Like I was in the 80s/90s. Best time of my life. Met lots of cool people. But instead I became a legitimate hardware engineer. Now I'm a megacorp serf.:-|
>>>This makes voices talk quickly without altering the pitch, therefore there's no chipmunking.
Are you sure? The VLC players I have on my IBM PC clone and Linux laptop make everything sound like Chip & Dale. Of course I am using an older version, so maybe it's time to upgrade. .
>>>Utorrent, and this also has a native Mac client available
It does? (checks). Oh yeah! Ipodnova/videoseed just approved it last month. Cool. Prior to that Mac users were verboten, because all the Mac torrent clients "cheated" on the seeding ratio.
Just so you don't think I'm picking on Muslims, I will modify my last post: "There's no real difference. Fascists are simply less extreme versions of socialism (i.e. they support all socialist ideas, but not collectivism).
"Like how some Christians want to deport muslims back to Arabia (see WTC mosque protests), but less-extreme versions of Christians do not, and yet they are all Christians. They are all part of the same group.
Maybe we should just make murder and rape legal then, since the current abolition laws make "no difference" and don't drop the rat or murder/rape. Eh? That's where the logic of your argument leads, if taken to its logical conclusion.
If the Fascists support 95% of the policies of Socialists, except the collectivism bit (no private ownership of land/factories), then they are 95% socialist. There's no real difference. They are simply less extreme versions of socialism.
Like how some Muslims want to see the Pope "go to hell" (see London protests), but less-extreme versions of Muslims do not, and yet they are all Muslims. They are all part of the same group.
>>>clearly two wrongs make a right, so you're now allowed to do it? Is that how that works?
(whoosh). You missed theaveng's point. It is hypocritical for the Democrats to say "Nazi posters are wrong" when they themselves were holding similar posters ~4 years ago. Some even showed-up at a Nancy Pelosi speech in 2007, and she said, "That's okay. I don't agree that Bush is Hitler but it's free speech and they are allowed to do it. They can stay in the room." - Basically giving tacit approval.
But NOW, three years later, suddenly Ms. Pelosi and colleagues are saying it's wrong. If she thought it was okay three years ago (protected by free speech) then she should think it's okay now. Hypocrite.
>>>- Collective (public) ownership of means of production? Oh...
Neither Hitler nor Mussolini supported this idea, which is why they were so anti-communist (who did support outlawing all private ownership). Hitler, Mussolini, and other fascists wanted corporations to remain private, but strictly controlled by the government.
Which is actually NOT a bad idea when you think about it (corporations should be controlled). But it IS a socialist idea. To sit here and claim it's not socialist is ridiculous.
Correct. And look at the mess Socialist USA has created. We're headed for a Greece style meltdown. Thank Buddha for the Chinese & Saudis, and their willingness to bail us out.
>>>What was the change from 1810 to 1910? I'm assuming there was some kind of inflation.
Nope. Because the "US dollar" was defined as one dollar of gold (a measurement of weight). There was a little bit of fluctuation due to the markets, but a dollar in 1910 still had the approximately the same value as an 1800 dollar. Put another way, what cost $1.00 in 1800 would cost you 95 cents in 1910. Very, very little fluctuation.
Look at the recent laws passed. "You must buy from an insurance company, or face a ~$1000 fine." Insurance stocks soared when that law was passed. "ISPs must turn over names to RIAA/MPAA so citizens can be prosecuted for not buying CDs/DVDs." Also Cash for Clunkers where taxpayers were subsidizing the car industry, and billions in handouts to the public & private education industry (both K-12 and University level). Also this new National Broadband plan to hand-over 500 megahertz to cellphone/internet companies is like finding the Golden Chalice for ATT, Sprint, and so on.
I'm too lazy to look up the whole list, but Democrats are just as "big business" as the Republicans. You are naive if you think they are not.
>>>Both "left" and "right" in america are "right" by world standards.
Thank God. Most of the world is so-far Socialist/Communist that they enjoy very little freedom, are taxed at 50-70% of their income, and are spied upon by their governments with nonsense like "Three Strike Laws", "Net Filters", and such.
Instead of Glenn Beck and other Republican/libertarian commentators, they have Rachel Maddow and other Democrat/green commentators. Where FOX reporters slant stories as "evil government" or "government is spying on you again", the MSNBC channel slants their stories as "government is good" and "trust the government". And so on. I think you get the point. MSNBC == the democrat/liberal version of FOX.
As for BBC, they too have a bias. There's is pro-EU and pro-centralization to turn Europe into a single nation (rather than the current union of 25 nations).
>>>perhaps because for the first time he felt he could openly carry a fire arm.
Uh. No. The black man was later interviewed by Alex Jones for about an hour, and he said he's been carrying a gun since the 1990s. It's one of the advantages of living in an open-carry state.
He also said he doesn't think the opposition against Obama is any different than the opposition against Clinton/Gore eight years earlier. That he and his fellow Tea Partiers are opposed to Obama, Pelosi, and the other Democrats because of their anti-liberty POLICIES, and they could care less about color. He also felt MSNBC's censorship of the interview they did with him (they never aired it) demonstrated they were not interested in the truth, but creating an anti-tea party spin.
>>>ind another news organization that regularly attempts to deceive it's viewership, not just through simple spin, but by actually creating new facts out of whole cloth
Theaveng already did it. Unfortunately the Democrats have modded him (-1 troll) and made his post invisible. So I'll just summarize:
MSNBC did a report about a black man carrying a gun at a Liberty Rally (where Obama was going to be speaking). They even captured the guy on video. They then chopped the black guy's head off (via editing), aired the doctored video on national television, and turned it into a daylong story about "gun toting whites" who "are probably racist" and "don't like having a black man as president". They also speculated Obama might be in danger of being shot.
That's just one example of many. MSNBC is just as bad as FOX, but in the opposite direction (in favor of Democrats instead of Republicans). Personally I don't "hate" either channel, but neither do I see one as better than the other. They are mirror images of each other, using the exact same tactics. .
>>>I see far too many rational discussion on NPR to put them in the same boat with FOX.
See? That's a neat trick.
The truth of the matter is that most Americans get their News/Opinions from TV channels. The radio programs and newspapers (both of which are on the verge of bankruptcy) have little impact on the typical US citizen.
>>>Fox News [and MSNBC] consists almost entirely of talking heads and op-eds with a bias, yet they present themselves as a source of objective, non-biased news.
Fixed that for you. The same can be said of CNN, ABC, CBS, and PBS too, albeit not as obvious.
Yeah okay. It's just a title. I wouldn't get hung-up on it. They said the same thing about Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (nobody's "trekking" through the stars - they are just sitting), but it still ended-up being my favorite science fiction show (tied with B5). I'm willing to stick with SGU and see where it ends up. Right now I agree it's "blah" but most first seasons are blah, even for shows I like. They improve later.
Haven improves in later episodes, but it's still too weird for me. Ditto that other show Sanctuary about strange creatures. Also the pace is mind-numbingly slow.
The issuing of executive orders (i.e. making law) is unconstitutional.
Only the Congress was tasked with making laws, so Clinton's XO is null-and-void if it runs contrary to existing Congressional acts. So - where does the Congress assign cryptographic software? Free trade or restricted export? That's the question that matters.
I've seen the Star Wars stories multiple times now. I'm sick of them. I'd rather watch new material like Haven, Eureka, Stargate, and so on. Plus whatever comes out in "Asimov's Science Fiction" each month.
Nah. The SCOTUS has already nullified previous attempts by Congress to redefine basic english words.
Well except for the "commerce among states" clause which somehow got twisted to include commerce inside states, but then the Justices had just been threatened by the President, so it's understandable why they felt pressured to let the unconstitutional law stand
Slashdot Mirror
They did not.
Like I was in the 80s/90s. Best time of my life. Met lots of cool people. :-|
But instead I became a legitimate hardware engineer.
Now I'm a megacorp serf.
>>>This makes voices talk quickly without altering the pitch, therefore there's no chipmunking.
Are you sure? The VLC players I have on my IBM PC clone and Linux laptop make everything sound like Chip & Dale. Of course I am using an older version, so maybe it's time to upgrade.
.
>>>Utorrent, and this also has a native Mac client available
It does? (checks). Oh yeah! Ipodnova/videoseed just approved it last month. Cool. Prior to that Mac users were verboten, because all the Mac torrent clients "cheated" on the seeding ratio.
P.S.
Just so you don't think I'm picking on Muslims, I will modify my last post: "There's no real difference. Fascists are simply less extreme versions of socialism (i.e. they support all socialist ideas, but not collectivism).
"Like how some Christians want to deport muslims back to Arabia (see WTC mosque protests), but less-extreme versions of Christians do not, and yet they are all Christians. They are all part of the same group.
>>>making little to no difference.
Maybe we should just make murder and rape legal then, since the current abolition laws make "no difference" and don't drop the rat or murder/rape. Eh? That's where the logic of your argument leads, if taken to its logical conclusion.
Which means your argument is not logical.
If the Fascists support 95% of the policies of Socialists, except the collectivism bit (no private ownership of land/factories), then they are 95% socialist. There's no real difference. They are simply less extreme versions of socialism.
Like how some Muslims want to see the Pope "go to hell" (see London protests), but less-extreme versions of Muslims do not, and yet they are all Muslims. They are all part of the same group.
>>>>>I saw Democrats/liberals carrying Hitler signs.
[citation needed]
.
You're joking right??? Here let me google that for you:
General images: http://www.google.com/images?q=bush+nazi
Protester posters: http://www.google.com/images?q=bush+nazi+protest
AND: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=bush+nazi
.
>>>clearly two wrongs make a right, so you're now allowed to do it? Is that how that works?
(whoosh). You missed theaveng's point. It is hypocritical for the Democrats to say "Nazi posters are wrong" when they themselves were holding similar posters ~4 years ago. Some even showed-up at a Nancy Pelosi speech in 2007, and she said, "That's okay. I don't agree that Bush is Hitler but it's free speech and they are allowed to do it. They can stay in the room." - Basically giving tacit approval.
But NOW, three years later, suddenly Ms. Pelosi and colleagues are saying it's wrong. If she thought it was okay three years ago (protected by free speech) then she should think it's okay now. Hypocrite.
>>>- Collective (public) ownership of means of production? Oh...
Neither Hitler nor Mussolini supported this idea, which is why they were so anti-communist (who did support outlawing all private ownership). Hitler, Mussolini, and other fascists wanted corporations to remain private, but strictly controlled by the government.
Which is actually NOT a bad idea when you think about it (corporations should be controlled). But it IS a socialist idea. To sit here and claim it's not socialist is ridiculous.
>>>Man, the USA looks pretty socialist.
Correct. And look at the mess Socialist USA has created. We're headed for a Greece style meltdown. Thank Buddha for the Chinese & Saudis, and their willingness to bail us out.
Secondary conclusion:
It's unwise to give leaders more than the bare minimum of power. Like the ~25 specifically enumerated rights in the US Constitution, and nothing more.
>>>What was the change from 1810 to 1910? I'm assuming there was some kind of inflation.
Nope. Because the "US dollar" was defined as one dollar of gold (a measurement of weight). There was a little bit of fluctuation due to the markets, but a dollar in 1910 still had the approximately the same value as an 1800 dollar. Put another way, what cost $1.00 in 1800 would cost you 95 cents in 1910. Very, very little fluctuation.
>>>People love Fox.
So it appears. FOX NEWS is watched by double the number who watch CNN, and triple the number who watch MSNBC.
Pro-big business IS Democrat.
Look at the recent laws passed. "You must buy from an insurance company, or face a ~$1000 fine." Insurance stocks soared when that law was passed. "ISPs must turn over names to RIAA/MPAA so citizens can be prosecuted for not buying CDs/DVDs." Also Cash for Clunkers where taxpayers were subsidizing the car industry, and billions in handouts to the public & private education industry (both K-12 and University level). Also this new National Broadband plan to hand-over 500 megahertz to cellphone/internet companies is like finding the Golden Chalice for ATT, Sprint, and so on.
I'm too lazy to look up the whole list, but Democrats are just as "big business" as the Republicans. You are naive if you think they are not.
>>>Both "left" and "right" in america are "right" by world standards.
Thank God. Most of the world is so-far Socialist/Communist that they enjoy very little freedom, are taxed at 50-70% of their income, and are spied upon by their governments with nonsense like "Three Strike Laws", "Net Filters", and such.
MSNBC is FOX in the other direction.
Instead of Glenn Beck and other Republican/libertarian commentators, they have Rachel Maddow and other Democrat/green commentators. Where FOX reporters slant stories as "evil government" or "government is spying on you again", the MSNBC channel slants their stories as "government is good" and "trust the government". And so on. I think you get the point. MSNBC == the democrat/liberal version of FOX.
As for BBC, they too have a bias. There's is pro-EU and pro-centralization to turn Europe into a single nation (rather than the current union of 25 nations).
>>>perhaps because for the first time he felt he could openly carry a fire arm.
Uh. No. The black man was later interviewed by Alex Jones for about an hour, and he said he's been carrying a gun since the 1990s. It's one of the advantages of living in an open-carry state.
He also said he doesn't think the opposition against Obama is any different than the opposition against Clinton/Gore eight years earlier. That he and his fellow Tea Partiers are opposed to Obama, Pelosi, and the other Democrats because of their anti-liberty POLICIES, and they could care less about color. He also felt MSNBC's censorship of the interview they did with him (they never aired it) demonstrated they were not interested in the truth, but creating an anti-tea party spin.
>>>ind another news organization that regularly attempts to deceive it's viewership, not just through simple spin, but by actually creating new facts out of whole cloth
Theaveng already did it.
Unfortunately the Democrats have modded him (-1 troll)
and made his post invisible. So I'll just summarize:
MSNBC did a report about a black man carrying a gun at a Liberty Rally (where Obama was going to be speaking). They even captured the guy on video. They then chopped the black guy's head off (via editing), aired the doctored video on national television, and turned it into a daylong story about "gun toting whites" who "are probably racist" and "don't like having a black man as president". They also speculated Obama might be in danger of being shot.
That's just one example of many. MSNBC is just as bad as FOX, but in the opposite direction (in favor of Democrats instead of Republicans). Personally I don't "hate" either channel, but neither do I see one as better than the other. They are mirror images of each other, using the exact same tactics.
.
>>>I see far too many rational discussion on NPR to put them in the same boat with FOX.
See? That's a neat trick.
The truth of the matter is that most Americans get their News/Opinions from TV channels. The radio programs and newspapers (both of which are on the verge of bankruptcy) have little impact on the typical US citizen.
>>>Fox News [and MSNBC] consists almost entirely of talking heads and op-eds with a bias, yet they present themselves as a source of objective, non-biased news.
Fixed that for you.
The same can be said of CNN, ABC, CBS, and PBS too, albeit not as obvious.
Bullies?
Really? Who did FOX bully? Not just your opinion but a google citation please.
>>>watch Avatar if CGI is your thing.
Or the CGI demo called King Kong. Both of which sucked (too long and too boring). Despite its age Star Wars 4 and 5 still are better overall.
>>>SGU has almost nothing to do with stargate
Yeah okay. It's just a title. I wouldn't get hung-up on it. They said the same thing about Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (nobody's "trekking" through the stars - they are just sitting), but it still ended-up being my favorite science fiction show (tied with B5). I'm willing to stick with SGU and see where it ends up. Right now I agree it's "blah" but most first seasons are blah, even for shows I like. They improve later.
Haven improves in later episodes, but it's still too weird for me.
Ditto that other show Sanctuary about strange creatures.
Also the pace is mind-numbingly slow.
The issuing of executive orders (i.e. making law) is unconstitutional.
Only the Congress was tasked with making laws, so Clinton's XO is null-and-void if it runs contrary to existing Congressional acts. So - where does the Congress assign cryptographic software? Free trade or restricted export? That's the question that matters.
zzzzz
I've seen the Star Wars stories multiple times now. I'm sick of them. I'd rather watch new material like Haven, Eureka, Stargate, and so on. Plus whatever comes out in "Asimov's Science Fiction" each month.
Nah. The SCOTUS has already nullified previous attempts by Congress to redefine basic english words.
Well except for the "commerce among states" clause which somehow got twisted to include commerce inside states, but then the Justices had just been threatened by the President, so it's understandable why they felt pressured to let the unconstitutional law stand