the line at having a State-Sanctioned religion. Some of the original colonies had their different rules about that, but the Federal government here tried not to pick favorites.)
we try to keep religion away from science. On the other hand we do keep in mind that simple Darwinian evolution may not be the whole truth.
I would like to submit that it may be extremely difficult to keep religion away from science, since there are some who take their beliefs about nature to the level of religion. <shrug>
What does your school system tell you to say about evolution? How does that affect what you teach the kids in your class?
Currently working as a highschool science teacher, I try to convey the idea of having an open mind towards things, not judging things too early. It's dangerous to assume that science is complete and anything we don't currently understand is bogus. On the other hand it's dangerous to believe everything you're told.
Indeed. Myself, I try to see both sides of any given issue, to see which has more merit. Even then, there are few things that I would consider "set in stone".
My current employer has a problem: they are Win-only. Couple that with a hard dependence on Office (specifically Outlook), and you can see why I want to cry.
They will not be easily swayed to the Right Side (Linux on the desktop) unless there is something to show. Exchange Server replacement would be nice too.
I know about Ximian's software, but it's not an option at the moment...
Of course, being a financial institution (a local bank), I find it interesting that when I start making in-roads on the idea of switching to other platforms, my boss falls on the "FDIC" card. (apparently, in order to placate the FDIC, one has to be able to meet certain criteria. I am not familiar with this, so I don't know what to argue that would satisfy him and the FDIC. Perhaps that would be a great "Ask Slashdot" quiestion...)
I'd be surprised to find many that even KNOW that the Salamander Papers are related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints...
(I know this 'cause I was a member, once.)
It's a classic argument for "NIMBY": Animals get killed when electricity is generated by .
I am all for taking care of our environment so that it lasts longer, but there is only so far we can take it. If the Animal Rights activists had their way, the solution to our energy woes would be to slaughter PEOPLE. They are, after all, the REASON that all this energy is necessary, and people ARE the reason for all the <insert global theory here>.
Mod this as a troll if you want, but you know it's true. There's only so much one can do to protect one's environment. If we can't generate power with nuclear plants, it has to come from SOMEWHERE.
I first got started with Linux back at kernel version 0.99pl10, thanks to my Dad, who sent me a box of Slackware floppies.
;)
I switched to Red Hat sometime in the 5.x series. When I refer to which "version" i have, it is almost always the kernel revision first, then (if they ask), the RH version. (I am currently at 2.4.20 and 9, respectively.)
I don't know right now if I will go with Fedora. the founder of the Worcester LUG likes SUsE, which I tried once before (many moons ago), so I might go that route. My 'Net connection at home (a dial-up) is too slow to warrant Gentoo, so I'll nip that one in the bud now.
Socially, it's just wrong. You may get excited about knowing who may be a viable candidate for mothering your Legion of Doom, but most women still consider that sort of information to be Highly Classified(tm).
...is tell me where I can find things.
A few years back, a major supermarket in my area had kiosks that one could use to find out where certain items are located. Aparently, they were only there as a test, because they are not there anymore. Something like this would be GREAT-- I could ask where something is, and it would tell me.
If they wanted to list the various vendors for that item, the respective prices (sales, etc), that's fine. I don't want it to talk to me. It's nobody's business when the last time was that I bought Happy Paper, and I think I am quite safe in saying that there aren't many women that want it advertized that they are looking for tampons or sanitary napkins.
This is a pledge of allegiance, not a prayer.
How does "under God" make it a prayer? If your son chooses to not say the pledge of allegiance, that is his business, and no punishment should be rendered. One could easily choose to be honest and true to one's nation without having to utter one sylable of the pledge. I did it. (For the record, I did not become a Christian until very near the end of my first enlistment in the Navy. Until that point, I was agnostic, and would refuse to say "under God" when I said the pledge. Nothing happened to me because of it.)
I will not allow anyone, or anything, or any government to mandate which set of religious babble I will allow to spew from my mouth.
Look into the similarities between "religion" and "humanism". You will be shocked.
Would you deny then, that legally mandating citizens (their young children actually, which I find all the more sad) of this country to pledge to the Christian God every morning for most of the year isn't playing favorites with religion?
/ 27 /165113.shtmla rticle.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=25997
Legally mandating? yes. However, participation in reciting the Pledge is not required, at least not on a Federal level, and certainly not where I live or grew up (Massachusetts and Maine, respectively).
I happen to know a few people personally (perhaps you know of them, or have heard myths about these elusive folk) that happen to not believe in / worship God as Christians know it to be. I would be angered at my children having to pledge to some Higher Power contrary to the one my family worhips, in any country, and I would be doubly ashamed to have this happen in America to boot.
Funny you should mention that. As a teenager, I opted to leave out the "under God" part because (at the time) I did not believe in God. I was not punished for my action (or lack thereof). In America, we have the the freedom to worship (or not) as we please. Many other nations (most of the Arab nations come to mind) do not give you that option. By the same token, I do not see how "under God" could possibly be construed as worship.
Is Congress 'knock'ing one religion down? It seems more like Congress is raising one up above the others (would that be playing favorites?) by making it required by law to pledge your personal allegiance to its' God.
Well, let's see what has happened in December over the last few years: people or civic groups want to put up a display of some sort to commemorate the season, but the moment a cross, creche, or menorah is put into the picture, someone (usually an agnostic; there are no true 'atheists') complains. Last time I checked, Christmas, celebrated December 25, was supposed to be a celebration of the birth of Jesus. Hannachah, in its many spellings, is a Jewish celebration that takes place in the last half of December. What is wrong with some symbolism of the holiday? Are the agnostic people pissed off because they don't have a holiday of their own? I'll let them have April 1, if they want it.
I don't recall any counties where children are made to worship to Allah, Shiva or contemplate the knowledge that Buddha offers us.
You really need to pay a little more attention to what goes on in the world. Google gives these for the keywords 'California', 'class', 'Islam':
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/
It is interesting that Associated Press and Reuters don't have anything in their archives for those keywords.
Sure seems like some religion is being chosen as a 'favorite' to me.
I disagree. I see people becoming quite vocal (in the newspapers and on the TV news) against anything that involves teaching Christianity (such as the fact that although some of the Founding Fathers were Deists, like Jefferson, there were many that were faithful Christians. You would be hard-pressed to learn about that in school today, though.), while the Politically Correct tend to embrace anything that is NOT Christian (Islam, Buddhism, and Hindu, to name a few, and if you care to consider Scientology a religion [not valid in Germany!], then you can put that on the list, too.).
From where I sit, the Liberal Left only want things their way. They like the idea of "diversity" as long as the White Male and anything associated with him is discriminated against, and as soon as their hypocracy is pointed out, they proclaim the dissenter to be a "closed minded and racist bigot" and change the subject to something else. Why else would they tolerate the likes of Louis Farakhan and Jesse Jackson, but detest the likes of Buchannan? As Wiley put it, "same song, different arrangement." I'm not saying any of these three men are right (all three are wrong), but that is what is happening.
YOU "defend" the constitution?
..."
I don't think you've ever even read it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Yes, I do, and YES, I HAVE. I have several printed copies of it, with at least one where I can look through it any time I have to argue points about the Constitution against people like you. I suppose you think that the Second Amandment is suposed to refer to groups like the National Guard?
Having been in the military, I know first-hand that when one is sworn into the military, one swears to uphold the Constitution and to follow the lawful orders of the officers appointed over (me).
Yeah, it's different for Joe Civilian, but I'll tell you what: one of my jobs (as I see it) is to protect the form of government that the Constitution provides for, "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" [stress mine]. That means that if some Socialist twit <cough that sounds remarkably like "Hillary"> tries to rise against it, something should be done in the event that the laws currently in place do not work.
I am proud to be an American, even though this country has made its share of mistakes.
It is high time that people pay attention to the facts, instead of listening to the Liberal Left folk who are so vocal that one cannot hear any other point of view. There are folks (in the military and out of it) that fully support the troops in Iraq, have no problem with the troops being there, and (if you can believe it!) have a clear conscience in the fact that they are there. I am one of their supporters.
Should the "under God" phrase be in the Pledge? Damn straight! It's been there for 50 years. Lots of time has passed in which someone could have complained about its presence, but nobody said anything. The Supreme Court has ignored the matter for all that time, not once complaining about any so-called "seperation of church and state". If someone doesn't like it, too bad. Cope.
<rant>
While I'm on that subject, there is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution. The whole idea was taken from a personal letter of Jefferson's. Yeah Jefferson penned the Constitution. So what. Before it got passed and ratified, it went through a rather thorough rehash by about 50 men. People that try to use the First Amendment to support the idea NEVER FINISH READING IT. The rest of the amendment goes on to say that Congress shall make no laws RESTRICTING THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF! For those that need a primer, it basically states in no uncertain terms that Congress shall not play favorites, when it comes to religion. By the same token, it also means that Congress shall NOT knock one religion down just because some loud mouth doesn't like it.
I'm getting off my soap box now. My fingers are getting tired.
</rant>
I have my Apple IIgs that I bought in June of 1990 (I still have the receipt, thank you!). I also have a Mac LC that I use as a go-between (since I can't get my Shiva box to work with the IIgs and IP). Although the LC is also circa 1990, I didn't get it until about 1999.
I still use the IIgs to play games, play around with 6502 (yeah, it's a 65C816 system, but the assembly books i have are 6502-based), and stuff like that...
Does this mean that all slashdotter parents will be dressing up their children (or themselves as they see fit) as evil SCO's for Halloween this year?
:)
I wasn't planning to, but now that you mention it, I suppose I could put on a three-piece suit and go around spreading FUD.... i'd probably get quite a bit... instead of "trick or treat", i could yell something like "treat or I'll bill you for damages that my dentist might miss out on"...
Sure, you can make any windows box secure. Just unplug the ethernet, and kill the power.
;)
You're better off leaving it in the shrink-wrap...
They can't use Symbol font as a substitution cypher!!! I did that in 3rd grade!!! I demand they pay me $699 for each character encrypted with the Symbol Font Substitution Cypher (tm)(R)(c)(MD)(DDS)!!!
;)
Hm. Let's see... I did that when I learned the Greek alphabet, using phonetic spelling, when I was in 10th grade, which pegs the year at 1982. I was doing it the old fashioned way: with pen and paper!
The high school I went to had a DEC PDP-11/70 running RSTS/E (version 3, I think), and the personal-sized computers were Apple II+ systems. Neither the Apples nor the DEC were rigged to handle the Greek alphabet, as far as I am aware.
I'll charge SCO $2500 per character, since UNIX is a multi-user OS, and split it with you...
So why exactly did Apple switch from Integer basic to a Microsoft version?
I think the only three people on the face of the earth that can answer that with any level of truth are Gates, Jobs, and Wozniak... <shrug>
Of course, as far as I know (and I might be wrong on this, since it has been quite a while since I was using the Apple II in high school), Applesoft has always been part of the Apple II, beginning with the II+... I think the II had it on a floppy, as well as Integer BASIC. In order to use Integer, though, you had to have the 16k Language Card.
Mid eighties? That's far too late. In 1977, this Apple II advertisement did note that Apple Integer Basic boasted Any length variable names (ALPHA, BETA$).
INTEGER BASIC, yes. Applesoft BASIC, on the other hand, was limited to two-character variable names.
If you really want me to check my info, I have the books here AND I still have my Apple IIgs sitting on a shelf.
...I'll post it anyway.
...not that that would be a bad thing, but my preferences put Linux first, FreeBSD next...
SCO can try to get me to pay for a license. It will never happen. (For starters, I don't have that kind of money around, else I would have something better than a P2/400!)
I'll switch over to FreeBSD first.