Well if he hasn't done anything like that again for 30 years and is now a decent chap, why go chuck him in jail for 10 years? Just for "completeness"?
Should ask the people who were directly affected by him in the relevant crimes whether they think the world would be a better place with him in jail or not.
I don't support Bush. But I'm no Democrat - I'm not even a US citizen. I don't support Bush because not only does he lie (or if you're charitable- make mistakes), but he doesn't apologize for his lies ("mistakes") when confronted with them.
To me it is scary that the World's Most Powerful Nation is led by a unrepentant liar/incompetent (either he is lying or incompetent) AND worst most of the citizens don't appear to be that bothered about it - in fact so many support him.
Whereas look at Spain. They didn't like their Gov lying to them so they kicked them out. It's not because of the terrorists despite what the US media say.
I don't know why so many here get the idea that the rest of the world doesn't want Bush because without Bush, the US will be weaker.
To most of us smaller nations, a stronger/weaker US makes not that much difference to us. What makes a difference is when the Worlds Most Powerful Nation attacks a country based on dubious/fake justifications (lies) despite practically everyone else saying don't do it - it's not justified (and later it's proven by the US itself it's not justified).
In fact a richer and prosperous US is better for us, since the US is more likely to buy our stuff.
Bush has definitely helped terrorist recruitment with his actions. I don't see how the US is stronger because of what Bush has done - the US has alienated many allies. After the 9/11 events, the US had lots of sympathy with most of the rest of the world. But after attacking Iraq despite the UN, despite almost everyone else in the World saying there is no proof of WMD, Iraq is not a threat, the US has lost much support.
Bush and his supporters have the cheek to blame the US "intelligence" and others for not giving good info about WMD - WTF do you think the UN weapons inspectors were doing, the US authorities were saying the inspectors weren't good and were easily fooled by Saddam, and now the inspectors have been vindicated. The inspectors said they needed a bit more time to check things, the US said - no the threat was _IMMINENT_, we have to strike NOW. Now after so long, still no WMD found, just "intent". Of course Saddam wants the weapons. But ain't it cheaper to keep the inspectors there as a thorn in his flesh, rather than spending billions in the war? There was so much nasty stuff said about the inspectors, the UN and France.
The people at the top have been _proven_ to be liars and hypocrites. And if the US citizens allow them to stay at the top, they are "aiding and abetting" their leaders.
I've heard the excuses for keeping Bush in power but as far as I see, the logic/reasoning for practically all of the excuses is muddled or absent.
Uh: While "Not bad" can mean good, "Not that bad" means something different - it could mean average, or just below average. Whatever it is it's quite subjective.
And perhaps the average student at that time "missed quite a few days".
In the absence of more facts, saying someone is biased and contradictory because of those two statements is a bit of a stretch.
To take the analogy from other Engineering fields:
The first one (v1.0) is the "Blueprint". With software the blueprint actually works like the Real Thing! Compiles, runs, makes the right noises, blinks the right lights etc. But it should never be mistaken for the Real Thing.
The second one (v2.0) is the equivalent of those plastic/clay models. You do various tests on these. Go back to a new blueprint if you've screwed up badly.
The third one (v3.0) is The Real Thing. It'll have bugs of course, but by this time it should mostly work as expected.
The fourth one (v3.1) is The Real Thing with the annoying bugs fixed - equivalent of a renovated house just the way the customer now realizes they want it.
The fifth or sixth one (v4.0?) is when a bright spark or two decide that something fancy is needed and adds pink flamingoes, garden gnomes, ornate parapets, Clippy and other stuff. Things start going downhill soon.
The big trouble with software is it costs about the same to do each stage. So most of the time people try to sell the blueprint (and usually get away with it;) ). The more responsible ones sell the plastic models...
And that is one reason why most software isn't that good.
The other reason is most programmers are crap (and many use languages which highlight their crappiness - e.g. C or C++). There are tons of crappy books and few great novels. Spell checks and good proof-reading won't make a crappy book good - they can't fix a plot with holes like a sieve... Good editors (auditors?) are rare.
But fortunately(?) for us all, many people still want to buy crappy books;).
Caveat: I'm not a Programmer/Software Engineer and have no Comp Sci or IT degrees (I'm just an IT security consultant), so take my words with a dollop of salt if you may.
"More importantly, write the tests FIRST. Then write the code"
But write which tests first? There are so many possible. Usually there are more ways for something to malfunction than for it to function correctly.
How do you write a test to check that a banking application does not allow a customer to cancel other customer's cheques? How do you write a test to check that someone didn't allow sql injection? How do you write a test to ensure that a user account cannot do what it is not authorized to?
Since there are usually more ways to test something to check limits than to use it within the limits, your suggestion makes changes a lot more expensive. If you do the code first (and haven't finished writing the 10 tests for it) and people say "We don't like the way that works in practice", you haven't wasted time writing 10 tests. Whereas if you do it the other way round, they can only find out they don't like it after you've written the 10 tests AND the actual code.
Your suggestion probably works well for certain scenarios, but appears counterproductive for many others.
"There are. Insert standard Apple/Linux security rant here."
Doh. Then they'd be using an unupdated RedHat 9.0 with openssh vulnerabilities and so on. Same goes for the Apple stuff. No diff.
I don't see a cure in sight - there is no change in the O/S design. Linux/Macs are not much better than Windows securitywise - architecturally[1], especially when you have users that are actually do stupid stuff like _enter_passwords to encrypted zipfiles and run the contents, even though they have been told not to (some people just can't resist).
Small businesses also have other things to do. What they need is to do the equivalent of regularly sending vehicles to professionals for maintenance and servicing.
[1] Architecture is similar: Stuff runs by default on Mac/Linux/Windows with the user account's full privileges and so has access to the user's data.
Mac/Linux/Windows and most popular user applications are also written in languages that are prone to buffer overflows and similar issues.
"It's only pre-marital sex if you plan on getting married..."
Yah, call it what you will. Main point is monogamy does offer decent protection to the human race as a whole from STDs - protecting greater numbers rather than waiting for genetic immunity to evolve, whilst allowing offspring.
AC: "The reason is that race, to a biologist, is defined in terms of whether members of the race can and (to a lesser extent) do choose to breed.
So, all dogs are the same species. As you say, different breeds of dog have different characteristics. But those characteristics don't stop breeding, so they don't make two breeds racially different - even though they do make them phenotypically distinct. The proof that the "0.24%" is insignificant is that this difference doesn't cause biologically separate populations."
You are mostly wrong. Biologists define _species_ that way ( mate + produce viable offspring). But who defines race by ability/inability to interbreed? It's obvious to anyone that the races can and do interbreed and produce viable offspring.
"Race" is closer to "breed". Human races are a product of probably more haphazard breeding, so the breed characteristics are not as distinct as they are in dog breeds, but there ARE characteristics.
Well if you have just one sexual partner for life - e.g. no premarital sex, no sex outside marriage, then the species can propagate and still be _as_a_whole_ not very diminished by STDs.
There'll be outliers but as a whole the species would survive without need for other externalities.
Given that HIV is not very contagious and is sexually/blood transmitted, it is not correct to assume that humans would evolve genetically to be immune to HIV.
Groups of people who are monogamous would as a whole be much less vulnerable to such diseases.
While they are not immune, they won't necessarily get infected. They are less likely to develop such immunity - with respect to genes related to the immune system. But if you view it with respect to genes related to monogamy, perhaps those may evolve given enough selection pressure.
There was a study on vasopressin, its receptors and the effects on monogamous prairie voles and polygamous mice.
On one hand you have scientists saying that chimpanzees are 98.5% identical to humans.
On the other hand you have scientits saying that race accounts of 0.24 percent of total make up.
So, sure the difference in terms of genetic material is small, but where's the proof that the 0.24% is _insignificant_?
You have races with different propensity to diseases- e.g. cystic fibrosis. So there _are_ racial differences.
So, ignoring political correctness (which is unscientific), it's naive to say there's no such thing as race. It's like saying that one breed of dog is identical to another (e.g. beagles vs dalmations). Sure they can breed with each other, but there are differences - temperament, intelligence, physique, propensity to diseases/ailments.
Significance is relative: to alien beings we're probably not really different from a nematode worms or mice. But we are different.
Yeah I think it's stupid for NZ to allow genetic engineering stuff on their soil.
Agriculture plays a major role in NZ's economy. And "New Zealand" is an established "brand" recognized for being clean/unspoiled/uncontaminated. Turning away US nuclear power ships and all that.
If you guys remain GM free, then _when_ (not if) someone in the rest of the world screws up, you guys stand to make a big profit.
Look at the state of "British Beef". They're going nowhere. . The only beef I'd think is 99.99% safe to eat is either NZ beef or Kobe beef. The latter is prohibitively expensive. The former is the cheapest for the quality you get.
NZ has volcanic soil, mild climate, so grazing animals do very very well (no need for barns, grass grows real fast). I really don't see ANY need for NZ to have GM stuff.
Scenario: someone introduces pig genes into cattle, and lets it spread. If NZ had remained 100% GM free, then the best known safe kosher(jew OK)/halal(muslim OK) source of beef would be NZ. NZ can charge monopoly prices.
NZ people can do GM stuff, but don't allow it in NZ. Do it as a JV in Singapore or Switzerland or something.
So I really think it is a stupid move for NZ to allow GM stuff on their soil.
"Get off your elitist high horse. If the majority of the people in the country want a good looking dolt as their leader, why shouldn't they get exactly that? Just because you don't like it? Since when did your opinions of what's important in a leader supercede the opinions of your fellow citizens?"
Coz it's probably bad for them in the long run.
If you are smarter than someone in a particular area and they are about to do something stupid, it is not elitism to warn/discourage them. In fact it is your responsibility to do so.
But yeah, just because you're smart doesn't mean you should despise those who aren't. Or be patronizing.
Still I'm sure it is hard to do the right thing, given the things some people do... *sigh*
Re:Hopefully this will kill "AMD is hot" 'jokes'
on
AMD 90nm Evaluated
·
· Score: 1
But is TDP really the max consumption of those CPUs?
Given that AMD states the same TDP for ALL processors, I'm more inclined to believe that TDP = "Design your thermal/power related stuff assuming this" and NOT "All CPUs use consume this power at max".
In fact, since AMD intends people to be able to drop in dual core CPUS with minimal changes (they have said that before), I daresay that the upcoming dual core CPUs are the ones that will consume 89W max.
The single cores probably consume significantly less even at max.
But think about dual core P4s... "reactor core" comes to mind;).
That's because most of those spacecraft are travelling very fast (you need to be travelling very fast to stay in orbit)- much faster than terminal velocity. The process of being slowed down by air to the steady state speed generates a lot of heat.
Another thing they don't want the spacecraft to reach terminal velocity in a few seconds, because that would be "terminal". Typical orbit speeds = Mach 25. Terminal velocity is not even mach 0.5. Kinetic energy = 0.5M(V^2). If you get rid of that much energy in a few seconds you end up with a bright flare in the sky. Better to generate the heat over a longer period so that it can dissipate more easily. So the reentry angle has to be quite precise. If it is too shallow the spacecraft can skip off the atmosphere like a skipping stone.
If there was an object in space that wasn't in orbit or travelling very fast and you dropped it straight down it won't generate that much heat.
This is actually what SpaceShipOne is experiencing - they don't go into orbit. They go practically straight up and come straight down. That's actually not that hard compared to getting into orbit (and getting back safely without burning up). But it's a start.
It's a bit like Linux reinventing Unix:).
p.s. I read about some of these sort of stuff (including nuclear fission and fusion) from a series of books called "Young Scientist" when I was a 7-8 year old kid, and there's also the books from Usborne on scientific stuff. These explained stuff pretty well. Too many parents underestimate their children and by the time children are older than 9 or 10 their minds could be a bit harder to extend.
"To lie you have to intentionally mislead people, I suspect that Bush honestly believed there was WMD. He's not a liar, just wrong (or perhaps incompetent)."
Then why does he keep not admitting he was wrong? Why in the recent debate did he defend the Iraq war by saying "we were attacked"?
Given the answers to that, why should people keep supporting Bush? Fine if you don't support Kerry, but why support Bush?
Slashdot Mirror
Well if I'm _recording_ something live, skips and delays = lost data.
You can't always repeat the event to do another recording.
I thought they beat the summer heat by only coming out at night (especially for "drinks")? ;)
Big Bird?
Well if he hasn't done anything like that again for 30 years and is now a decent chap, why go chuck him in jail for 10 years? Just for "completeness"?
Should ask the people who were directly affected by him in the relevant crimes whether they think the world would be a better place with him in jail or not.
I don't support Bush. But I'm no Democrat - I'm not even a US citizen. I don't support Bush because not only does he lie (or if you're charitable- make mistakes), but he doesn't apologize for his lies ("mistakes") when confronted with them.
To me it is scary that the World's Most Powerful Nation is led by a unrepentant liar/incompetent (either he is lying or incompetent) AND worst most of the citizens don't appear to be that bothered about it - in fact so many support him.
Whereas look at Spain. They didn't like their Gov lying to them so they kicked them out. It's not because of the terrorists despite what the US media say.
I don't know why so many here get the idea that the rest of the world doesn't want Bush because without Bush, the US will be weaker.
To most of us smaller nations, a stronger/weaker US makes not that much difference to us. What makes a difference is when the Worlds Most Powerful Nation attacks a country based on dubious/fake justifications (lies) despite practically everyone else saying don't do it - it's not justified (and later it's proven by the US itself it's not justified).
In fact a richer and prosperous US is better for us, since the US is more likely to buy our stuff.
Bush has definitely helped terrorist recruitment with his actions. I don't see how the US is stronger because of what Bush has done - the US has alienated many allies. After the 9/11 events, the US had lots of sympathy with most of the rest of the world. But after attacking Iraq despite the UN, despite almost everyone else in the World saying there is no proof of WMD, Iraq is not a threat, the US has lost much support.
Bush and his supporters have the cheek to blame the US "intelligence" and others for not giving good info about WMD - WTF do you think the UN weapons inspectors were doing, the US authorities were saying the inspectors weren't good and were easily fooled by Saddam, and now the inspectors have been vindicated. The inspectors said they needed a bit more time to check things, the US said - no the threat was _IMMINENT_, we have to strike NOW. Now after so long, still no WMD found, just "intent". Of course Saddam wants the weapons. But ain't it cheaper to keep the inspectors there as a thorn in his flesh, rather than spending billions in the war? There was so much nasty stuff said about the inspectors, the UN and France.
The people at the top have been _proven_ to be liars and hypocrites. And if the US citizens allow them to stay at the top, they are "aiding and abetting" their leaders.
I've heard the excuses for keeping Bush in power but as far as I see, the logic/reasoning for practically all of the excuses is muddled or absent.
Uh:
While "Not bad" can mean good, "Not that bad" means something different - it could mean average, or just below average. Whatever it is it's quite subjective.
And perhaps the average student at that time "missed quite a few days".
In the absence of more facts, saying someone is biased and contradictory because of those two statements is a bit of a stretch.
To take the analogy from other Engineering fields:
;) ). The more responsible ones sell the plastic models...
;).
The first one (v1.0) is the "Blueprint". With software the blueprint actually works like the Real Thing! Compiles, runs, makes the right noises, blinks the right lights etc. But it should never be mistaken for the Real Thing.
The second one (v2.0) is the equivalent of those plastic/clay models. You do various tests on these. Go back to a new blueprint if you've screwed up badly.
The third one (v3.0) is The Real Thing. It'll have bugs of course, but by this time it should mostly work as expected.
The fourth one (v3.1) is The Real Thing with the annoying bugs fixed - equivalent of a renovated house just the way the customer now realizes they want it.
The fifth or sixth one (v4.0?) is when a bright spark or two decide that something fancy is needed and adds pink flamingoes, garden gnomes, ornate parapets, Clippy and other stuff. Things start going downhill soon.
The big trouble with software is it costs about the same to do each stage. So most of the time people try to sell the blueprint (and usually get away with it
And that is one reason why most software isn't that good.
The other reason is most programmers are crap (and many use languages which highlight their crappiness - e.g. C or C++). There are tons of crappy books and few great novels. Spell checks and good proof-reading won't make a crappy book good - they can't fix a plot with holes like a sieve... Good editors (auditors?) are rare.
But fortunately(?) for us all, many people still want to buy crappy books
Caveat: I'm not a Programmer/Software Engineer and have no Comp Sci or IT degrees (I'm just an IT security consultant), so take my words with a dollop of salt if you may.
"More importantly, write the tests FIRST. Then write the code"
But write which tests first? There are so many possible. Usually there are more ways for something to malfunction than for it to function correctly.
How do you write a test to check that a banking application does not allow a customer to cancel other customer's cheques? How do you write a test to check that someone didn't allow sql injection? How do you write a test to ensure that a user account cannot do what it is not authorized to?
Since there are usually more ways to test something to check limits than to use it within the limits, your suggestion makes changes a lot more expensive. If you do the code first (and haven't finished writing the 10 tests for it) and people say "We don't like the way that works in practice", you haven't wasted time writing 10 tests. Whereas if you do it the other way round, they can only find out they don't like it after you've written the 10 tests AND the actual code.
Your suggestion probably works well for certain scenarios, but appears counterproductive for many others.
"There are. Insert standard Apple/Linux security rant here."
Doh. Then they'd be using an unupdated RedHat 9.0 with openssh vulnerabilities and so on. Same goes for the Apple stuff. No diff.
I don't see a cure in sight - there is no change in the O/S design. Linux/Macs are not much better than Windows securitywise - architecturally[1], especially when you have users that are actually do stupid stuff like _enter_passwords to encrypted zipfiles and run the contents, even though they have been told not to (some people just can't resist).
Small businesses also have other things to do. What they need is to do the equivalent of regularly sending vehicles to professionals for maintenance and servicing.
[1] Architecture is similar:
Stuff runs by default on Mac/Linux/Windows with the user account's full privileges and so has access to the user's data.
Mac/Linux/Windows and most popular user applications are also written in languages that are prone to buffer overflows and similar issues.
Yah I was mistaken - thought they were pickled in urea or something...
:).
;).
Even so, I still ate and enjoyed em
It's kinda amazing what the Chinese invented to eat. I wonder whether the inventing process involved young males, lots of alcohol and bets/dares
"It's only pre-marital sex if you plan on getting married..."
Yah, call it what you will. Main point is monogamy does offer decent protection to the human race as a whole from STDs - protecting greater numbers rather than waiting for genetic immunity to evolve, whilst allowing offspring.
AC: "The reason is that race, to a biologist, is defined in terms of whether members of the race can and (to a lesser extent) do choose to breed.
So, all dogs are the same species. As you say, different breeds of dog have different characteristics. But those characteristics don't stop breeding, so they don't make two breeds racially different - even though they do make them phenotypically distinct. The proof that the "0.24%" is insignificant is that this difference doesn't cause biologically separate populations."
You are mostly wrong. Biologists define _species_ that way ( mate + produce viable offspring). But who defines race by ability/inability to interbreed? It's obvious to anyone that the races can and do interbreed and produce viable offspring.
"Race" is closer to "breed". Human races are a product of probably more haphazard breeding, so the breed characteristics are not as distinct as they are in dog breeds, but there ARE characteristics.
"Maybe we should give the movie to Bollywood. Then the grunt can get up and sing after he kills the evil cacodemon!"
Not before they play hide and seek amongst the trees/pillars first...
Well if you have just one sexual partner for life - e.g. no premarital sex, no sex outside marriage, then the species can propagate and still be _as_a_whole_ not very diminished by STDs.
There'll be outliers but as a whole the species would survive without need for other externalities.
"but the "thousand-year egg" isn't all that bad. The egg-white (or egg-black) has a jello-like texture and the yolk tastes somewhat sweet."
Yeah but do you want to know how it's made?
Given that HIV is not very contagious and is sexually/blood transmitted, it is not correct to assume that humans would evolve genetically to be immune to HIV.
Groups of people who are monogamous would as a whole be much less vulnerable to such diseases.
While they are not immune, they won't necessarily get infected. They are less likely to develop such immunity - with respect to genes related to the immune system. But if you view it with respect to genes related to monogamy, perhaps those may evolve given enough selection pressure.
There was a study on vasopressin, its receptors and the effects on monogamous prairie voles and polygamous mice.
On one hand you have scientists saying that chimpanzees are 98.5% identical to humans.
On the other hand you have scientits saying that race accounts of 0.24 percent of total make up.
So, sure the difference in terms of genetic material is small, but where's the proof that the 0.24% is _insignificant_?
You have races with different propensity to diseases- e.g. cystic fibrosis. So there _are_ racial differences.
So, ignoring political correctness (which is unscientific), it's naive to say there's no such thing as race. It's like saying that one breed of dog is identical to another (e.g. beagles vs dalmations). Sure they can breed with each other, but there are differences - temperament, intelligence, physique, propensity to diseases/ailments.
Significance is relative: to alien beings we're probably not really different from a nematode worms or mice. But we are different.
Seems alphabetical except for number 100.
Strange.
Yeah I think it's stupid for NZ to allow genetic engineering stuff on their soil.
Agriculture plays a major role in NZ's economy. And "New Zealand" is an established "brand" recognized for being clean/unspoiled/uncontaminated. Turning away US nuclear power ships and all that.
If you guys remain GM free, then _when_ (not if) someone in the rest of the world screws up, you guys stand to make a big profit.
Look at the state of "British Beef". They're going nowhere. . The only beef I'd think is 99.99% safe to eat is either NZ beef or Kobe beef. The latter is prohibitively expensive. The former is the cheapest for the quality you get.
NZ has volcanic soil, mild climate, so grazing animals do very very well (no need for barns, grass grows real fast). I really don't see ANY need for NZ to have GM stuff.
Scenario: someone introduces pig genes into cattle, and lets it spread. If NZ had remained 100% GM free, then the best known safe kosher(jew OK)/halal(muslim OK) source of beef would be NZ. NZ can charge monopoly prices.
NZ people can do GM stuff, but don't allow it in NZ. Do it as a JV in Singapore or Switzerland or something.
So I really think it is a stupid move for NZ to allow GM stuff on their soil.
"Get off your elitist high horse. If the majority of the people in the country want a good looking dolt as their leader, why shouldn't they get exactly that? Just because you don't like it? Since when did your opinions of what's important in a leader supercede the opinions of your fellow citizens?"
Coz it's probably bad for them in the long run.
If you are smarter than someone in a particular area and they are about to do something stupid, it is not elitism to warn/discourage them. In fact it is your responsibility to do so.
But yeah, just because you're smart doesn't mean you should despise those who aren't. Or be patronizing.
Still I'm sure it is hard to do the right thing, given the things some people do... *sigh*
But is TDP really the max consumption of those CPUs?
;).
Given that AMD states the same TDP for ALL processors, I'm more inclined to believe that TDP = "Design your thermal/power related stuff assuming this" and NOT "All CPUs use consume this power at max".
In fact, since AMD intends people to be able to drop in dual core CPUS with minimal changes (they have said that before), I daresay that the upcoming dual core CPUs are the ones that will consume 89W max.
The single cores probably consume significantly less even at max.
But think about dual core P4s... "reactor core" comes to mind
That's because most of those spacecraft are travelling very fast (you need to be travelling very fast to stay in orbit)- much faster than terminal velocity. The process of being slowed down by air to the steady state speed generates a lot of heat.
:).
Another thing they don't want the spacecraft to reach terminal velocity in a few seconds, because that would be "terminal". Typical orbit speeds = Mach 25. Terminal velocity is not even mach 0.5. Kinetic energy = 0.5M(V^2). If you get rid of that much energy in a few seconds you end up with a bright flare in the sky. Better to generate the heat over a longer period so that it can dissipate more easily. So the reentry angle has to be quite precise. If it is too shallow the spacecraft can skip off the atmosphere like a skipping stone.
If there was an object in space that wasn't in orbit or travelling very fast and you dropped it straight down it won't generate that much heat.
This is actually what SpaceShipOne is experiencing - they don't go into orbit. They go practically straight up and come straight down. That's actually not that hard compared to getting into orbit (and getting back safely without burning up). But it's a start.
It's a bit like Linux reinventing Unix
p.s. I read about some of these sort of stuff (including nuclear fission and fusion) from a series of books called "Young Scientist" when I was a 7-8 year old kid, and there's also the books from Usborne on scientific stuff. These explained stuff pretty well. Too many parents underestimate their children and by the time children are older than 9 or 10 their minds could be a bit harder to extend.
Because people are willing to pay more for Intel processors.
Yeah they prefer your wallets (and your souls for that matter) ;).
"To lie you have to intentionally mislead people, I suspect that Bush honestly believed there was WMD. He's not a liar, just wrong (or perhaps incompetent)."
Then why does he keep not admitting he was wrong? Why in the recent debate did he defend the Iraq war by saying "we were attacked"?
Given the answers to that, why should people keep supporting Bush? Fine if you don't support Kerry, but why support Bush?