you're asking how you will get info on the internet?
If TV and radio were not "dumb", one-way media, and worked like the internet to begin with, then this would not even be an issue. With full internet-capable devices, you can request your own information on your own schedule, and not rely on an entertainment-focused pre-scheduled TV channel or radio station to interrupt their broadcasts.
if you want to better yourself, you should start by keeping your knee-jerk reactions to yourself, or perhaps inventing a device to harness the wasted energy in your knee-jerkiness.
Or maybe you should learn to harness the energy of your brain before ever talking again. You went from "water causing earthquakes????? what will envirolibtardbats think of next!" to "I'll burn goddamn oil in my goddamn rubble-cave that used to be the goddamn NYC skyline if I goddamn well please" in the matter of a few hours. Perhaps all of your efforts to better yourself by becoming a self-aware, intelligent being can advance so quickly!
Abstract In China, the earthquakes induced by water injection have occurred in four oil fields including the Renqiu oil field, and in two mines. Production of oil from the Renqiu oil field began in 1975 and the injection of water into the oil field commenced in July 1976. The induced earthquakes have been occurring in the area for the past 17 years, since December 1976. The controlled experiments of water injection showed the cause and effect relation between water injection and earthquakes. Source parameters such as source dimension, seismic moment and stress drop of a large number of the induced earthquakes, andQ factor for the area have been determined. The results indicate that the stress drop varies from 0.2 to 3.0 bar and theQ factor has an average value of 75.0. The low-stress drop and lowQ factor values imply that the earthquakes are caused by the brittle fracture of weak rocks under low ambient stresses, due to a decrease in their strength because of the injection of water. The induced earthquakes are unevenly distributed in the oil field. The northern part of the oil field, where the reservoir rocks are characterized by low porosity and low permeability, exhibits high seismic activity with the largest earthquake registering a magnitude of 4.5 and about 68% of the total number of induced earthquakes in this part. Whereas, the southern part of the oil field with higher porosity and higher permeability is characterized by low seismic activity with the largest earthquake registering a magnitude of 2.5 and only 4% of the total number of earthquakes which occurred in this part. These features of the focal region suggest that larger earthquakes may not occur in the Renqiu oil field area.
how do you think all of those large government entities you listed are destroying the economy?
If you believe that they are, which you seem to, then it should be obvious that they are destroying the economy basically by funneling money to large corporations at taxpayer expense. Large corporations are, of course, run by "greedy CEOs", who use their undue influence to make sure they are funneled lots of money at taxpayer expense.
No wonder the tea party is so popular, when people like you are ready to foam at the mouth about the government buying a prisoner a PS3 without even spending a second to think about it.
Do you really think every prisoner is 100% broke? The guy wanted to buy a PS3. Prisoners have money. Some prisoners can even work in-house for pennies on the dollar, not only getting paid pennies on the dollar, but being forced to spend a large fraction of the money they earned towards court fines, incarceration fees, restitution, previous loans, child support, etc.
Prisoners are already deprived of their individual liberty, being forced to live imprisoned against their will. Allowing the guy to spend money on entertainment, such as a PS3, so that he has less motivation to start fights, do drugs, or practice criminal networking is a good thing for anyone who is not and does not ever plan to be in a prison.
Think before you speak, dumbfuck. You could have spent 2 seconds thinking about what being a prisoner would actually be like instead of flipping on the angry-mob switch and blaming other people for your own problems. Maybe you should have re-upped your registration on time.
Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead, their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic.
what?
If that is "not exactly democratic", then our entire government is not exactly democratic. Are you implying there needs to be a dissolution of the entire constitutional system since it is "not exactly democratic", just as you are implying that collective bargaining deserves to be abolished?
Voters do not have a final say on public policy to begin with, they have something much more like an initial say. When was the last time you voted on how much a member of cabinet should make? Have you voted on how much your local public school's janitors should be paid? Town clerks? You don't vote on any of this directly, you vote on people to do it for you so that you can live your life. Even in the most direct of these situations, you would probably vote on a very local town or city budget, which you would then delegate to someone else to implement.
Implying that it should be abolished because it's not democratic is entirely wrong, because it is very democratic.
A world where terrorists can fly 18-wheelers packed with hundreds of people into the upper stories of New York City skycrapers is not a world which can be called safe. Thank you, DHS.
These islands are not so much islands as they are rocks barely jutting out of the sea. Nobody lives on them, and they are basically completely uninhabitable. I hope this helps in realizing how much of a total idiot you are. Thanks!
While you are correct about this and the person you are replying to is wrong about that detail, the sentiment is generally correct. The map is purely nationalist agenda for the state of China, and publishing it without any kind of edit or notation about its dispute or origin actually helps that nationalist agenda. If it's published now unaltered, it can be referred to later as veracity of the Chinese claims. China is bullying both its own researcher and now, indirectly, a scientific journal to front for their on-its-face outlandish territorial claims. There is no real legitimate reason to put up with it and allow it, and anyone who does should suffer from public scorn for going along with it.
The Arafat award was largely a joke, but it had a much larger historical precedent in Henry Kissinger, who got one for changing his opinion from "we have to not only continue the Vietnam war, but expand it into Laos and Cambodia so the Soviets don't think we're pussies" to "I guess the Soviets won't think we're pussies" and helping to end what was essentially his own war. It's not bad to recognize this change of opinion and laud it, but to act as if the winner of the prize is some globe-trotting do-gooder superhero has been a joke for a long, long time, which is why only a few partisan hacks got bent out of shape over Obama winning one recently, and why condemnation of Arafat's win is relatively muted and limited to Israelis and Jewish people worldwide.
It should also be noted that it's not unreasonable to think that expansion of the Vietnam war, CIA clandestine activity in SE Asia, along with support of international drug-trafficking to help finance the "democratic" Vietnamese war effort not only destabilized the region and helped the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot to come to power and murder millions of people, but it also helped cement the Golden Triangle as the origin of much of the world's drug trade laid the groundwork for lots of heroin trafficking into the United States. One Nobel Peace Prize is just not enough to recognize all of Kissinger's many glories in international politics. Thanks Hank!
There are reasons to disagree with both 1 and 2, specifically in reference to Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Would you consider those US territories like Guam? The United States has been pointing guns at China, along with anybody else that looks at them, since the end of WW2, and I think it's incorrect to call it something akin to land-grabbing, though they all certainly have many ulterior motives.
The promise of defending Japan after WW2 is, of course, self-serving, but it also was a common sense way of providing stability in a region which the Japanese had, in many cases, literally just raped. Even today in that region people would give little credibility to any Japanese attempts to defend itself.
The origins of Korean defense are a lot more murky, as evidenced by China's original fears of its landgrabbiness, causing blatant Chinese and Soviet intervention in the war -- the only reason for its stalemate in the first place. The Korean war had essentially been won, with US (United Nations, actually) forces close to the Chinese border, setting off every alarm bell they could in a recently erected ChiCom government. Today its defense is generally undisputed, with North Korea having fallen off the Mao-era communist bandwagon into a crazy cult black sheep of the East Asia region which nobody wants around.
Taiwan's defense origins are similar to that of Korea, with reciprocal fears of a global takeover by an opposing side of the Communist-Capitalist spectrum sparking much tension. Even today many mainland Chinese and Taiwanese (Taiwan Chinese) share essentially mirrored hardline beliefs about their respective status as legitimate governments of all of China, which, thankfully, are in a minority of crazy people looked down at from the ledge of sanity by most everyone else.
Even many mainland Chinese who would profess legitimacy over Taiwan do it not so much as a budding desire for invasion and more of a dispute of the more extreme views from across the straits that their own government does not exist. Much of the argument today is whether "Taiwan" refers to a separate nation-state with a history independent of "Chinese", which, outside of China, is a view that largely does not exist. Chinese people born in Taiwan, or having emigrated from Taiwan, who write in a "traditional" script, are generally only referred to as Taiwanese in the same way a mainland Chinese person might say they are Cantonese or from Shanghai -- they are, at heart, a Chinese individual. The difference can actually be much more marked within a Chinese context between Chinese individuals, where there can be very strong regional affinities, with Northern Chinese often looking down on people from the South, or vice versa, and both of them looking down on people from farther inland. This is often in a way to draw a distinction such as the darkness of ones skin or the peculiarity of an accent which would be very familiar to people born in the West, such as Europeans of various nationalities do of each other, or Europeans do of people born in a different region of their own country, or Americans who would make fun of the way a Southerner talks and is bigoted and morbidly obese compared to the way a Southerner talks about people from the coasts loving faggots and vegetables and solar panels. When it comes down to it, it is a regional divisiveness which actually helps to characterize the people from being from the same place, as people from outside of the country would be completely unaware of the distinctions for which they make fun of each other.
In this sense, especially, pointing guns at China (and selling guns to Taiwan) is essentially beneficial to everyone, since just about everyone wants the status quo of separate governments to continue, mainland China and Taiwan more than anyone else, including the USA. The stability provided by US defense in the area has allowed this to happen for over 50 years and will continue to be the reason for it by putting well out of reach the ideas of a violent reunification dreamt by whate
Much of the dispute is with communist Vietnam, which starkly contrasts to a China which can no longer even be characterized as having a communist government or even attempting to have one. The idea that you think they would push a foreign nation's nationalist interests over other foreign nation's nationalist interests in order to "maintain credibility" indicates that you are a total moron in most aspects, especially ones which involve topics such as science or the South China Sea.
It should also be noted that, while the intent to protect a person living under an authoritarian regime may be genuine, publishing a Chinese "nine-dot map" is much more than that, in genuinely supporting the Chinese claims. When things like this happen, the regime making the claim very often refers to publications like this as proof of the claim's veracity.
Fifty or a hundred years from now, a Chinese government will be able to point out a publication like this and say "see, even the people of a century ago referred to it contemporarily as Chinese territory", and it will have long been forgotten that the person only included the map under duress.
Patriotic Americans have been stockpiling hundreds of pounds of fat over the last couple of decades already. When WW3 causes the collapse of civilization, we'll be able to suck the fat out of our own bodies in order to drive our vehicles in range of our homemade firearms to make sure that we can kill enough poor and black people to allow civilization to flourish again.
Much like moonshine running, this will inspire a new generation of NASCAR racing featuring barbecuing, fat-burning racecars, and firearms within 50 years.
free market forces come out on top once again baby
It would also result in much larger container ships and tankers, since they could ship to and from the billions of Chinese people without being size-limited by the straits of Malacca or the Suez canal.
ie, a most likely huge efficiency increase in shipping
Murmansk has actually been open year-round for a long long time, notably (for Americans) during World War 1, when US soldiers and goods were shipped there to help stem the communist tide.
Even without this, it would have been an important port for much of the 20th century, since submarines could be much more easily tracked (counted) through the Baltic Sea if they were constructed and repaired in Saint Petersburg.
I hope everyone knows which country is Iraq and which one is Afghanistan. And which one is Pakistan, whose relationship with the USA since 2001 must be unnerving to Iranians as well. Knowing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Uzbekistan and Georgia are bonuses, all of whose USA bilateral ties must be unnerving to a government which, as you noted, has been terrified of an invasion since its founding in 1979.
It should also probably not be forgotten that a US navy ship shot down a passenger jet full of Iranians over the Persian Gulf in the 1980s, which is pretty terrifying an idea in general, and especially so to Americans who should be able to relate, considering the eerie similarity to the USSR downing of Korean Air flight 007 which killed almost 300 people, including a sitting US Congressman.
In any event, while the current Iranian government may be legitimately crazy, especially certain political blocs inside it, their fear and general malaise caused by American presence in the region is perfectly reasonable.
Press the Start button and then type the first few letters of what you want to run into the box that is automatically selected. It will bring up the results as you type, starting with programs and following with whatever other options you have it index.
Alternatively, you can install launchy, which does essentially the same thing, but better and more configurable. http://www.launchy.net/
You're trying to make a better interface work like the worse one you are used to instead of learning something new, and then complaining about it. Do you really like mouse-hovering your way through trees and trees of programs in a Win98 style start menu? How about the option to hide the lesser used programs which make you scroll down in a more annoying and confusing way than the current menu? Do you really like jerking your mouse around all day instead of using mouse and keyboard in a simplified manner to do what you want?
You can also create new libraries, add only programs you wish to it, and have those displayed in start in an expandable menu. Or learn how to pin programs.
No wonder you don't like the newer interfaces, you are just trying to fight them all the time.
citation needed? have you ever seen a win95 start menu?
If you want to have some fun, you can googling to find the posts like "why do i have to press start to shut down" or "why do i have to press start after my computer is already started", and see various complaints about it. Many of them include intricate workarounds to rename the button, remove the button from use, create shortcuts to shut down in one double-click, and so on.
The most common complaint I remember is about its necessity. Some people liked the original program manager MDI interface, and the self-professed experts seemed to prefer the File Manager tree view which morphed into the current day's explorer.exe. During the XP era, many users recreated Program Manager-esque layouts through shortcuts on their desktop or using all of the startbar's real estate as a giant quicklaunch bar and meticulous asperger control of their systray.
People wondered "what is the point of the start button with a sane windows shell organization?" which you would struggle through answering even today, especially after all of the improvements and bugfixes allowing a user to actually keep it organized. I'd like to see you answer that question today, because on my win7 install, programs are launched from pinned icons, recently-ran list, launchy, or the launchy style search/run box, with about 1 in a million being launched from the actual all programs menu. Many newly installed programs keep their yellow highlight for months, since they are never ran from the start menu.
The start button was an abomination in win95, and has progressively inched towards usability over the course of one and a half decades. It still doesn't make sense, and many of the new improvements to windows make it virtually useless. Anyone who wastes a second on nostalgia for their classic-themed Windows XP desktop is basically an utter moron not interested in actual usability.
In OS X, you should be wary of moving any of Apple's applications, since Apple's Software Update seems to be the one that is most guilty of making assumptions. Lately I've been leaving programs dropped by installers in their initial location. But if the "install" is simply dragging an icon from a disk image, you are free to put it in any folder you want.
Ironically enough, as this has been one of the more vociferous complaints about Windows since Win95 at least -- programs assumed where they should install and where they were installed with little or no input from the user. This wreaked havoc on the more tech savvy, who would have more than just a C: drive, or who wanted to be in control of the name of the directory to which it was installed.
Every other post on this story is comical. Linux geeks complaining about their Windows Start button being taken away? Technically advanced? Liking things in menus?
There's a bit of collective amnesia going on about what people's thoughts were of the Start button when it was impelmented in the first place. What has ubuntu done to you all?
Trying to make him pay was actually just part of the application process for a post-miitary job. If he would have successfully written off the laundry bag loss, a defense contracting job would be waiting for him as soon as he left where he could put his expertise to work losing laundry bags on a large scale or losing truckfuls of pallets of cash.
"Tax cuts" are not "handing out cash". A tax cut means you're not taking as much money.
While true on its face, the current group of Republicans has redefined "tax cuts" to include "taxpayer-funded subsidy". They increase taxes on everyone else to subsidize special interests and reject the concept of removing the subsidy because that would be equivalent to a tax increase.
In that sense, "tax cuts" very much are "handing out cash".
Slashdot Mirror
you're asking how you will get info on the internet?
If TV and radio were not "dumb", one-way media, and worked like the internet to begin with, then this would not even be an issue. With full internet-capable devices, you can request your own information on your own schedule, and not rely on an entertainment-focused pre-scheduled TV channel or radio station to interrupt their broadcasts.
if you want to better yourself, you should start by keeping your knee-jerk reactions to yourself, or perhaps inventing a device to harness the wasted energy in your knee-jerkiness.
Or maybe you should learn to harness the energy of your brain before ever talking again. You went from "water causing earthquakes????? what will envirolibtardbats think of next!" to "I'll burn goddamn oil in my goddamn rubble-cave that used to be the goddamn NYC skyline if I goddamn well please" in the matter of a few hours. Perhaps all of your efforts to better yourself by becoming a self-aware, intelligent being can advance so quickly!
we are all pulling for you, buddy
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u315626k2071q0j0/
how do you think all of those large government entities you listed are destroying the economy?
If you believe that they are, which you seem to, then it should be obvious that they are destroying the economy basically by funneling money to large corporations at taxpayer expense. Large corporations are, of course, run by "greedy CEOs", who use their undue influence to make sure they are funneled lots of money at taxpayer expense.
do you really think being deprived of your personal liberty is not a punishment?
No wonder the tea party is so popular, when people like you are ready to foam at the mouth about the government buying a prisoner a PS3 without even spending a second to think about it.
Do you really think every prisoner is 100% broke? The guy wanted to buy a PS3. Prisoners have money. Some prisoners can even work in-house for pennies on the dollar, not only getting paid pennies on the dollar, but being forced to spend a large fraction of the money they earned towards court fines, incarceration fees, restitution, previous loans, child support, etc.
Prisoners are already deprived of their individual liberty, being forced to live imprisoned against their will. Allowing the guy to spend money on entertainment, such as a PS3, so that he has less motivation to start fights, do drugs, or practice criminal networking is a good thing for anyone who is not and does not ever plan to be in a prison.
Think before you speak, dumbfuck. You could have spent 2 seconds thinking about what being a prisoner would actually be like instead of flipping on the angry-mob switch and blaming other people for your own problems. Maybe you should have re-upped your registration on time.
do you really think that every prisoner is 100% bankrupt?
do you really believe that being deprived of your liberty and forced to sit in a prison against your will is not a punishment?
what?
If that is "not exactly democratic", then our entire government is not exactly democratic. Are you implying there needs to be a dissolution of the entire constitutional system since it is "not exactly democratic", just as you are implying that collective bargaining deserves to be abolished?
Voters do not have a final say on public policy to begin with, they have something much more like an initial say. When was the last time you voted on how much a member of cabinet should make? Have you voted on how much your local public school's janitors should be paid? Town clerks? You don't vote on any of this directly, you vote on people to do it for you so that you can live your life. Even in the most direct of these situations, you would probably vote on a very local town or city budget, which you would then delegate to someone else to implement.
Implying that it should be abolished because it's not democratic is entirely wrong, because it is very democratic.
A world where terrorists can fly 18-wheelers packed with hundreds of people into the upper stories of New York City skycrapers is not a world which can be called safe. Thank you, DHS.
These islands are not so much islands as they are rocks barely jutting out of the sea. Nobody lives on them, and they are basically completely uninhabitable. I hope this helps in realizing how much of a total idiot you are. Thanks!
While you are correct about this and the person you are replying to is wrong about that detail, the sentiment is generally correct. The map is purely nationalist agenda for the state of China, and publishing it without any kind of edit or notation about its dispute or origin actually helps that nationalist agenda. If it's published now unaltered, it can be referred to later as veracity of the Chinese claims. China is bullying both its own researcher and now, indirectly, a scientific journal to front for their on-its-face outlandish territorial claims. There is no real legitimate reason to put up with it and allow it, and anyone who does should suffer from public scorn for going along with it.
The Arafat award was largely a joke, but it had a much larger historical precedent in Henry Kissinger, who got one for changing his opinion from "we have to not only continue the Vietnam war, but expand it into Laos and Cambodia so the Soviets don't think we're pussies" to "I guess the Soviets won't think we're pussies" and helping to end what was essentially his own war. It's not bad to recognize this change of opinion and laud it, but to act as if the winner of the prize is some globe-trotting do-gooder superhero has been a joke for a long, long time, which is why only a few partisan hacks got bent out of shape over Obama winning one recently, and why condemnation of Arafat's win is relatively muted and limited to Israelis and Jewish people worldwide.
It should also be noted that it's not unreasonable to think that expansion of the Vietnam war, CIA clandestine activity in SE Asia, along with support of international drug-trafficking to help finance the "democratic" Vietnamese war effort not only destabilized the region and helped the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot to come to power and murder millions of people, but it also helped cement the Golden Triangle as the origin of much of the world's drug trade laid the groundwork for lots of heroin trafficking into the United States. One Nobel Peace Prize is just not enough to recognize all of Kissinger's many glories in international politics. Thanks Hank!
There are reasons to disagree with both 1 and 2, specifically in reference to Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Would you consider those US territories like Guam? The United States has been pointing guns at China, along with anybody else that looks at them, since the end of WW2, and I think it's incorrect to call it something akin to land-grabbing, though they all certainly have many ulterior motives.
The promise of defending Japan after WW2 is, of course, self-serving, but it also was a common sense way of providing stability in a region which the Japanese had, in many cases, literally just raped. Even today in that region people would give little credibility to any Japanese attempts to defend itself.
The origins of Korean defense are a lot more murky, as evidenced by China's original fears of its landgrabbiness, causing blatant Chinese and Soviet intervention in the war -- the only reason for its stalemate in the first place. The Korean war had essentially been won, with US (United Nations, actually) forces close to the Chinese border, setting off every alarm bell they could in a recently erected ChiCom government. Today its defense is generally undisputed, with North Korea having fallen off the Mao-era communist bandwagon into a crazy cult black sheep of the East Asia region which nobody wants around.
Taiwan's defense origins are similar to that of Korea, with reciprocal fears of a global takeover by an opposing side of the Communist-Capitalist spectrum sparking much tension. Even today many mainland Chinese and Taiwanese (Taiwan Chinese) share essentially mirrored hardline beliefs about their respective status as legitimate governments of all of China, which, thankfully, are in a minority of crazy people looked down at from the ledge of sanity by most everyone else.
Even many mainland Chinese who would profess legitimacy over Taiwan do it not so much as a budding desire for invasion and more of a dispute of the more extreme views from across the straits that their own government does not exist. Much of the argument today is whether "Taiwan" refers to a separate nation-state with a history independent of "Chinese", which, outside of China, is a view that largely does not exist. Chinese people born in Taiwan, or having emigrated from Taiwan, who write in a "traditional" script, are generally only referred to as Taiwanese in the same way a mainland Chinese person might say they are Cantonese or from Shanghai -- they are, at heart, a Chinese individual. The difference can actually be much more marked within a Chinese context between Chinese individuals, where there can be very strong regional affinities, with Northern Chinese often looking down on people from the South, or vice versa, and both of them looking down on people from farther inland. This is often in a way to draw a distinction such as the darkness of ones skin or the peculiarity of an accent which would be very familiar to people born in the West, such as Europeans of various nationalities do of each other, or Europeans do of people born in a different region of their own country, or Americans who would make fun of the way a Southerner talks and is bigoted and morbidly obese compared to the way a Southerner talks about people from the coasts loving faggots and vegetables and solar panels. When it comes down to it, it is a regional divisiveness which actually helps to characterize the people from being from the same place, as people from outside of the country would be completely unaware of the distinctions for which they make fun of each other.
In this sense, especially, pointing guns at China (and selling guns to Taiwan) is essentially beneficial to everyone, since just about everyone wants the status quo of separate governments to continue, mainland China and Taiwan more than anyone else, including the USA. The stability provided by US defense in the area has allowed this to happen for over 50 years and will continue to be the reason for it by putting well out of reach the ideas of a violent reunification dreamt by whate
China is much more accurately described as a fascist government, not any kind of socialism.
Much of the dispute is with communist Vietnam, which starkly contrasts to a China which can no longer even be characterized as having a communist government or even attempting to have one. The idea that you think they would push a foreign nation's nationalist interests over other foreign nation's nationalist interests in order to "maintain credibility" indicates that you are a total moron in most aspects, especially ones which involve topics such as science or the South China Sea.
It should also be noted that, while the intent to protect a person living under an authoritarian regime may be genuine, publishing a Chinese "nine-dot map" is much more than that, in genuinely supporting the Chinese claims. When things like this happen, the regime making the claim very often refers to publications like this as proof of the claim's veracity.
Fifty or a hundred years from now, a Chinese government will be able to point out a publication like this and say "see, even the people of a century ago referred to it contemporarily as Chinese territory", and it will have long been forgotten that the person only included the map under duress.
Patriotic Americans have been stockpiling hundreds of pounds of fat over the last couple of decades already. When WW3 causes the collapse of civilization, we'll be able to suck the fat out of our own bodies in order to drive our vehicles in range of our homemade firearms to make sure that we can kill enough poor and black people to allow civilization to flourish again.
Much like moonshine running, this will inspire a new generation of NASCAR racing featuring barbecuing, fat-burning racecars, and firearms within 50 years.
free market forces come out on top once again baby
It would also result in much larger container ships and tankers, since they could ship to and from the billions of Chinese people without being size-limited by the straits of Malacca or the Suez canal.
ie, a most likely huge efficiency increase in shipping
Murmansk has actually been open year-round for a long long time, notably (for Americans) during World War 1, when US soldiers and goods were shipped there to help stem the communist tide.
Even without this, it would have been an important port for much of the 20th century, since submarines could be much more easily tracked (counted) through the Baltic Sea if they were constructed and repaired in Saint Petersburg.
Significantly more terrified after invasions of two of its largest neighbors, it should be noted.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Iran_(orthographic_projection).svg
I hope everyone knows which country is Iraq and which one is Afghanistan. And which one is Pakistan, whose relationship with the USA since 2001 must be unnerving to Iranians as well. Knowing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Uzbekistan and Georgia are bonuses, all of whose USA bilateral ties must be unnerving to a government which, as you noted, has been terrified of an invasion since its founding in 1979.
It should also probably not be forgotten that a US navy ship shot down a passenger jet full of Iranians over the Persian Gulf in the 1980s, which is pretty terrifying an idea in general, and especially so to Americans who should be able to relate, considering the eerie similarity to the USSR downing of Korean Air flight 007 which killed almost 300 people, including a sitting US Congressman.
In any event, while the current Iranian government may be legitimately crazy, especially certain political blocs inside it, their fear and general malaise caused by American presence in the region is perfectly reasonable.
Press the Start button and then type the first few letters of what you want to run into the box that is automatically selected. It will bring up the results as you type, starting with programs and following with whatever other options you have it index.
Alternatively, you can install launchy, which does essentially the same thing, but better and more configurable. http://www.launchy.net/
You're trying to make a better interface work like the worse one you are used to instead of learning something new, and then complaining about it. Do you really like mouse-hovering your way through trees and trees of programs in a Win98 style start menu? How about the option to hide the lesser used programs which make you scroll down in a more annoying and confusing way than the current menu? Do you really like jerking your mouse around all day instead of using mouse and keyboard in a simplified manner to do what you want?
You can also create new libraries, add only programs you wish to it, and have those displayed in start in an expandable menu. Or learn how to pin programs.
No wonder you don't like the newer interfaces, you are just trying to fight them all the time.
citation needed? have you ever seen a win95 start menu?
If you want to have some fun, you can googling to find the posts like "why do i have to press start to shut down" or "why do i have to press start after my computer is already started", and see various complaints about it. Many of them include intricate workarounds to rename the button, remove the button from use, create shortcuts to shut down in one double-click, and so on.
The most common complaint I remember is about its necessity. Some people liked the original program manager MDI interface, and the self-professed experts seemed to prefer the File Manager tree view which morphed into the current day's explorer.exe. During the XP era, many users recreated Program Manager-esque layouts through shortcuts on their desktop or using all of the startbar's real estate as a giant quicklaunch bar and meticulous asperger control of their systray.
People wondered "what is the point of the start button with a sane windows shell organization?" which you would struggle through answering even today, especially after all of the improvements and bugfixes allowing a user to actually keep it organized. I'd like to see you answer that question today, because on my win7 install, programs are launched from pinned icons, recently-ran list, launchy, or the launchy style search/run box, with about 1 in a million being launched from the actual all programs menu. Many newly installed programs keep their yellow highlight for months, since they are never ran from the start menu.
The start button was an abomination in win95, and has progressively inched towards usability over the course of one and a half decades. It still doesn't make sense, and many of the new improvements to windows make it virtually useless. Anyone who wastes a second on nostalgia for their classic-themed Windows XP desktop is basically an utter moron not interested in actual usability.
Ironically enough, as this has been one of the more vociferous complaints about Windows since Win95 at least -- programs assumed where they should install and where they were installed with little or no input from the user. This wreaked havoc on the more tech savvy, who would have more than just a C: drive, or who wanted to be in control of the name of the directory to which it was installed.
Every other post on this story is comical. Linux geeks complaining about their Windows Start button being taken away? Technically advanced? Liking things in menus?
There's a bit of collective amnesia going on about what people's thoughts were of the Start button when it was impelmented in the first place. What has ubuntu done to you all?
Trying to make him pay was actually just part of the application process for a post-miitary job. If he would have successfully written off the laundry bag loss, a defense contracting job would be waiting for him as soon as he left where he could put his expertise to work losing laundry bags on a large scale or losing truckfuls of pallets of cash.
While true on its face, the current group of Republicans has redefined "tax cuts" to include "taxpayer-funded subsidy". They increase taxes on everyone else to subsidize special interests and reject the concept of removing the subsidy because that would be equivalent to a tax increase.
In that sense, "tax cuts" very much are "handing out cash".