MSO also uses this technique. It loads a small TSR at boot time to speed up loading. Most people are just unaware of it's existence. Do a clean install of MSO, then look in your Startup folder, you'll find the TSR. In my experience, the latest OOo starts at the same speed as MSO if neither one is using a TSR.
Carbon dioxide is easy. Plant more trees. They breathe the stuff. They're also nice to look at, and properly positioned provide shade for your yard and house on a hot summer day. Plant more, and stop developers from cutting down so many down.
Not only that, but leaving the question of climate change aside, doesn't "green" make sense?
Adding insulation, better windows, more efficient air conditioner, florescent lights, and so on makes my home more valuable. It also reduces my electric bill, which means more money in my pocket. Same for cars. Less pollution is a side effect, albeit a good one. More to the point it lowers my gasoline consumption, again, more money in my pocket. And I happen to like clean air, so bonus!
Argue climate change all you want, green makes sense, if only from an economic standpoint. And why would anyone be against clean air and water?
I want to remind you here of the stance we took when we decided to rebel against England:
Come on, the war against england was by a bunch of slaveowners so you could keep slaves and nick native american land. And the civil war was to keep slaves too. And the spanish-american war was about slavery too (spanish abolished it, US kept it).
I'm not sure where you live, but your idea of the motivations behind these wars is way off. Perhaps you should read up on American history.
The rebellion had nothing to do with slaves. It occurred because England was levying high taxes on the Colonies to support their war with France. However, they did not allow the colonists any representation in the English court. The colonists were British subjects, but were not granted the same status and rights as the citizens back home. In the face of this, the colonists rebelled. Colonies revolting is nothing new, but in this case the colonies won. Contributing factors include the fact that the British could not deploy troops to the Americas that were needed to fight France; the unusual convergence of political geniuses (Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) in America due to dissidents leaving England for the New World; and the fact that the American troops had learned guerrilla warfare from the Native Americans and refused, in most cases, to fight a "proper" battle with the British troops.
Contrary to popular belief, the American Civil War was not fought over slavery. The southern states were an agricultural society, while the north was beginning to industrialize. This led to major differences in the philosophies of the two societies, to the point where the south decided they'd be better off with their own country. This is the cause of the Civil War. Not slavery, but the fact that once you join the United States you can't leave. States are not allowed to secede. Slavery was important in the war only because it supported the agricultural society. In truth, much as we like to revere Lincoln for ending slavery, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in hopes of a massive slave revolt. As the general attitude of the North towards slavery was right in line with this proclamation, an industrialized society having no need for slaves, it naturally stuck.
In truth, with the shift in labor from people to machines, slavery was already doomed. Machines are more efficient than supporting large populations of slaves. For example, the invention of the horse collar caused the end of slavery in Europe. Without the collar slaves could accomplish more at less cost than a horse. With the horse collar transferring the load from the horse's neck to it's shoulders the horse becomes vastly more efficient, and you choose it over slaves. The best estimate is that slavery in the U.S. would have lasted around 50 more years.
This is not to say that ending slavery was a bad or unnecessary thing. Like the majority of present day U.S. citizens I abhor it. But slavery was not the cause of the Civil War.
I have not studied the Spanish-American war in any depth, but I seem to recall it was about ownership of land (Texas? No point in slaves here, poor soil, bad for farming, don't need slaves to raise cattle.)
You should read up before you make such erroneous statements. Motives are never that simple, and in at least two of the three cases you cited slavery was not the reason for the conflict.
I do applaud them for this decision. But habeus corpus only works if people know you have been arrested. As it is we have been grabbing suspects off the street in other countries in the dead of night. They just vanish. Wasn't this one of the things we decried about the Soviet Union?
People say "oh, but they can't do that to American citizens, we have rights." I'm sure the Romans said the same thing just before Caesar grabbed power. And the Germans before Hitler. No, I'm not calling the president a tyrant (he's not smart enough for that.)
It can happen here, if it is allowed to, if good citizens don't speak up. I fervently hope that we can get head it off in time. But the whole "it can't happen here" argument is wishful thinking. Telling the wolf you are from a different flock doesn't stop him from eating you. What does is armed sheep.
1st Ammendment... people being restricted, or even arrested, for anti-war protests at Republican rallies. Believe that was just prior to the last election.
The idea is to take action before that happens. And stormtroopers at your door are useless when your neighbors shoot them from behind.
I've always believed the Bill of Rights was written in a specific order. The 1st Amendment guarantees free speach, free press, freedom to assemble. This gives you a chance to warn the government that they are out of line, and to meet to figure out what to do about it. Even if "what to do" means rebellion.
The 2nd gives you the means to put that into action should it become necessary.
No where are you promised it will be easy, or that there won't be casualties. But your assumption is that people will be waiting (stupidly) in their homes to shoot it out with the goons. Expect a much more organized resistance.
Umm, didn't we declare war in WWII? Read my post. We have not declared war, so there is no legal justification for the president to invoke wartime powers. There is no legal justification for his circumvention of the Constitution. The government can legally assume extraordinary powers in time of war, but it takes a declaration of war to do it.
Bush himself has used the "not at war" tactic to justify circumventing the Geneva Conventions, claiming our prisoners are not POWs but "enemy combatants." This despite the fact that
...the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law." Seems we are at war when it is convenient, and not when it is inconvenient.
FDR and Truman were wartime presidents. We declared war in WWII.
"Police action" was invented to circumvent the Senate. It was invented to take advantage of the ambiguity in Article 2 of the Constitution, which simply states that the president shall act as Commander in Chief. Presidents use this to order troops to war, without having to get the Senate to actually declare war.
Yes, war is hell. But we are better at killing our enemies than they are at killing us. That does not mean we should debase ourselves to use their tactics, tactics which we have agreed are illegal when we signed the Geneva Conventions. It certainly does not mean we should willingly sacrifice our core values because they are inconvenient. If we do that, we have already lost, because that is exactly what the enemy wants.
We're not in wartime. There has been no legal declaration of war, and hence no legal use of wartime powers. Our troops are conducting operations under the orders of the Commander in Chief, not because a war was declared.
Your statements seem to imply that there is nothing wrong with torturing our enemies, and I, like many, many U.S. citizens, have an extreme problem with that. We are supposed to be better than our enemies. We are supposed to uphold the ideals of our Consitution. How can we talk about liberty, while we deny it to others? How can we expect countries to follow our example, become "free" and "democracies", when our example is kidnapping and torture?
I want to remind you here of the stance we took when we decided to rebel against England:
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal... U.S. citizens are not more equal. If we do not apply the ideals of our Constitution to everyone then it means nothing.
The dissenting argument is that these evils are being perpetrated to protect us. The president claims he has to stomp all over our civil liberties, tap our phones, read our mail, torture our enemies, and dispose of due process to save American lives. I'll leave you with another quote, by Patrick Henry:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
I must disagree. Today is exactly when we need them. Now, please read on before you start flaming...
As affirmed by this decision, part of the reason the 2nd Amendment exists is
"premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."
Note that last part, the "depredations of a tyrannical government". The 2nd exists to ensure that, should the government devolve into a tyranny, the citizens will possess the means to overthow it, just as the founding fathers overthrew theirs.
The people who wrote the first ten Amendments were not naive and idealistic. They knew very well that power corrupts, so they put in a safety valve. Should the system of checks and balances fail the citizens would retain the power to put it back.
The Executive Branch of the U.S. government has been consolidating power unto itself for a long time. We have "police actions" and "operations" which, while clearly acts of war, have not been declared as such. Instead the president has decided that, as Commander in Chief, he does not need the Senate's approval. We have a degradation of the 1st Amendment, with warrantless wiretaps. The 5th is gone. If you refuse to incriminate yourself you can be declared a terrorist and shipped off to Gitmo to be tortured.
We are all familiar with the list.
If the current trend continues, if presidents continue to subvert the Constitution, gathering more and more power unto themselves while destroying the system of checks and balances, we are going to need those guns. Yes, we all pray that it is never necessary, but we certainly can't preach about how wonderful our "rights" are if we are not prepared to do what is necessary to keep them.
As the saying goes, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Until I tell someone to go to my homepage, and they type "dell homepage" into a search engine (my last name is Dell). What are the odds that my specific page is going to be listed within a reasonable amount of results, so the person looking can find it?
Besides, you are assuming I can construct a reasonable good search string. Most people can't (which is why I find data in minutes that my wife has been searching for for hours.) But if I give them a URL they can type it into their browser and get where they are trying to go.
And that is exactly what you want. Data mining can show a correlation between genes X and Y, but that doesn't tell you how to fix it. For that you need the scientific method.
Correlation does imply causation, but it does not prove it. It is possible for items of data to correlate, but have unrelated causes. There really are coincidences.
Let's see if I can put this in symbolic logic for you. Two data sets, A and B :
A --> C if A then C
B --> C if B then C
Therefore A --> B error
This is a logical error. Both A and B correlate to C, but insisting that that means that A and B correlate to each other does not pass rigor. Science is needed to prove that the two data sets have the same cause.
I'm a mathematician, and I have never heard a colleague make the claim that science is obsolete.
Mathematics is the language of science, and there has never been an advancement in either one without an accompanying advance in the other.
A mathematician might "gush" about clouds of data, and work on the mathematics of it, but if he insisted it made science obsolete he'd be tossed out on his ear.
Oh, and string theory? That was the physicists. The mathematicians were pissed off that someone found a use for topology, which we considered pure mathematics for its own sake and unconnected to the real world. Damned physicists ruined our fun.
Until they shot said cannonball out of a cannon and noticed that it doesn't follow a straight line. For that you need a quadratic regression.
Linear regression is good for making predictions given strong correlation between items in a data set, but the linear equation you get is a probability, not the solution to the actual data. To show this, plug in the values for any given data point and see if the equation produces the exact results.
Granted, at the quantum level we are dealing in probabilities, but for a satellite, which is traveling in a relativistic framework, we want an exact orbit, not one that will "probably" keep it moving around the planet. This goes for other areas of scientific endeavor. Our computers can run every regression we can think of till it picks one that fits the data set perfectly, but to really understand what that data means requires hard science, not more data. And that doesn't include making intuitive connections between apparently disparate data sets, which currently only a human can do.
Maybe you're not shelling out $300 for each of the 6 computers in your house every time you want to upgrade the OS, or install Office?
For me, Linux is a choice based on economics. $1800 vs Free.... hmmm, I'll take the free one!
Now if someone could direct me to software that sets up Samba without me having to manually edit the conf file, so I can actually network my (legal) XP machines with my Linux boxes.....
I think it has more to do with Gates leaving Microsoft than it does with bashing. The article is just a reflection of some of the things that happened during his reign, and the OP found it interesting enough to bring it here. The whole article, not just the email, which could have been posted as a link to the PDF.
And yes, if your boss is the richest man on the planet and a household name that email he sent you will certainly make the front page.
Agreed. My wife is a teacher, and she writes like this. A lot of professionals do. They can speak well, but when it comes to the written word they are horrendous. One of the things that made me indispensable in the Army was my ability to take the garbage some supposedly educated officer would write and turn it into proper, well written work. (The other was my ability to calculate explosive charges and charge placement in my head lol.)
However, I must agree this thing's a fake. A lot of the syntax makes no sense for an internal memo ("they" instead of "we" is a good example.) And, of course, no insistence that these things be fixed, or at least a demand for a reply. No "George, come see me today, I want to discuss this" or something similar.
Until I buy.dell and tell cousin Mike I'll let it expire so he can buy it up if he pays me a fee. The profit is still there, it just becomes legalized blackmail.
Ah yes, return to the good old days of AOL "keywords"....
Too many problems and arguments, and the courts are busy enough. Type in "dell"... which Dell are you looking for? Personally I'm looking for my homepage, not the computer company (same last name as Michael).
And what happens when when one company eclipses another? If Dell Research becomes the known household name instead of Dell Computers, who went bankrupt in 2018? Does Dell Computers have to surrender the name?
Who decides which company gets ownership of the one word URL? Does Budweiser go to Busch Brewing Company, or to the Czech brewers who had the name first?
The addresses need some sort of structure. More to the point, that structure should be enforced. Example: there is a local public school district here which is a.org instead of a.edu. This is the kind of mess which needs fixing.
And while I'm rambling,.com should be.co.us, to make it match the rest of the world!
I've been looking since the game came out, and still can't find anyone who can get more than the game updater to work on Age of Conan under Wine. If you know of anyone who has gotten it to work, please let me know.
Slashdot Mirror
In soviet it was political ideology. In Iran it is religion. In Zimbabwe it is skin colour.
And in the US it's "terrorism".
MSO also uses this technique. It loads a small TSR at boot time to speed up loading. Most people are just unaware of it's existence. Do a clean install of MSO, then look in your Startup folder, you'll find the TSR. In my experience, the latest OOo starts at the same speed as MSO if neither one is using a TSR.
Carbon dioxide is easy. Plant more trees. They breathe the stuff. They're also nice to look at, and properly positioned provide shade for your yard and house on a hot summer day. Plant more, and stop developers from cutting down so many down.
Adding insulation, better windows, more efficient air conditioner, florescent lights, and so on makes my home more valuable. It also reduces my electric bill, which means more money in my pocket. Same for cars. Less pollution is a side effect, albeit a good one. More to the point it lowers my gasoline consumption, again, more money in my pocket. And I happen to like clean air, so bonus!
Argue climate change all you want, green makes sense, if only from an economic standpoint. And why would anyone be against clean air and water?
I want to remind you here of the stance we took when we decided to rebel against England:
Come on, the war against england was by a bunch of slaveowners so you could keep slaves and nick native american land. And the civil war was to keep slaves too. And the spanish-american war was about slavery too (spanish abolished it, US kept it).
I'm not sure where you live, but your idea of the motivations behind these wars is way off. Perhaps you should read up on American history.
The rebellion had nothing to do with slaves. It occurred because England was levying high taxes on the Colonies to support their war with France. However, they did not allow the colonists any representation in the English court. The colonists were British subjects, but were not granted the same status and rights as the citizens back home. In the face of this, the colonists rebelled. Colonies revolting is nothing new, but in this case the colonies won. Contributing factors include the fact that the British could not deploy troops to the Americas that were needed to fight France; the unusual convergence of political geniuses (Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) in America due to dissidents leaving England for the New World; and the fact that the American troops had learned guerrilla warfare from the Native Americans and refused, in most cases, to fight a "proper" battle with the British troops.
Contrary to popular belief, the American Civil War was not fought over slavery. The southern states were an agricultural society, while the north was beginning to industrialize. This led to major differences in the philosophies of the two societies, to the point where the south decided they'd be better off with their own country. This is the cause of the Civil War. Not slavery, but the fact that once you join the United States you can't leave. States are not allowed to secede. Slavery was important in the war only because it supported the agricultural society. In truth, much as we like to revere Lincoln for ending slavery, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in hopes of a massive slave revolt. As the general attitude of the North towards slavery was right in line with this proclamation, an industrialized society having no need for slaves, it naturally stuck.
In truth, with the shift in labor from people to machines, slavery was already doomed. Machines are more efficient than supporting large populations of slaves. For example, the invention of the horse collar caused the end of slavery in Europe. Without the collar slaves could accomplish more at less cost than a horse. With the horse collar transferring the load from the horse's neck to it's shoulders the horse becomes vastly more efficient, and you choose it over slaves. The best estimate is that slavery in the U.S. would have lasted around 50 more years.
This is not to say that ending slavery was a bad or unnecessary thing. Like the majority of present day U.S. citizens I abhor it. But slavery was not the cause of the Civil War.
I have not studied the Spanish-American war in any depth, but I seem to recall it was about ownership of land (Texas? No point in slaves here, poor soil, bad for farming, don't need slaves to raise cattle.)
You should read up before you make such erroneous statements. Motives are never that simple, and in at least two of the three cases you cited slavery was not the reason for the conflict.
People say "oh, but they can't do that to American citizens, we have rights." I'm sure the Romans said the same thing just before Caesar grabbed power. And the Germans before Hitler. No, I'm not calling the president a tyrant (he's not smart enough for that.)
It can happen here, if it is allowed to, if good citizens don't speak up. I fervently hope that we can get head it off in time. But the whole "it can't happen here" argument is wishful thinking. Telling the wolf you are from a different flock doesn't stop him from eating you. What does is armed sheep.
1st Ammendment... people being restricted, or even arrested, for anti-war protests at Republican rallies. Believe that was just prior to the last election.
I've always believed the Bill of Rights was written in a specific order. The 1st Amendment guarantees free speach, free press, freedom to assemble. This gives you a chance to warn the government that they are out of line, and to meet to figure out what to do about it. Even if "what to do" means rebellion.
The 2nd gives you the means to put that into action should it become necessary.
No where are you promised it will be easy, or that there won't be casualties. But your assumption is that people will be waiting (stupidly) in their homes to shoot it out with the goons. Expect a much more organized resistance.
Bush himself has used the "not at war" tactic to justify circumventing the Geneva Conventions, claiming our prisoners are not POWs but "enemy combatants." This despite the fact that
...the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law." Seems we are at war when it is convenient, and not when it is inconvenient.FDR and Truman were wartime presidents. We declared war in WWII.
"Police action" was invented to circumvent the Senate. It was invented to take advantage of the ambiguity in Article 2 of the Constitution, which simply states that the president shall act as Commander in Chief. Presidents use this to order troops to war, without having to get the Senate to actually declare war.
Yes, war is hell. But we are better at killing our enemies than they are at killing us. That does not mean we should debase ourselves to use their tactics, tactics which we have agreed are illegal when we signed the Geneva Conventions. It certainly does not mean we should willingly sacrifice our core values because they are inconvenient. If we do that, we have already lost, because that is exactly what the enemy wants.
Your statements seem to imply that there is nothing wrong with torturing our enemies, and I, like many, many U.S. citizens, have an extreme problem with that. We are supposed to be better than our enemies. We are supposed to uphold the ideals of our Consitution. How can we talk about liberty, while we deny it to others? How can we expect countries to follow our example, become "free" and "democracies", when our example is kidnapping and torture?
I want to remind you here of the stance we took when we decided to rebel against England:
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal... U.S. citizens are not more equal. If we do not apply the ideals of our Constitution to everyone then it means nothing.The dissenting argument is that these evils are being perpetrated to protect us. The president claims he has to stomp all over our civil liberties, tap our phones, read our mail, torture our enemies, and dispose of due process to save American lives. I'll leave you with another quote, by Patrick Henry:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?As affirmed by this decision, part of the reason the 2nd Amendment exists is
"premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."Note that last part, the "depredations of a tyrannical government". The 2nd exists to ensure that, should the government devolve into a tyranny, the citizens will possess the means to overthow it, just as the founding fathers overthrew theirs.
The people who wrote the first ten Amendments were not naive and idealistic. They knew very well that power corrupts, so they put in a safety valve. Should the system of checks and balances fail the citizens would retain the power to put it back.
The Executive Branch of the U.S. government has been consolidating power unto itself for a long time. We have "police actions" and "operations" which, while clearly acts of war, have not been declared as such. Instead the president has decided that, as Commander in Chief, he does not need the Senate's approval. We have a degradation of the 1st Amendment, with warrantless wiretaps. The 5th is gone. If you refuse to incriminate yourself you can be declared a terrorist and shipped off to Gitmo to be tortured.
We are all familiar with the list.
If the current trend continues, if presidents continue to subvert the Constitution, gathering more and more power unto themselves while destroying the system of checks and balances, we are going to need those guns. Yes, we all pray that it is never necessary, but we certainly can't preach about how wonderful our "rights" are if we are not prepared to do what is necessary to keep them.
As the saying goes, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Besides, you are assuming I can construct a reasonable good search string. Most people can't (which is why I find data in minutes that my wife has been searching for for hours.) But if I give them a URL they can type it into their browser and get where they are trying to go.
And that is exactly what you want. Data mining can show a correlation between genes X and Y, but that doesn't tell you how to fix it. For that you need the scientific method.
Let's see if I can put this in symbolic logic for you. Two data sets, A and B :
A --> C if A then C
B --> C if B then C
Therefore A --> B error
This is a logical error. Both A and B correlate to C, but insisting that that means that A and B correlate to each other does not pass rigor. Science is needed to prove that the two data sets have the same cause.
Mathematics is the language of science, and there has never been an advancement in either one without an accompanying advance in the other.
A mathematician might "gush" about clouds of data, and work on the mathematics of it, but if he insisted it made science obsolete he'd be tossed out on his ear.
Oh, and string theory? That was the physicists. The mathematicians were pissed off that someone found a use for topology, which we considered pure mathematics for its own sake and unconnected to the real world. Damned physicists ruined our fun.
Linear regression is good for making predictions given strong correlation between items in a data set, but the linear equation you get is a probability, not the solution to the actual data. To show this, plug in the values for any given data point and see if the equation produces the exact results.
Granted, at the quantum level we are dealing in probabilities, but for a satellite, which is traveling in a relativistic framework, we want an exact orbit, not one that will "probably" keep it moving around the planet. This goes for other areas of scientific endeavor. Our computers can run every regression we can think of till it picks one that fits the data set perfectly, but to really understand what that data means requires hard science, not more data. And that doesn't include making intuitive connections between apparently disparate data sets, which currently only a human can do.
A shame we can't drop that idiot on a neutron star, then let her tell us that mass isn't important...
Oh, you live in the United States?
For me, Linux is a choice based on economics. $1800 vs Free.... hmmm, I'll take the free one!
Now if someone could direct me to software that sets up Samba without me having to manually edit the conf file, so I can actually network my (legal) XP machines with my Linux boxes.....
And yes, if your boss is the richest man on the planet and a household name that email he sent you will certainly make the front page.
However, I must agree this thing's a fake. A lot of the syntax makes no sense for an internal memo ("they" instead of "we" is a good example.) And, of course, no insistence that these things be fixed, or at least a demand for a reply. No "George, come see me today, I want to discuss this" or something similar.
Until I buy .dell and tell cousin Mike I'll let it expire so he can buy it up if he pays me a fee. The profit is still there, it just becomes legalized blackmail.
Too many problems and arguments, and the courts are busy enough. Type in "dell"... which Dell are you looking for? Personally I'm looking for my homepage, not the computer company (same last name as Michael).
And what happens when when one company eclipses another? If Dell Research becomes the known household name instead of Dell Computers, who went bankrupt in 2018? Does Dell Computers have to surrender the name?
Who decides which company gets ownership of the one word URL? Does Budweiser go to Busch Brewing Company, or to the Czech brewers who had the name first?
The addresses need some sort of structure. More to the point, that structure should be enforced. Example: there is a local public school district here which is a .org instead of a .edu. This is the kind of mess which needs fixing.
And while I'm rambling, .com should be .co.us, to make it match the rest of the world!
I've been looking since the game came out, and still can't find anyone who can get more than the game updater to work on Age of Conan under Wine. If you know of anyone who has gotten it to work, please let me know.
Obviously not or I wouldn't have asked.