You'll probably also understand why 3rd parties are retarded.
Are you suggesting there are only two acceptable ways to govern a country? I think it's not third parties that are retarded, rather the problem lies with our oversimplified winner-take-all system that can't handle more than two parties in a democratic, non-perverse manner.
Now why hasn't anyone else thought of that? I mean, my computer has a ton of fans to move air around, but that could definitely be lessened by air slits in the top.
The downside of holes in the top of the case is that they also allow things (toast crumbs, coffee, etc... but mostly dust) to fall into the case. I think that's why most cases avoid them. I suppose it is less of a problem when your case is (a) only 2 inches thick, and (b) also serving as a monitor (and therefore located at eye level instead of sitting on the floor)
Is there a method for converting your SMS text into l33t h4x0r sp34k when using Kanji characters?
It seems like all the Chinese government will accomplish with keyword filtering is to force people to butcher their written language conventions in order to communicate.
I'm not usually one to laugh at blatant innuendo, but the first few times I heard that phrase being used, it absolutely cracked me up - not just for the phrase itself, but for the fact that no-one else seemed to get the joke
I'm told that Australians have a similar reaction when they hear people talking about getting "root access"...
But then again, if it's used for tourism, we would be hard-pressed to keep some suicide- murdering nutjob from find some way. So perhaps no tourism. Damn!
You're probably right -- the world's only space elevator would be too valuable to let the general public near. Fortunately one thing our first space elevator would be really good at is lifting into orbit materials for the second space elevator. Once there are a few dozen space elevators in place, it would be less catastrophic if one or two of them were lost, so access to them could be less restricted.
I think what rubs conservatives the wrong way about Kerry is that he has the same slimey quality that Clinton had.
That "slimey quality" is all the mud that the Republicans throw at anyone they run against. They keep throwing it until something sticks, and then call their opponent "slimy".
In this case, everybody who was actually there backs up what Kerry says -- people who weren't there but are backing the Republican party are the ones calling him a liar. But the media has to cover both sides "fairly", and thus a "controversy" is manufactured to keep the American people distracted from the real issues. Fortunately, I don't think the American people are going to fall for it this time.
Even if the above statement was true (and I think it is a gross oversimplification at best) it should be noted that FEELING is another type of THINKING, and not necessarily an inferior one. Emotions didn't evolve over millions of years for no reason, and often they are the only thing that stands between society and unthinkable (heh) atrocities. In fact it could be argued that most or all major episodes of genocide in humanity's history were perpetrated by people who had successfully inhibited their own ability to empathize with their victims.
Little old ladies and gentlemen on oxygen aren't likely to be important parts of the puzzle.
OTOH, if the FAA were to come out with a rule that excludes little old ladies and gentlement on oxygen from being screened, how long would it be before some clever baddies took advantage of that exclusion and snuck something aboard a plane by hiding it on a little old lady (with or without her knowledge)?
Searching little old ladies seems silly, but only if you expect the terrorists not to think outside the box... something they have shown themselves to be quite capable of doing.
Nuclear is scary because people think of Hiroshima, Chernobyl, and because bin Bush can't pronounce it correctly
Nuclear is also scary because countries like Iran can and do use nuclear power plants as a fig leaf to hide their nuclear weapons programs behind. If the world is going to switch to a new, clean power source, it needs to be one that doesn't double as a WMD-generator.
Yeah yeah, Chernobyl only happened once, and we have the nuclear industry's solemn promise that nothing like it will ever happen again. But then, we had their solemn promise that it would never happen the first time, too... so you'll have to forgive people if they are a bit skeptical.
IMHO, even if we could be 100% sure that no nuclear accidents would ever occur, the terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and waste storage factors still make nuclear fission problematic. Better to develop solar/wind/hydro/other renewable energy sources in the short term, and fusion for the long term, than try to resuscitate fission.
do not screw over people in foreign lands for fun and profit and you will tend not to make enemies.
That's a good, cheap, cost-effective strategy. Much too cost-effective, in fact. If we didn't have enemies, how could we convince the American taxpayers to give $500,000,000 of their money to our military every year? Defense contractors gotta eat too, ya know.
If we ever did run out of enemies, we'd have to create some more, just to keep the machine fed...
If that were true, then the videos of Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson would be damn good recruiting tools for us. Are they?
Yes, they do help recruitment IMHO. I know a good number of Americans were inspired to enlist by the 9/11 attacks, and it wouldn't surprise me if other anti-American atrocities have a similar effect.
But I'm sick and tired of some of these types that will jump on us and accuse us of violating Geneva Conventions, while spouting off "but we have to understand their reasons" about 9/11.
Why don't you want to understand their reasons? The more you know about how your enemy thinks, the better equipped you are to deal with him. Remaining willfully ignorant because we want to preserve our comfortably simplistic worldview will not help us succeed. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, we CAN handle the truth.
m afraid I disagree with the idea of a minimalist windowing system - one that leaves most everything to user level libraries. This still leaves the door wide open for applications to implement various looks, various copy/paste mechanisms, and other things that annoy people.
So you don't want a windowing system that is flexible, because people might want to take advantage of that flexibility?
I think your reasoning is a misguided attempt to solve by technical means what is really a politicial/sociological problem. The proper solution is to have a strong set of UI guidelines and standard libraries that make it trivially easy to follow those standards, not to limit the capability of the system just because you don't trust people not to abuse it.
Nah its gonna suck because now google has to answer to its investors. How long before it starts to look like MSN, in the name of profit.
Because of course making your web site unusable is the best path to increased profits... (seriously, one hopes that investors and management realize that Google got where it is today by not sucking, and don't mess with it)
I recommend that anyone who doubts why we are in Iraq, watch or read again about this tragedy
Do you know how many Iraqis were involved with 9/11? Zero The 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian and Egyptian. Our own government investigations explicitly state that Al-Quaeda had no significant relationship with the Iraqi government, and that Saddam had no WMDs or means to make any.
So, invading Afghanistan in response to 9/11 was understandable -- those were the people that attacked us. Invading Iraq in response to 9/11, on the other hand, was a complete non-sequiter. The Bush administration used our national tragedy to push their own pre-existing goals, and deliberately distorted the facts and lied to the American public to get what they wanted. Now they have what they want, and we are all paying for it. Resources that should be devoted to fighting terrorism have been diverted to a costly and counterproductive war that is only inspiring more terrorists.
So rant all you want, but the fact remains that George W. Bush is either incompetent or criminal or both, and the American people don't take kindly to being swindled. W will be gone in a few months, and the world will be a better place for it.
Your entire post assumes that such a foreign policy exists. I don't think it does. Why don't you tell us what this policy is and how you know it will do what you want?
I don't profess to be a foreign policy expert, but I think one fairly obvious loophole in the USA's national security is our dependence on foreign energy imports. If we can't get our oil fix, we might have to fight wars to secure it -- arguably we already have. So it should be a national priority to wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, so that other nations can't hold us hostage by threatening to withhold it from us.
A second policy would be to make serious efforts (not just token efforts or lip service) towards eliminating poverty and oppression worldwide, since those are the conditions that breed fanatacism and terrorism. Too often in the past we have considered it "good enough" if we can get what we want in the short term, and we've been willing to tolerate or even support governments that oppress their people because it was in our economic interest to do so. (I don't claim to know what the best ways to achieve this goal are -- I'm saying that it should be considered an important goal for our own security, and not just a "nice" thing to do if we feel like it, or ignore if we don't)
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting there are only two acceptable ways to govern a country? I think it's not third parties that are retarded, rather the problem lies with our oversimplified winner-take-all system that can't handle more than two parties in a democratic, non-perverse manner.
Aggh! My brain!
crappy, it's really that simple.
Isn't this just giving the customer what he wants? Seems like the majority of PC buyers make buying decisions based mainly on price.
move air around, but that could definitely be lessened by air slits in the top.
The downside of holes in the top of the case is that they also allow things (toast crumbs, coffee, etc... but mostly dust) to fall into the case. I think that's why most cases avoid them. I suppose it is less of a problem when your case is (a) only 2 inches thick, and (b) also serving as a monitor (and therefore located at eye level instead of sitting on the floor)
It seems like all the Chinese government will accomplish with keyword filtering is to force people to butcher their written language conventions in order to communicate.
It's ironic because the term FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) was originally coined to describe IBM's sales practices in the 70's and 80's.
I'm told that Australians have a similar reaction when they hear people talking about getting "root access"...
He's been like that ever since he stopped beating his wife.
murdering nutjob from find some way. So perhaps no tourism. Damn!
You're probably right -- the world's only space elevator would be too valuable to let the general public near. Fortunately one thing our first space elevator would be really good at is lifting into orbit materials for the second space elevator. Once there are a few dozen space elevators in place, it would be less catastrophic if one or two of them were lost, so access to them could be less restricted.
What bad things can or will happen if people keep using MD5?
I don't know about you, but for me the tfa isn't about algorithms at all, but rather is a very short piece regarding "server timeouts". :^P
That "slimey quality" is all the mud that the Republicans throw at anyone they run against. They keep throwing it until something sticks, and then call their opponent "slimy".
In this case, everybody who was actually there backs up what Kerry says -- people who weren't there but are backing the Republican party are the ones calling him a liar. But the media has to cover both sides "fairly", and thus a "controversy" is manufactured to keep the American people distracted from the real issues. Fortunately, I don't think the American people are going to fall for it this time.
Even if the above statement was true (and I think it is a gross oversimplification at best) it should be noted that FEELING is another type of THINKING, and not necessarily an inferior one. Emotions didn't evolve over millions of years for no reason, and often they are the only thing that stands between society and unthinkable (heh) atrocities. In fact it could be argued that most or all major episodes of genocide in humanity's history were perpetrated by people who had successfully inhibited their own ability to empathize with their victims.
Security in Israel has been achieved? That's news to me!
OTOH, if the FAA were to come out with a rule that excludes little old ladies and gentlement on oxygen from being screened, how long would it be before some clever baddies took advantage of that exclusion and snuck something aboard a plane by hiding it on a little old lady (with or without her knowledge)?
Searching little old ladies seems silly, but only if you expect the terrorists not to think outside the box... something they have shown themselves to be quite capable of doing.
Nuclear is also scary because countries like Iran can and do use nuclear power plants as a fig leaf to hide their nuclear weapons programs behind. If the world is going to switch to a new, clean power source, it needs to be one that doesn't double as a WMD-generator.
IMHO, even if we could be 100% sure that no nuclear accidents would ever occur, the terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and waste storage factors still make nuclear fission problematic. Better to develop solar/wind/hydro/other renewable energy sources in the short term, and fusion for the long term, than try to resuscitate fission.
Actually, everything dropped from a fighter-bomber is "limited lethality", otherwise the first bombing run would have destroyed the universe.
Or to put it another way, limited != small.
That's a good, cheap, cost-effective strategy. Much too cost-effective, in fact. If we didn't have enemies, how could we convince the American taxpayers to give $500,000,000 of their money to our military every year? Defense contractors gotta eat too, ya know.
If we ever did run out of enemies, we'd have to create some more, just to keep the machine fed...
Yes, they do help recruitment IMHO. I know a good number of Americans were inspired to enlist by the 9/11 attacks, and it wouldn't surprise me if other anti-American atrocities have a similar effect.
But I'm sick and tired of some of these types that will jump on us and accuse us of violating Geneva Conventions, while spouting off "but we have to understand their reasons" about 9/11.
Why don't you want to understand their reasons? The more you know about how your enemy thinks, the better equipped you are to deal with him. Remaining willfully ignorant because we want to preserve our comfortably simplistic worldview will not help us succeed. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, we CAN handle the truth.
So you don't want a windowing system that is flexible, because people might want to take advantage of that flexibility?
I think your reasoning is a misguided attempt to solve by technical means what is really a politicial/sociological problem. The proper solution is to have a strong set of UI guidelines and standard libraries that make it trivially easy to follow those standards, not to limit the capability of the system just because you don't trust people not to abuse it.
Because of course making your web site unusable is the best path to increased profits... (seriously, one hopes that investors and management realize that Google got where it is today by not sucking, and don't mess with it)
Are you sure about that? I thought one of the complaints against the DMCA was that it made circumvention illegal, no matter what.
Do you know how many Iraqis were involved with 9/11? Zero The 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian and Egyptian. Our own government investigations explicitly state that Al-Quaeda had no significant relationship with the Iraqi government, and that Saddam had no WMDs or means to make any.
So, invading Afghanistan in response to 9/11 was understandable -- those were the people that attacked us. Invading Iraq in response to 9/11, on the other hand, was a complete non-sequiter. The Bush administration used our national tragedy to push their own pre-existing goals, and deliberately distorted the facts and lied to the American public to get what they wanted. Now they have what they want, and we are all paying for it. Resources that should be devoted to fighting terrorism have been diverted to a costly and counterproductive war that is only inspiring more terrorists.
So rant all you want, but the fact remains that George W. Bush is either incompetent or criminal or both, and the American people don't take kindly to being swindled. W will be gone in a few months, and the world will be a better place for it.
I don't profess to be a foreign policy expert, but I think one fairly obvious loophole in the USA's national security is our dependence on foreign energy imports. If we can't get our oil fix, we might have to fight wars to secure it -- arguably we already have. So it should be a national priority to wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, so that other nations can't hold us hostage by threatening to withhold it from us.
A second policy would be to make serious efforts (not just token efforts or lip service) towards eliminating poverty and oppression worldwide, since those are the conditions that breed fanatacism and terrorism. Too often in the past we have considered it "good enough" if we can get what we want in the short term, and we've been willing to tolerate or even support governments that oppress their people because it was in our economic interest to do so. (I don't claim to know what the best ways to achieve this goal are -- I'm saying that it should be considered an important goal for our own security, and not just a "nice" thing to do if we feel like it, or ignore if we don't)