Sure, taxing the rich won't solve all the problems. Nobody who knows what they're talking about suggests otherwise. Yes, even those EVIL liberals you keep ranting about know better.
You know what also won't solve the problems? Getting rid of Medicare/Social Security/etc. Sure, you could have a new space station every year. You could have that right up to the point that the poor, lazy, and sick (Seriously? You have a thing against sick people? What the fuck is wrong with you?) aren't able to eat or get their insulin anymore. Then you'll find yourself spending all that moon base money on law enforcement just to keep the proletariat masses subdued.
You know, like they do in the middle east. After all, it works so well for Syria...
You know what will solve the problem? Taxing the rich, reducing military spending, cutting health care costs, and cutting unnecessary entitlement spending. Stop subsiding the oil industry in times of high profits (like, now, for instance) and divert those funds into things that create jobs and accomplish things at the same time, like revamping the electric grid, building refineries that can produce cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, and creating incentives for companies to manufacture goods domestically rather than farming everything off to China. You can't just do one of these things - you have to do them all.
Anyone who tells you different is a fucking liar. All those congresscritters care about one thing - getting your vote. Right now, thanks to asshats like Hannity and O'Reilly (and the liberal equivalents) raking up shit to increase their ratings, the easiest way to do so is to go far out to the right or left and refuse to compromise. That's why we can't get anything done - people are treating politics like it's a fucking football game, and the politicians know how to rally the home team (hint: it involves industrial amounts of bullshit. See anything from the Tea Party for a reference).
That's the problem we're facing, not some stupid budget mess. Until the American people start thinking instead of reacting, and demand their politicans do the same, we'll still be fucked, no matter what else happens.
Back then, all we knew about Titan was its size, orbit, and the existence of an atmosphere.
It was exciting mostly because moons generally don't have atmospheres. It was an anomaly. Sir Arthur was one of the more science-oriented authors out there, but he didn't have much to work on, so he made stuff up. It was just a lucky guess.
I guess they felt like they had to include Pac-Man, but since the only console from that era that had a decent Pac-Man was the Atari 5200 (which had much lower sales than the 2600), we got the crappy 2600 version.
Granted, it was one of the better games for the 2600 (there were a _lot_ of crappy 2600 games - it was a really limited platform), but Pac-Man was famous for the arcade version, not any console.
Sad to see no Metroid (the NES version), but there were so many games for the NES that it's natural some would be left out. I'd have voted for Bionic Commando, myself.
You don't have to pay for any of those things. Find you a place up in Idaho where no one's been in fifty years, bring a copy of the $50 Underground House Book, and squat. If no one knows where you are, then they can't make you pay for stuff. Or you could be homeless - panhandlers don't (generally) pay taxes, and live in shelters or on the streets. Maybe even join a gang, squat in an abandoned building, and mug people for a living - you'd be paying sales tax, but at least sales tax generally doesn't go to any of the things I mentioned (maybe police cars, depending on your location).
Hell, it's even easier. Kill someone in a state with no death penalty. You won't have to pay taxes for the rest of your life.
You only have to pay for these things if you choose to be part of society.
Wow, you should talk to your school board. Around here, they teach math, science, history, literature and composition, and various elective courses including the various shop classes, art, music, home economics, and varoius others.
My sister (who is graduating this year) never mentioned a class on how many mommies Heather has. Even in Oklahoma, it doesn't take a whole semester to tell them "two". She didn't take any comparative religion courses or classes on hurt feelings, so maybe those were electives.
She did learn Powerpoint along with the rest of the Microsoft Office suite, but so what? Back when I went through school, I took typing for pretty much the same reason - it's used in business. She'll be off to college next year, and knowing her way around a spreadsheet and word processor will aid her greatly. She'll get more use out of it than I did from learning Pascal.
If you're worried about the social engineering that makes up such a small part of the curriculum, be sure to imprint whatever hate and racism you feel your children need at home. School has never been a replacement for parenting.
Ah, the beauty of free speech. I can complain all I want, whether I vote or not.
I don't. There's no point, where I live. I'm not in town enough to know anything about the local candidates, I don't hear the statewide news (I'm out of state most of the time), and my fellow Oklahomans generally vote the opposite way I do on everything national or on state questions.
Americans don't get any direct vote on nationwide elections. We have a representative in the House, which we vote for inside our district, two Senators which we vote for statewide, and then we vote for an elector who votes for president and vice president in our stead (although, it doesn't really work that way anymore - in Oklahoma, all electors vote with the statewide majority).
Still, even people who are in their home states and do have a vote that makes a difference can still affect the vote without actually voting. How? By complaining. The nice thing is that it's possible for us to affect the vote in other states and districts by complaining. Don't underestimate the power of complaint in the political process.
"Decentralization of the decision making process" is just like all the other right/left wing garbage. It's fine for some, not for others. It wouldn't magically solve all the problems we have.
Decentralized government allows the citizenry more access to government in theory, but it has its problems. It's horribly inefficient (all the duplicated labor and overhead), it's harder to police corruption (not only the back room deal type we get now, but the "Sheriff Bob runs this town, boy, and you better learn to like it" variety), you get unstandardized laws (vehicle requirements, road laws, education standards, environmental regulations, etc.), and, here's the kicker - it's bad for the economy, because banks and financiers have a hard enough time keeping track of things without having a million tiny city states all calling their own shots.
How many cities, during times of financial stress and unemployment, would relax their environmental rules to allow heavy polluting industry in? How many cities would become havens for predatory financial institutions? How many tin-pot dictator wannabes would bulldoze the rights of the citizens they're meant to protect?
How many places would we see a return to all-but-theocracy governments, like we had in 17th century Massachusetts?
What would the country be like if neighborhood associations actually had real power? You want to give old Mabel down the street, who spends her day peeping our her window and gossiping about what the neighbors do, to actually be able to pass laws that are binding over you?
There are places in the world that have decentralized governments, where most of the power is in local hands. These places tend to be horrible places to live (think Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq after Saddam, etc.). The only good example I can think of is Switzerland, where damn near everyone is the same race, same culture, and same religion. That certainly doesn't apply to the U.S.
We tried it once, you know. Our first constitution had a pretty ineffective central government. IIRC, we barely avoided two states going to war with each other.
The real question is what power do we want the government to have. That's tricky, because in general, people want the freedom to do whatever they want while not allowing anyone else the freedom to do anything they oppose. You don't want people to have the right to have an abortion (and yes, it's a constitutional right, damn it, that's what a supreme court decision means), and I don't want Texans to have the right to drive. You don't want your tax money going to women's health, and I don't want my tax money going to pay private insurance companies when Medicare would do the job better and cheaper.
You might be right, in one way. I remember someone saying that the worst thing that ever happened to the U.S. was winning the Civil War. Looking at all the crap we fight about, and where the people on each side live, I'd say that's about right.
Few Democrats who serve today were serving in office at the same time as Truman or the Dixiecrats. The politics of our nation change as old people die or leave office and take their ideas with them. So historically, yes, your statement is true - but it's irrelevant to the current party or the conversation. If you want to know what a party stands for, you only need look back about twenty or thirty years at the most. That's what the OP was referring to when he said "historically".
I've never used a NEXT cube, but from what I can tell, the workflow with GnuSTEP is different enough that mixing GnuSTEP programs with non-GnuSTEP programs is awkward at best. I've heard working with NextSTEP was great, but I don't see openoffice or mozilla being ported to it.
Of course, the other problem with replacing GNOME with GnuSTEP is that neither KDE nor GnuSTEP are written in C. UNIX has been primarily C based since its inception. I've written apps (for myself, not release quality) in GTK and one using libgnome, but I'm not willing to learn to program in C++ or ObjC just so I can get a little work done (I'm not a programmer, I'm a truck driver who knows a little C).
That being said, some kind of compatibility layer to run between GNOME/KDE and GnuSTEP would be great. We might be able to get some good application ports from the Macintosh world that way.
And historically pro civil rights? What are you smoking? 50+ years ago, it was the Democrats who were supporters of the KKK.
That was a long, long, time ago. The Democratic party split up over this issue, which is why states that were largely Democratic since the Civil War (i.e. the south) are now all Republican.
Look up the term "Dixiecrat" sometime if you want the full scoop, but basically, Pres. Truman announced that the Democratic party was going to push for civil rights, and that started a whole mess that ended up with the south going Republican and the urban centers going Democrat.
Ask your friendly local KKK representative which way he votes. I bet it ain't Democrat.
So a desktop environment is a window manager with so many unique features that it breaks compatibility with other environments.
That's one way of putting it.
Sounds like a good reason to avoid desktop environments.
I agree. I don't use any.
However, there's quite a few people who like things like a shared object system, common API, message passing, OLE, and all the other little goodies that come with a full desktop environment. Look at the documentation for the GNOME or KDE libraries - they're huge, and not just because of bloat. The key idea is that, in theory, everything in a desktop environment can cooperate with everything else.
XFCE has most of what you'd want for a window manager, but it's not a desktop environment and doesn't pretend to be. There's nothing wrong with that.
I've never personally used LXDE, Rox, or Equinox, but looking at wikipedia it seems they actually do meet the requirements to be desktop environments. Perhaps if they gain enough momentum we'll see the current duopoly fade.
When you want to consider if something is a desktop environment or simply a window manager, think about what sense it would make to write a word processor for it. GNOME? Sure. KDE? Yes. XFCE? Not so much.
There's a billion window managers, but very few desktop environments in the sense that GNOME and KDE are.
A few of them:
CDE - what XFCE used to try to look like before they got some sense. It's based on Motif and there's never been a free version of it. Even the commercial Unix companies have mostly abandoned it.
Enlightenment (as a desktop environment, not just the WM) - it's still being worked on. Raster's got some good ideas - I hope to live to see them.
GnuSTEP - a project to make a free version of the NextSTEP environment. It's slow going because these days, nobody remembers what NextSTEP looked like or why it was cool.
Openlook - yeah, it's gone, gone, gone. It was kinda cool for the early 90's though. Sun dumped it for CDE (and then dumped CDE for GNOME)
I'm probably missing one or two, but that's pretty much it. Running some window manager with a few KDE or GNOME programs doesn't give you the full experience of the desktop environment. That's fine for some, like me and you, but a lot of people really want the integration and whatnot.
The argument is important not so much to the Linux world, where most distros give you the flexibility to run either, but to the commercial Unix world and companies who use commercial Unix software or inhouse software. For example, Sun went with GNOME starting with Solaris 10 (I think). That was a big blow for KDE at the time, because anyone writing commercial apps for Solaris pretty much had to switch to GNOME. Sure, you could run KDE on Solaris, but try convincing your customers to switch desktop environment just for your little program.
Beck, O'Reilly, and Rush (dunno about Hannity, I don't have a TV but I do catch the other three on radio sometimes) are not meant to be listened to with an open mind. They're pep rallies for the right. If you were a Dallas Cowboys fan, would you attend a Redskins pep rally? (sorry if that doesn't make sense, I give two shits about sports)
The left has similar shows. There's a channel for it on Sirius radio. I've listened to it once. It was about as worthless as the equivalent right wing channels.
News, political discussion, and entertainment are different things. Fox News isn't too bad, as long as you remember they lean to the right. NPR news is pretty neutral (I'm talking about the hourly news, not the shows, which do lean to the left a bit generally). I don't mind either one. I don't mind a political discussion if the host keeps everything open (a few NPR shows are good about this, while some are not).
I can't stand political entertainment shows, and I won't listen to them. They serve no purpose but to create divisiveness among the people. No, scratch that - they serve no purpose but to make the networks and hosts rich, and they do that by creating divisiveness among the people. These people are not the patriots they claim to be - they're domestic terrorists who are crippling our government by turning the governing process into a football game in the eyes of most people. That goes for the left and the right.
Does that make me closed minded? I don't think so, and honestly, if you get your political opinions from people like Beck, then I don't really care about your opinion anyway.
U235 isn't sustainable, but U238 and plutonium will last much, much longer than that. Thorium will also last quite a long time.
We'll have a few hundred years to figure out safe techniques for reprocessing fuel and using the thorium cycle. Hell, maybe by then we'll have fusion figured out. Either way beats the hell out of coal.
That's basically the same argument I use to get pico/nano users to switch to vi, except the "supported very little" part.
I liked WP5.1 too, but I doubt we'll be seeing a return to non-wysiwyg word processors (not counting TeX and the like) anytime soon. I wouldn't mind having common functions mapped to the function keys like that in something like openoffice, though.
He's "my" senator, unfortunately. He comes from Oklahoma, and we still make quite a bit of money on oil here. The refinery is probably all that keeps my town alive.
With the exception of the Tar Creek cleanup (an old lead mine from the '30s that he manages to get cleanup funding for tacked onto important bills), I don't agree with anything this guy stands for. It's quite embarrassing for me that I'm "represented" by him. Oklahoma's very much a red state (our only democratic representative just happens to be the son of a quite popular republican representative, otherwise he wouldn't have the job), and he's the senior senator with quite a few cronies in Washington, so until he dies we're all going to have to deal with him.
Fortunately, he's getting up there in years. Granted, when he's gone, my fellow Oklahomans will just vote in a clone, but at least the new guy won't have all the clout in congress that Inhofe has, and our other senator (Coburn) has burnt enough bridges in congress that I doubt he'll reach Inhofe's level of influence.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Glenn Beck must give you a woody.
Sure, taxing the rich won't solve all the problems. Nobody who knows what they're talking about suggests otherwise. Yes, even those EVIL liberals you keep ranting about know better.
You know what also won't solve the problems? Getting rid of Medicare/Social Security/etc. Sure, you could have a new space station every year. You could have that right up to the point that the poor, lazy, and sick (Seriously? You have a thing against sick people? What the fuck is wrong with you?) aren't able to eat or get their insulin anymore. Then you'll find yourself spending all that moon base money on law enforcement just to keep the proletariat masses subdued.
You know, like they do in the middle east. After all, it works so well for Syria...
You know what will solve the problem? Taxing the rich, reducing military spending, cutting health care costs, and cutting unnecessary entitlement spending. Stop subsiding the oil industry in times of high profits (like, now, for instance) and divert those funds into things that create jobs and accomplish things at the same time, like revamping the electric grid, building refineries that can produce cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, and creating incentives for companies to manufacture goods domestically rather than farming everything off to China. You can't just do one of these things - you have to do them all.
Anyone who tells you different is a fucking liar. All those congresscritters care about one thing - getting your vote. Right now, thanks to asshats like Hannity and O'Reilly (and the liberal equivalents) raking up shit to increase their ratings, the easiest way to do so is to go far out to the right or left and refuse to compromise. That's why we can't get anything done - people are treating politics like it's a fucking football game, and the politicians know how to rally the home team (hint: it involves industrial amounts of bullshit. See anything from the Tea Party for a reference).
That's the problem we're facing, not some stupid budget mess. Until the American people start thinking instead of reacting, and demand their politicans do the same, we'll still be fucked, no matter what else happens.
Back then, all we knew about Titan was its size, orbit, and the existence of an atmosphere.
It was exciting mostly because moons generally don't have atmospheres. It was an anomaly. Sir Arthur was one of the more science-oriented authors out there, but he didn't have much to work on, so he made stuff up. It was just a lucky guess.
My Freightliner moves a fat ass, but it's leased, so maybe the same rules don't apply.
OK, so it's cheaper than a predator. It's also completely different than a predator.
It's like saying a golf cart is cheaper than a Freightliner. It's true, but they don't serve the same purpose.
Console pinball didn't offer anything really revolutionary over regular pinball.
I mean, sure, you can break the laws of physics in video pinball, but it's still pinball.
I guess they felt like they had to include Pac-Man, but since the only console from that era that had a decent Pac-Man was the Atari 5200 (which had much lower sales than the 2600), we got the crappy 2600 version.
Granted, it was one of the better games for the 2600 (there were a _lot_ of crappy 2600 games - it was a really limited platform), but Pac-Man was famous for the arcade version, not any console.
Sad to see no Metroid (the NES version), but there were so many games for the NES that it's natural some would be left out. I'd have voted for Bionic Commando, myself.
You're not.
You don't have to pay for any of those things. Find you a place up in Idaho where no one's been in fifty years, bring a copy of the $50 Underground House Book, and squat. If no one knows where you are, then they can't make you pay for stuff. Or you could be homeless - panhandlers don't (generally) pay taxes, and live in shelters or on the streets. Maybe even join a gang, squat in an abandoned building, and mug people for a living - you'd be paying sales tax, but at least sales tax generally doesn't go to any of the things I mentioned (maybe police cars, depending on your location).
Hell, it's even easier. Kill someone in a state with no death penalty. You won't have to pay taxes for the rest of your life.
You only have to pay for these things if you choose to be part of society.
You pay taxes for fighter jets as well, but no one is going to let you fly them.
Also particle accelerators, rockets, deep sea submersibles, aircraft carriers, police cars, and all kinds of other things. What's the point?
Wow, you should talk to your school board. Around here, they teach math, science, history, literature and composition, and various elective courses including the various shop classes, art, music, home economics, and varoius others.
My sister (who is graduating this year) never mentioned a class on how many mommies Heather has. Even in Oklahoma, it doesn't take a whole semester to tell them "two". She didn't take any comparative religion courses or classes on hurt feelings, so maybe those were electives.
She did learn Powerpoint along with the rest of the Microsoft Office suite, but so what? Back when I went through school, I took typing for pretty much the same reason - it's used in business. She'll be off to college next year, and knowing her way around a spreadsheet and word processor will aid her greatly. She'll get more use out of it than I did from learning Pascal.
If you're worried about the social engineering that makes up such a small part of the curriculum, be sure to imprint whatever hate and racism you feel your children need at home. School has never been a replacement for parenting.
Ah, the beauty of free speech. I can complain all I want, whether I vote or not.
I don't. There's no point, where I live. I'm not in town enough to know anything about the local candidates, I don't hear the statewide news (I'm out of state most of the time), and my fellow Oklahomans generally vote the opposite way I do on everything national or on state questions.
Americans don't get any direct vote on nationwide elections. We have a representative in the House, which we vote for inside our district, two Senators which we vote for statewide, and then we vote for an elector who votes for president and vice president in our stead (although, it doesn't really work that way anymore - in Oklahoma, all electors vote with the statewide majority).
Still, even people who are in their home states and do have a vote that makes a difference can still affect the vote without actually voting. How? By complaining. The nice thing is that it's possible for us to affect the vote in other states and districts by complaining. Don't underestimate the power of complaint in the political process.
"Decentralization of the decision making process" is just like all the other right/left wing garbage. It's fine for some, not for others. It wouldn't magically solve all the problems we have.
Decentralized government allows the citizenry more access to government in theory, but it has its problems. It's horribly inefficient (all the duplicated labor and overhead), it's harder to police corruption (not only the back room deal type we get now, but the "Sheriff Bob runs this town, boy, and you better learn to like it" variety), you get unstandardized laws (vehicle requirements, road laws, education standards, environmental regulations, etc.), and, here's the kicker - it's bad for the economy, because banks and financiers have a hard enough time keeping track of things without having a million tiny city states all calling their own shots.
How many cities, during times of financial stress and unemployment, would relax their environmental rules to allow heavy polluting industry in? How many cities would become havens for predatory financial institutions? How many tin-pot dictator wannabes would bulldoze the rights of the citizens they're meant to protect?
How many places would we see a return to all-but-theocracy governments, like we had in 17th century Massachusetts?
What would the country be like if neighborhood associations actually had real power? You want to give old Mabel down the street, who spends her day peeping our her window and gossiping about what the neighbors do, to actually be able to pass laws that are binding over you?
There are places in the world that have decentralized governments, where most of the power is in local hands. These places tend to be horrible places to live (think Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq after Saddam, etc.). The only good example I can think of is Switzerland, where damn near everyone is the same race, same culture, and same religion. That certainly doesn't apply to the U.S.
We tried it once, you know. Our first constitution had a pretty ineffective central government. IIRC, we barely avoided two states going to war with each other.
The real question is what power do we want the government to have. That's tricky, because in general, people want the freedom to do whatever they want while not allowing anyone else the freedom to do anything they oppose. You don't want people to have the right to have an abortion (and yes, it's a constitutional right, damn it, that's what a supreme court decision means), and I don't want Texans to have the right to drive. You don't want your tax money going to women's health, and I don't want my tax money going to pay private insurance companies when Medicare would do the job better and cheaper.
You might be right, in one way. I remember someone saying that the worst thing that ever happened to the U.S. was winning the Civil War. Looking at all the crap we fight about, and where the people on each side live, I'd say that's about right.
Few Democrats who serve today were serving in office at the same time as Truman or the Dixiecrats. The politics of our nation change as old people die or leave office and take their ideas with them. So historically, yes, your statement is true - but it's irrelevant to the current party or the conversation. If you want to know what a party stands for, you only need look back about twenty or thirty years at the most. That's what the OP was referring to when he said "historically".
And I'm willing to bet that if he were alive today, your friendly local KKK representative wouldn't vote for him.
One guy does not a political party make, and Byrd seemed to have changed his ways before the end anyway.
I've never used a NEXT cube, but from what I can tell, the workflow with GnuSTEP is different enough that mixing GnuSTEP programs with non-GnuSTEP programs is awkward at best. I've heard working with NextSTEP was great, but I don't see openoffice or mozilla being ported to it.
Of course, the other problem with replacing GNOME with GnuSTEP is that neither KDE nor GnuSTEP are written in C. UNIX has been primarily C based since its inception. I've written apps (for myself, not release quality) in GTK and one using libgnome, but I'm not willing to learn to program in C++ or ObjC just so I can get a little work done (I'm not a programmer, I'm a truck driver who knows a little C).
That being said, some kind of compatibility layer to run between GNOME/KDE and GnuSTEP would be great. We might be able to get some good application ports from the Macintosh world that way.
And historically pro civil rights? What are you smoking? 50+ years ago, it was the Democrats who were supporters of the KKK.
That was a long, long, time ago. The Democratic party split up over this issue, which is why states that were largely Democratic since the Civil War (i.e. the south) are now all Republican.
Look up the term "Dixiecrat" sometime if you want the full scoop, but basically, Pres. Truman announced that the Democratic party was going to push for civil rights, and that started a whole mess that ended up with the south going Republican and the urban centers going Democrat.
Ask your friendly local KKK representative which way he votes. I bet it ain't Democrat.
Lesstif is a Motif clone. It's basically the functional equivalent of GTK+.
CDE was based on Motif, similar to how gnomelib is based on GTK+.
The Lesstif guys never cloned CDE. In their FAQ, they state that to the best of their knowledge, CDE no longer exists.
So a desktop environment is a window manager with so many unique features that it breaks compatibility with other environments.
That's one way of putting it.
Sounds like a good reason to avoid desktop environments.
I agree. I don't use any.
However, there's quite a few people who like things like a shared object system, common API, message passing, OLE, and all the other little goodies that come with a full desktop environment. Look at the documentation for the GNOME or KDE libraries - they're huge, and not just because of bloat. The key idea is that, in theory, everything in a desktop environment can cooperate with everything else.
XFCE has most of what you'd want for a window manager, but it's not a desktop environment and doesn't pretend to be. There's nothing wrong with that.
Unity is more or less just a shell for GNOME.
XFCE is a full featured window manager.
I've never personally used LXDE, Rox, or Equinox, but looking at wikipedia it seems they actually do meet the requirements to be desktop environments. Perhaps if they gain enough momentum we'll see the current duopoly fade.
When you want to consider if something is a desktop environment or simply a window manager, think about what sense it would make to write a word processor for it. GNOME? Sure. KDE? Yes. XFCE? Not so much.
Where do you buy your produce (or your cheeseburgers, for that matter)?
What others?
There's a billion window managers, but very few desktop environments in the sense that GNOME and KDE are.
A few of them:
I'm probably missing one or two, but that's pretty much it. Running some window manager with a few KDE or GNOME programs doesn't give you the full experience of the desktop environment. That's fine for some, like me and you, but a lot of people really want the integration and whatnot.
The argument is important not so much to the Linux world, where most distros give you the flexibility to run either, but to the commercial Unix world and companies who use commercial Unix software or inhouse software. For example, Sun went with GNOME starting with Solaris 10 (I think). That was a big blow for KDE at the time, because anyone writing commercial apps for Solaris pretty much had to switch to GNOME. Sure, you could run KDE on Solaris, but try convincing your customers to switch desktop environment just for your little program.
Beck, O'Reilly, and Rush (dunno about Hannity, I don't have a TV but I do catch the other three on radio sometimes) are not meant to be listened to with an open mind. They're pep rallies for the right. If you were a Dallas Cowboys fan, would you attend a Redskins pep rally? (sorry if that doesn't make sense, I give two shits about sports)
The left has similar shows. There's a channel for it on Sirius radio. I've listened to it once. It was about as worthless as the equivalent right wing channels.
News, political discussion, and entertainment are different things. Fox News isn't too bad, as long as you remember they lean to the right. NPR news is pretty neutral (I'm talking about the hourly news, not the shows, which do lean to the left a bit generally). I don't mind either one. I don't mind a political discussion if the host keeps everything open (a few NPR shows are good about this, while some are not).
I can't stand political entertainment shows, and I won't listen to them. They serve no purpose but to create divisiveness among the people. No, scratch that - they serve no purpose but to make the networks and hosts rich, and they do that by creating divisiveness among the people. These people are not the patriots they claim to be - they're domestic terrorists who are crippling our government by turning the governing process into a football game in the eyes of most people. That goes for the left and the right.
Does that make me closed minded? I don't think so, and honestly, if you get your political opinions from people like Beck, then I don't really care about your opinion anyway.
U235 isn't sustainable, but U238 and plutonium will last much, much longer than that. Thorium will also last quite a long time.
We'll have a few hundred years to figure out safe techniques for reprocessing fuel and using the thorium cycle. Hell, maybe by then we'll have fusion figured out. Either way beats the hell out of coal.
She was just being nice. She didn't really mean it.
Sorry.
That's basically the same argument I use to get pico/nano users to switch to vi, except the "supported very little" part.
I liked WP5.1 too, but I doubt we'll be seeing a return to non-wysiwyg word processors (not counting TeX and the like) anytime soon. I wouldn't mind having common functions mapped to the function keys like that in something like openoffice, though.
He's "my" senator, unfortunately. He comes from Oklahoma, and we still make quite a bit of money on oil here. The refinery is probably all that keeps my town alive.
With the exception of the Tar Creek cleanup (an old lead mine from the '30s that he manages to get cleanup funding for tacked onto important bills), I don't agree with anything this guy stands for. It's quite embarrassing for me that I'm "represented" by him. Oklahoma's very much a red state (our only democratic representative just happens to be the son of a quite popular republican representative, otherwise he wouldn't have the job), and he's the senior senator with quite a few cronies in Washington, so until he dies we're all going to have to deal with him.
Fortunately, he's getting up there in years. Granted, when he's gone, my fellow Oklahomans will just vote in a clone, but at least the new guy won't have all the clout in congress that Inhofe has, and our other senator (Coburn) has burnt enough bridges in congress that I doubt he'll reach Inhofe's level of influence.