Thank you! I get the feeling a lot of the adults who rave about the book don't really read that much themselves. I have plenty of reading material to get through, I'm not going to waste time reading kids books.
What does knowing anything about gaming have to do with rating the games? They're not rating it for the quality of the game, there's no reason to compare it to other games.
This server line is as old as UNIX for heaven's sake; I think you have to admire HP for keeping it going this long, especially when you consider they're still going to support it for a few more years. I mean, dropping the calculator division may have been a boneheaded move but you've got to give HP some credit here...
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly, BeOS had the fastest, most elegant GUI I'd ever seen. I just think they were optimistic about their chances against Microsoft.
Sometimes birds miscalculate; ospreys have been known to dive into the lake, grab a fish, then have it drag them under. Then fisherman catch the fish and wonder why there's remnants of a bird skeleton embedded in the fish...
While I don't agree with European attempts to ban any kind of speech, I can understand why they do it; just look at the events leading up to WW2. BTW, as much as we Americans like to criticize, we ban, or try to ban, many types of speech too. Schools banning books, Congress trying to ban flag burning, "slander", "copyright infractions", the list goes on and on.
You're missing the point. This is the one branch of government that should have the LEAST say into how a plan like this would be implemented. If it's that important let Congress vote on it, then let the courts say if it's Constitutional or not. What the hell gives the prosecutors the right to limit defense attorneys?
All he's really done is spawned the important acronyms..GNU, GPL, under which actual contributors of work have made thousands of worthwhile and creative contributions.
And he wrote GCC. You think Linux would be around without it?
Um, you might want to break out a civics book sometime. The president appoints the CIA director and the military chiefs of staff.
But not departmental heads or most senior administrators.
That's certainly what the left-wing propagandizers have wanted you to believe. It's simply not true. The Nazis were socialists. Isn't it remarkable that the more socialist a country is, the less freedom it has? Learn a little bit of history before you simply believe whatever you are told.
I think your history is a little shaky. The "socialist" in their name doesn't mean they were socialists in the modern sense of the word. They didn't believe in redistributing wealth; instead, they simply believed that the industrial apparatus of their country should be used to further the governments goals. If it were truly socialist then corporate industry wouldn't have jumped on the bandwagon, and then prospered heavily from the governments actions.
That's called "law enforcement", as I said. Maybe you think it's no big deal for the man who signs laws to lie under oath in a court, but there are many of us who believe that the man who signs laws should be held to the highest standards, not the lowest.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" does NOT refer to being evasive about having sex, even in a courtroom setting. The entire independent counsel system was completely unconstitutional; someone who could ignore Constitutional restraints on unreasonable search AND was unaccountable to anyone is ridiculous. What the hell does his affair with Lewinsky have to do with the Whitewater deal, which happened years before?
LOL! You really need to learn some history of the Democratic party's redistricting policies, purchasing of local campaigns, and the passing of pro-incumbent laws. I have a feeling you're pretty young.
Oh spare me the condescension. Looks like I'll have to give you another history lesson.
Redistricting is mandated by the Constitution, and has to be done every 10 years. Both sides attempt to get redistricting done to their advantage; if you actually believe that the Republicans don't do the same things then you're so credulous that you'll accept anything anyone tells you, as long as they profess to follow your ideology. I won't even respond
Sheesh, were you born yesterday? Note the "40+ years" of my comment. That refers to prior to the Republicans taking back congress.
Your history is once again shaky. Those Congresses I listed were from the 1980's.
As for the comment about the left being "the enemies of freedom", it's probably the most ridiculous thing you've said, and that's saying something. Look at the Nixon administrations attacks on personal freedom--look at the McCarthy witchhunts--look at the Iran-Contra affair. Right-led presidential administrations
Um, genius, in 1966 LBJ (liberal Democrat) was in power.
Hey, genius, I'm not talking about the White House. I'm talking about the intelligence agencies and the military.
In any case, got news for you: it's left wingers that have always been interested in mind control. The Soviet Union and Hitler ring a bell? Who constantly wants larger and larger governments? That would be the left wing.
The Nazis were right-wing.
The difference between right wing politics and left wing politics is that the right wing generally wants to expand the power of law enforcement to catch criminals, whereas the left wing generally wants to expand the power of government to control the opposition party and enhance their own power.
Well, let's see. Over the entire length of Clinton's presidency the right used every power at their disposal to try to bring him down. The independent counsel, the impeachment hearings, these were both abuses of government to get back into power.
The difference between right wing politics and left wing politics is that the right wing generally wants to expand the power of law enforcement to catch criminals, whereas the left wing generally wants to expand the power of government to control the opposition party and enhance their own power.
You really believe that? That's kind of hilarious.
The Republicans have tried to regulate speech, the press, and sex for a long time. If they could have their way they'd throw out half the Constitution.
If you want to see this in action, take a look at how Democrats manipulated local elections for 40+ years to keep control of congress.
Now you're just not coming to terms with basic facts here. The 97th, 98th, and 99th Congresses were controlled by the Republicans.
Lets look at some even simpler facts. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. The fact that over the past 40 years Congress has mostly been controlled by the Democrats is simply because more Americans believe the same things as the party promotes.
The reporter seems to interpret it negatively because Fortune 1000 companies aren't dumping Microsoft 100% and going for Linux.
No, the reporter interprets it negatively because the vast majority of executives feel Microsoft is a better choice, according to him. Not because Linux hasn't achieved 100% market share.
All they know is why you all stay nights and weekends to fix the problems they help create, they go home. And they make several times the IT lackeys salaries too. And we say THEY'RE the stupid ones?
I realize you didn't want G.W. Bush elected, but you ought to get your facts straight when criticizing him and his family, since your errors make you look like an idiot to those who are more informed:
G.H.W. Bush went to YALE.
The original poster said Bush got a business degree from Harvard; he did. Nowhere did the poster state that it was an undergraduate degree.
Uhh, excuse me, but isn't this science that we are talking about in the first place? Oh, wait, sorry, you are absolutely right, of course! This is nothing more than politics in the guise of "science"! Excuse me for that little oversight.
So you actually believe that science never enters the picture? That the climatologists, ecologists, environmental chemists, geophysicists who research this stuff are just wasting their lives on a useless pursuit. The facts are these:
1. Releasing industrial waste (as CO2, CFCs, chlorine, heavy metals, whatever) into the environment changes that environment.
2. These changes are probably harmful to humans.
If this is the case, shouldn't we try to limit how much of these wastes we release? Just because we haven't proven all of the facts 100%? Do you not pay car insurance because there's not a 100% chance you'll get into an accident?
What happens to pollutants then, if you release them into the air? You think they magically disappear? Let me guess, the hole in the ozone doesn't exist either?
The really sad thing about this whole debate is that, by using such "sky-is-falling" scare tactics and demagoguery, the left wing has successfully hijacked the whole environmental issue and used it as nothing more than a means to ram their marxist dogma down everyone else's throats.
Oh yes, you found us out. The entire environmental movement is simply a front for a vast Marxist conspiracy. After we sneak in all those environmental regulations we're going to erect a statue of Marx in Washington, DC, then march around waving red flags chanting Soviet slogans. Give me a break.
Think it's bullshit? Try taking a long hard look at your ridiculous.sig and then tell me with a straight face what your true motives are.
My motives? What motives can you extrapolate from my sig?
They can't prove it. Oh, sure, they can come up with tons of circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but the one thing that they cannot do is establish causality beyond a doubt.
WHO CARES? As long as they can establish a REASONABLE chance that there IS a causal relationship, then let's act on it. And they've done that; let's see, on one hand we have pro-business pseudoscience, and on the other we have the work of tens of thousands of scientists. Who would you believe? The idea that we can't establish a causal relationship to 100% certainty is a point that only a philosopher of science should reasonably care about. Hell, if they establish a 30% chance we should act on it, simply because the possible costs are so high.
So, what's the next best thing they can do? Go on the PC offensive, or course! It's simple and it's proven to be effective time and time again. They can just demonize any thought or information that doesn't conform to their preconceived determination, and use the willing accompices in the media and academia to ensure that their views will be the "accepted" ones. Anything that doesn't march in lockstep will be declared "evil" and ostracized.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds less impressive when you consider this guy did the same thing, only swimming.
Thank you! I get the feeling a lot of the adults who rave about the book don't really read that much themselves. I have plenty of reading material to get through, I'm not going to waste time reading kids books.
i think my main concerns with the harry potter phenomenon are based around the comments that the books have got kids reading again.
Again? Don't know if reading was ever popular among the majority of children...
What does knowing anything about gaming have to do with rating the games? They're not rating it for the quality of the game, there's no reason to compare it to other games.
They're TV executives, what do you expect besides utter and abject stupidity.
Strange thing is the funniest guys on the British show were the Americans...
This server line is as old as UNIX for heaven's sake; I think you have to admire HP for keeping it going this long, especially when you consider they're still going to support it for a few more years. I mean, dropping the calculator division may have been a boneheaded move but you've got to give HP some credit here...
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly, BeOS had the fastest, most elegant GUI I'd ever seen. I just think they were optimistic about their chances against Microsoft.
I've tried BeOS, and it IS a splendid little OS. But I really don't know why they thought they could break into the commercial OS market.
How come the stores haven't put up the usual signs saying "Le Controlleures ATA-133 c'est arrive"?
Or was that joke a little too obscure for this crowd? And I don't speak French, so no bashing that...
Sometimes birds miscalculate; ospreys have been known to dive into the lake, grab a fish, then have it drag them under. Then fisherman catch the fish and wonder why there's remnants of a bird skeleton embedded in the fish...
I wonder how hard the DOJ fought against some of the other recent bills that have been passed that fly in the face of the Constitution.
I don't wonder. I know exactly how little they've fought against those bills.
While I don't agree with European attempts to ban any kind of speech, I can understand why they do it; just look at the events leading up to WW2. BTW, as much as we Americans like to criticize, we ban, or try to ban, many types of speech too. Schools banning books, Congress trying to ban flag burning, "slander", "copyright infractions", the list goes on and on.
You're missing the point. This is the one branch of government that should have the LEAST say into how a plan like this would be implemented. If it's that important let Congress vote on it, then let the courts say if it's Constitutional or not. What the hell gives the prosecutors the right to limit defense attorneys?
You know, it was so obvious how weaselly this guy was before he was appointed. Pity so many Democrats gave in on his confirmation.
All he's really done is spawned the important acronyms..GNU, GPL, under which actual contributors of work have made thousands of worthwhile and creative contributions.
And he wrote GCC. You think Linux would be around without it?
Um, you might want to break out a civics book sometime. The president appoints the CIA director and the military chiefs of staff.
But not departmental heads or most senior administrators.
That's certainly what the left-wing propagandizers have wanted you to believe. It's simply not true. The Nazis were socialists. Isn't it remarkable that the more socialist a country is, the less freedom it has? Learn a little bit of history before you simply believe whatever you are told.
I think your history is a little shaky. The "socialist" in their name doesn't mean they were socialists in the modern sense of the word. They didn't believe in redistributing wealth; instead, they simply believed that the industrial apparatus of their country should be used to further the governments goals. If it were truly socialist then corporate industry wouldn't have jumped on the bandwagon, and then prospered heavily from the governments actions.
That's called "law enforcement", as I said. Maybe you think it's no big deal for the man who signs laws to lie under oath in a court, but there are many of us who believe that the man who signs laws should be held to the highest standards, not the lowest.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" does NOT refer to being evasive about having sex, even in a courtroom setting. The entire independent counsel system was completely unconstitutional; someone who could ignore Constitutional restraints on unreasonable search AND was unaccountable to anyone is ridiculous. What the hell does his affair with Lewinsky have to do with the Whitewater deal, which happened years before?
LOL! You really need to learn some history of the Democratic party's redistricting policies, purchasing of local campaigns, and the passing of pro-incumbent laws. I have a feeling you're pretty young.
Oh spare me the condescension. Looks like I'll have to give you another history lesson.
Redistricting is mandated by the Constitution, and has to be done every 10 years. Both sides attempt to get redistricting done to their advantage; if you actually believe that the Republicans don't do the same things then you're so credulous that you'll accept anything anyone tells you, as long as they profess to follow your ideology. I won't even respond
Sheesh, were you born yesterday? Note the "40+ years" of my comment. That refers to prior to the Republicans taking back congress.
Your history is once again shaky. Those Congresses I listed were from the 1980's.
As for the comment about the left being "the enemies of freedom", it's probably the most ridiculous thing you've said, and that's saying something. Look at the Nixon administrations attacks on personal freedom--look at the McCarthy witchhunts--look at the Iran-Contra affair. Right-led presidential administrations
Um, genius, in 1966 LBJ (liberal Democrat) was in power.
Hey, genius, I'm not talking about the White House. I'm talking about the intelligence agencies and the military.
In any case, got news for you: it's left wingers that have always been interested in mind control. The Soviet Union and Hitler ring a bell? Who constantly wants larger and larger governments? That would be the left wing.
The Nazis were right-wing.
The difference between right wing politics and left wing politics is that the right wing generally wants to expand the power of law enforcement to catch criminals, whereas the left wing generally wants to expand the power of government to control the opposition party and enhance their own power.
Well, let's see. Over the entire length of Clinton's presidency the right used every power at their disposal to try to bring him down. The independent counsel, the impeachment hearings, these were both abuses of government to get back into power.
The difference between right wing politics and left wing politics is that the right wing generally wants to expand the power of law enforcement to catch criminals, whereas the left wing generally wants to expand the power of government to control the opposition party and enhance their own power.
You really believe that? That's kind of hilarious.
The Republicans have tried to regulate speech, the press, and sex for a long time. If they could have their way they'd throw out half the Constitution.
If you want to see this in action, take a look at how Democrats manipulated local elections for 40+ years to keep control of congress.
Now you're just not coming to terms with basic facts here. The 97th, 98th, and 99th Congresses were controlled by the Republicans.
Lets look at some even simpler facts. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. The fact that over the past 40 years Congress has mostly been controlled by the Democrats is simply because more Americans believe the same things as the party promotes.
Sad thing is these kinds of right-wing nutjobs are back in power...
The reporter seems to interpret it negatively because Fortune 1000 companies aren't dumping Microsoft 100% and going for Linux.
No, the reporter interprets it negatively because the vast majority of executives feel Microsoft is a better choice, according to him. Not because Linux hasn't achieved 100% market share.
All they know is why you all stay nights and weekends to fix the problems they help create, they go home. And they make several times the IT lackeys salaries too. And we say THEY'RE the stupid ones?
I realize you didn't want G.W. Bush elected, but you ought to get your facts straight when criticizing him and his family, since your errors make you look like an idiot to those who are more informed:
G.H.W. Bush went to YALE.
The original poster said Bush got a business degree from Harvard; he did. Nowhere did the poster state that it was an undergraduate degree.
Uhh, excuse me, but isn't this science that we are talking about in the first place? Oh, wait, sorry, you are absolutely right, of course! This is nothing more than politics in the guise of "science"! Excuse me for that little oversight.
So you actually believe that science never enters the picture? That the climatologists, ecologists, environmental chemists, geophysicists who research this stuff are just wasting their lives on a useless pursuit. The facts are these:
1. Releasing industrial waste (as CO2, CFCs, chlorine, heavy metals, whatever) into the environment changes that environment.
2. These changes are probably harmful to humans.
If this is the case, shouldn't we try to limit how much of these wastes we release? Just because we haven't proven all of the facts 100%? Do you not pay car insurance because there's not a 100% chance you'll get into an accident?
What happens to pollutants then, if you release them into the air? You think they magically disappear? Let me guess, the hole in the ozone doesn't exist either?
The really sad thing about this whole debate is that, by using such "sky-is-falling" scare tactics and demagoguery, the left wing has successfully hijacked the whole environmental issue and used it as nothing more than a means to ram their marxist dogma down everyone else's throats.
Oh yes, you found us out. The entire environmental movement is simply a front for a vast Marxist conspiracy. After we sneak in all those environmental regulations we're going to erect a statue of Marx in Washington, DC, then march around waving red flags chanting Soviet slogans. Give me a break.
Think it's bullshit? Try taking a long hard look at your ridiculous
My motives? What motives can you extrapolate from my sig?
Many of the "thousands of scientists" you mention have vested interests as well.
And what about those that don't? The reason you're discounting their research is not because it's flawed but because you don't agree with it.
lot of the pro-environment propaganda that goes on is the direct result of big corporations wanting to manipulate you
How on earth can you be so amazingly, 100% wrong? It's remarkable.
Point to one single PAC formed by corporations that endorses stricter environmental regulations. Go ahead, I dare you.
so they keep quiet when polititians and various other talking heads distort their findings to sound more frighning than they really are.
Do you even read the paper? Most politicians ignore this, as they've ignored it for decades.
Face it, you are being played.
And you are so lost in the self-delusion of your own little fringe ideology that it's not even worthwhile to continue this.
They can't prove it. Oh, sure, they can come up with tons of circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but the one thing that they cannot do is establish causality beyond a doubt.
WHO CARES? As long as they can establish a REASONABLE chance that there IS a causal relationship, then let's act on it. And they've done that; let's see, on one hand we have pro-business pseudoscience, and on the other we have the work of tens of thousands of scientists. Who would you believe? The idea that we can't establish a causal relationship to 100% certainty is a point that only a philosopher of science should reasonably care about. Hell, if they establish a 30% chance we should act on it, simply because the possible costs are so high.
So, what's the next best thing they can do? Go on the PC offensive, or course! It's simple and it's proven to be effective time and time again. They can just demonize any thought or information that doesn't conform to their preconceived determination, and use the willing accompices in the media and academia to ensure that their views will be the "accepted" ones. Anything that doesn't march in lockstep will be declared "evil" and ostracized.
And what the hell do you think you're doing?