Except, no, he's not defining it that way. He's got a fairly clear definition of what should work right out of the box, and checks to see if it does. Some things on Ubuntu don't work right out of the box that we commonly expect to work under Windows - Grandma doesn't care so much about MP3's (She may call me and ask if I can come bye tomorrow, but she's in no rush), but she does care if she can't open her email because the touchpad doesn't work, or she can't get to the internet.
*Not* the same. Trying to say it is is just trying to blame the casual user for the fact that Ubuntu's not quite up to speed yet (In that way - I use it, and once it gets going, it's great).
Or you could just Download http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/Worldwind which has all that built in and is (IMO) a bit better for some types of things (I particularly like the USGS maps, which are pretty darn spiffy when tracking certain kinds of data like where an oil line is buried on your property.)
Not complaining about Google earth BTW - I use it for other stuff.
My work computer isn't the latest and greatest, but it's not bad - and this absolutely kills it.
It looks like this has some interesting stuff that I would like to see incorporated into Celestia, but as it stands, Celestia wins on the simple basis of usability.
The best explanation I've seen was in "The Constitution, a Biography", where the concept of the militia is explained as a duty equivalent to the duty of Jury Duty. Historically it fits pretty well.
Also the most frustrating since no militia has been enjoined in that fashion since pretty much immediately after the war itself. As written in the 2nd amendment, a militia is pretty much anachronistic, and we don't have *any* equivalent to it today.
Seems to me we can blame Washington. No - not that one, George Washington, who lost his taste for the militia about the time some people decided they didn't like the laws written by that duly elected congress and thought they should rebel against it.
Get to the Supreme Court how exactly - this is the same Supreme Court that ruled that no one has standing to sue to stop the administration from spending my tax money on religious education. Screw that whole Separation of Church and State thing.
I've never particularly seen that as an indication of 'subtlety' - Great, it's so subtle that you're allowed one mistake, then your done. By that definition, Tic Tac Toe is a deeply subtle game. Golly Gee.
Or to put it differently, it's a game so subtle that one bad move will kill you, and tournament chess requires three moves at the beginning just to randomize it a bit.
It gives us a tight, form-fitting suit to be worn by fit women going into space.
Admittedly, this is just a first step to a world where all the women look like the covers of 50's pulp magazines, but really, how can that *not* improve society.
I for one welcome our new Amazonian over, um, overladies?
Well, first of all, I thank you for the long winded response - You seem to have thought about this a lot, and I always prefer someone that disagrees with me having thought about it to someone the agrees with me on instinct.
That said - yes, historically there have been truly massive corruption scandals in the Democratic party - as with any long and distinguished history. Before the Democratic party was the party of civil rights it was the party of segregation.
However I ignore that, for the same reason I ignore that the land my house was built on once belonged to the indians - it was before my time. In the time since I was whelped, the Democratic party has had its share of individual cases of corruption - their rivals have had repeated cases of deep rooted systemic corruption. I have every hope that congressman Jefferson will go to jail for what seem to me to be fairly obvious crimes, but they do not begin to match the crimes of attempting to defraud the voter during the Nixon era, the allegations (proven to my satisfaction) that arms were traded for hostages to affect the outcome of the 1980 elections, or the sins too great to count that have occurred during this administration. The blunt fact is that while Oliver North was lying to congress, Gary Hart was losing an election based on having a woman on his boat.
The double standard of what is considered corrupt behavior predates Bill Clinton's impeachment by a fair amount. Lets face facts - G. Gordon Libby is considered a folk hero among large portions of the GOP - a man that specifically undertook to undermine the worlds greatest democracy is a hero. Do you imagine in the darkest recesses of your brain that Mr. Jefferson will be so revered among democrats in a generation, not despite his corruption, but because of it?
Behavior that is rewarded, is repeated - and the GOP of my generation has not simply ignored corruption, but has rewarded it, time and time again. Those that lie to congress are heroes among the Republican Party. Perhaps you can guide me to the talk show host on NPR with a criminal record.
You posit that the Democratic party has hidden corruption of equal magnitude - within the individual, you might convince me of. As a systemic corruption that is rewarded - I have heard conspiracy theory, accusations, and partisan investigation - but time and time again, the evidence is not found. In some circles, that is considered proof of how very good the democrats are at it - I however will demand actual proof.
Unfortunately, at the end of the day, I choose a plethora of sources for my news - I concede the conservative outlets sometimes leave a bad taste in my mouth because we proceed from different assumptions - a bad taste I can deal with, only because I can deal with the fact that it's good for me to be exposed to different assumptions on a regular basis.
However, it is no longer, and has not for some time been, an issue of conflicting assumptions, but of theories advanced that are in contradiction to the known facts, of insistence on theories that are simply untenable. Whitewater investigation trudge on year after year, and failure to find anything - even anything sufficient to warrant an obstruction of justice charge, is considered evidence of guilt. Our president carefully uses the legal definition of a term, in a court of law, as being questioned by a lawyer, and some insist it is not only a lie, but a perjurious one - Despite the fact that the judge in the case, the single most important arbiter of the question, states unequivocably that it was not.
The liberal media may be one sided, but they typically have their facts straight, and moreover when they do not, they attempt to correct them. Under such circumstances, I cannot balance liberal and conservative on some artificial scale, but must also consider the percentage of occasion when the allegations and theories of one side or the other have proven to be bourn out by the eventual evidence - the conservative media has been asymptotically approaching zer
Here's a thought for you - we'll just eliminate the crime "Obstruction of Justice". I mean, anyone that has *successfully* obstructed justice, managed to actually make it impossible to prove that a crime was committed.
Sure Libby Lied, but he did so in such a way you can't prove what else happened, so he should get off scott free.
I can see the point of pardoning Nixon to move the country forward, but in hindsight, I wish he hadn't.
I think there were a lot of up and coming Republicans that took the pardoning of Nixon to indicate that what was done was right, that the mistake was getting caught, not committing crimes.
When you look back at the people that are running the U.S. into the ground now, it seems to me that there are more people dating back to the Nixon GOP than would be explained by random chance.
Oh, yeah, because it's really stupid to send a covert operative specializing in WMD's into Nigeria to see if Saddam was actually getting uranium with a team mate who has experience in the region.
My god, two people checking different sources, one checking the official sources, another one quietly checking a network of intelligence sources while everyone was watching her husband?
Why, what kind of idiots would send two people that could cross check their information that way!
Hell, sending a team like this might be the only intelligent and competent thing this damn administration has *done* in the last seven years. Sure, it was accidental, but it's nice to know that they aren't actually prevented from doing something competent due to natural law or something.
He thought he was - the actual timeline shows he wasn't - his leak occured after the initial leak.
Moreover, Armitage was not told, and was not positioned to know, that the woman was covert operative. He just knew she was CIA, because he came across a memo from the whitehouse.
Now, if only we knew someone from the whitehouse that both leaked the information, and knew she was covert? I wonder who would know that, maybe the Vice Presidents Chief of Staff would be familiar with the issue?
As I understand it, that number comes from John Hopkins - the Methodology they used is a standard and widely accepted methodology, and was considered pretty accurate until it came up with numbers conservatives don't like.
Now of course it's pseudoscience, like climate change and evolution.
New Plan folks - lets force the right to declare everything psuedoscience and not use it. Evolution, climate change, modern medicine, transistors, integrated circuits, mathematics, astronomy, y'know - everything. Eventually they'll kill them selves off, but until then they'll be happy, and afterwards *I* will be happy.
Can we work on this? Remember, God declared the value of Pi as egual to 3, so that's a good start.
Sorry - I'm sick of this argument, and I'm going to keep saying it every time I see someone try to say it's okay because Bill Clinton perjured himself.
He didn't. Perjury involves two things - A - the statement must be untrue - In point of fact, a lawyer used a legal definition, in a court of law, when asked a question by another lawyer. Deceptive? Yes. Not untrue.
B - the statement must be germane to the case at hand. The judge on the case ruled that it was not. END OF STORY
He didn't perjure himself. He was stupid, he lied to the public, and it was an unholy mess that could have bee avoided, but it was never perjury, and no matter how many time Rush Limbaugh screams that he did, it still isn't so.
Yes, remember people, using legal terms while being questioned about something not relevant to the case in a court of law is the exact legal, moral, and ethical equivalent to helping cover up the deliberate exposure of covert operatives for political reasons.
THEY'RE THE SAME DAMMIT. IF I YELL LOUD ENOUGH I CAN MAKE THEM THE SAME!!!!!
It wasn't illegal for Richard armitage because Richard Armitage was never informed she was covert, and wasn't placed to simply be aware of this fact.
Interestingly enough, this would imply that someone who leaked it that *was* aware that she was a covert agent, *would* be breaking the law. Perhaps someone that had asked the CIA to investigate a rumor of a Uranium Purchase in Africa might be positioned to be aware of this fact.
However it Turns out that Scooter Libby's testimony never implicated anyone in the administration of both leaking this information, and being aware of her covert status. Of course, that testimony turned out to be verifiably untrue, but there's no reason for anyone in the GOP to be held accountable for this, because it's not like his telling the truth might have implicated anyone in this honest, upright, and indeed, honorable administration.
Actually, no. Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred for using the legal definition of the term sex, while being questioned in a court of law, by a lawyer. You can argue that he lied to *us* (the public), and frankly I agree, but what happened in the court was not perjury (The judge ruled it wasn't applicable to the case at hand, which defines perjury - it's untrue *and* it's relevant. The judge ruled it wasn't relevant to the case at hand, which meant the question of whether it was untrue was moot), and in my opinion wasn't even a lie - he was playing according to the rules of the situation.
Scooter Libby was found guilty of presenting multiple verifiably untrue statements that *were* germane to the investigation at hand while under oath to federal investigators.
See, one lied about things that were relevant, the other told the truth (admittedly in a deceptive way) to a question that wasn't relevant to the case. The second is an impeachable offense according to the republican party - I can only assume it's the telling the truth part that bothered them at the time, since they've very much backed a pardon for actually perjuring yourself.
My only objection to that, is the number of people I've seen that reject things out of hand that I accept as pretty well proven. I've seen people insist there were no atrocities during Vietnam, or that the Mai Lai Massacre was the only one and anything else that was alleged was lies, etcetera.
For me too assume that I'm right about Things the government tried to coverup, but failed to, it's awfuly arrogant for me to assume I'm *always* right when I make that call between reality and conspiracy theory. It doesn't have to be a successful coverup, it just has to be successful enough for me to not really examine it.
Where is the line between the guy that doesn't believe in a UFO conspiracy, despite all evidence, and the guy that doesn't believe in My Lai, despite all the evidence.
Yet that is not the flood myth the Judeo-Christian mythology maintains happened. Yeah, I'll happily concede the theory that the flood myth was due to rising sea levels flooding the Med and from there the Black Sea basin - but that has nothing to do with the Christian insistence on a worldwide flood.
Slashdot Mirror
BRB - off to mug Linus
Except, no, he's not defining it that way. He's got a fairly clear definition of what should work right out of the box, and checks to see if it does. Some things on Ubuntu don't work right out of the box that we commonly expect to work under Windows - Grandma doesn't care so much about MP3's (She may call me and ask if I can come bye tomorrow, but she's in no rush), but she does care if she can't open her email because the touchpad doesn't work, or she can't get to the internet.
*Not* the same. Trying to say it is is just trying to blame the casual user for the fact that Ubuntu's not quite up to speed yet (In that way - I use it, and once it gets going, it's great).
Pug
I'm cool with that. Because, we're not a conservative organization, we're test-running Ubuntu now, it's working great, and we can kill them with it.
Next - to convince conservative organizations that using "Google" offend their dignity!
Pug
Or you could just Download http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/Worldwind which has all that built in and is (IMO) a bit better for some types of things (I particularly like the USGS maps, which are pretty darn spiffy when tracking certain kinds of data like where an oil line is buried on your property.)
Not complaining about Google earth BTW - I use it for other stuff.
Pug
My work computer isn't the latest and greatest, but it's not bad - and this absolutely kills it.
It looks like this has some interesting stuff that I would like to see incorporated into Celestia, but as it stands, Celestia wins on the simple basis of usability.
Pug
The best explanation I've seen was in "The Constitution, a Biography", where the concept of the militia is explained as a duty equivalent to the duty of Jury Duty. Historically it fits pretty well.
Also the most frustrating since no militia has been enjoined in that fashion since pretty much immediately after the war itself. As written in the 2nd amendment, a militia is pretty much anachronistic, and we don't have *any* equivalent to it today.
Seems to me we can blame Washington. No - not that one, George Washington, who lost his taste for the militia about the time some people decided they didn't like the laws written by that duly elected congress and thought they should rebel against it.
Pug
Get to the Supreme Court how exactly - this is the same Supreme Court that ruled that no one has standing to sue to stop the administration from spending my tax money on religious education. Screw that whole Separation of Church and State thing.
Original intent my arse.
Pug
I've never particularly seen that as an indication of 'subtlety' - Great, it's so subtle that you're allowed one mistake, then your done. By that definition, Tic Tac Toe is a deeply subtle game. Golly Gee.
Or to put it differently, it's a game so subtle that one bad move will kill you, and tournament chess requires three moves at the beginning just to randomize it a bit.
I guess I have a Chess bias - [Grin] Pug
These would be forcefield suits, from the same Starfleet Engineers that gave us the Holodeck and Transporter?
Survey Says - NO!
Pug
It gives us a tight, form-fitting suit to be worn by fit women going into space.
Admittedly, this is just a first step to a world where all the women look like the covers of 50's pulp magazines, but really, how can that *not* improve society.
I for one welcome our new Amazonian over, um, overladies?
- Pug
Well, first of all, I thank you for the long winded response - You seem to have thought about this a lot, and I always prefer someone that disagrees with me having thought about it to someone the agrees with me on instinct.
That said - yes, historically there have been truly massive corruption scandals in the Democratic party - as with any long and distinguished history. Before the Democratic party was the party of civil rights it was the party of segregation.
However I ignore that, for the same reason I ignore that the land my house was built on once belonged to the indians - it was before my time. In the time since I was whelped, the Democratic party has had its share of individual cases of corruption - their rivals have had repeated cases of deep rooted systemic corruption. I have every hope that congressman Jefferson will go to jail for what seem to me to be fairly obvious crimes, but they do not begin to match the crimes of attempting to defraud the voter during the Nixon era, the allegations (proven to my satisfaction) that arms were traded for hostages to affect the outcome of the 1980 elections, or the sins too great to count that have occurred during this administration. The blunt fact is that while Oliver North was lying to congress, Gary Hart was losing an election based on having a woman on his boat.
The double standard of what is considered corrupt behavior predates Bill Clinton's impeachment by a fair amount. Lets face facts - G. Gordon Libby is considered a folk hero among large portions of the GOP - a man that specifically undertook to undermine the worlds greatest democracy is a hero. Do you imagine in the darkest recesses of your brain that Mr. Jefferson will be so revered among democrats in a generation, not despite his corruption, but because of it?
Behavior that is rewarded, is repeated - and the GOP of my generation has not simply ignored corruption, but has rewarded it, time and time again. Those that lie to congress are heroes among the Republican Party. Perhaps you can guide me to the talk show host on NPR with a criminal record.
You posit that the Democratic party has hidden corruption of equal magnitude - within the individual, you might convince me of. As a systemic corruption that is rewarded - I have heard conspiracy theory, accusations, and partisan investigation - but time and time again, the evidence is not found. In some circles, that is considered proof of how very good the democrats are at it - I however will demand actual proof.
Unfortunately, at the end of the day, I choose a plethora of sources for my news - I concede the conservative outlets sometimes leave a bad taste in my mouth because we proceed from different assumptions - a bad taste I can deal with, only because I can deal with the fact that it's good for me to be exposed to different assumptions on a regular basis.
However, it is no longer, and has not for some time been, an issue of conflicting assumptions, but of theories advanced that are in contradiction to the known facts, of insistence on theories that are simply untenable. Whitewater investigation trudge on year after year, and failure to find anything - even anything sufficient to warrant an obstruction of justice charge, is considered evidence of guilt. Our president carefully uses the legal definition of a term, in a court of law, as being questioned by a lawyer, and some insist it is not only a lie, but a perjurious one - Despite the fact that the judge in the case, the single most important arbiter of the question, states unequivocably that it was not.
The liberal media may be one sided, but they typically have their facts straight, and moreover when they do not, they attempt to correct them. Under such circumstances, I cannot balance liberal and conservative on some artificial scale, but must also consider the percentage of occasion when the allegations and theories of one side or the other have proven to be bourn out by the eventual evidence - the conservative media has been asymptotically approaching zer
Here's a thought for you - we'll just eliminate the crime "Obstruction of Justice". I mean, anyone that has *successfully* obstructed justice, managed to actually make it impossible to prove that a crime was committed.
Sure Libby Lied, but he did so in such a way you can't prove what else happened, so he should get off scott free.
Why are Liberals always trying to punish success!
Pug
I can see the point of pardoning Nixon to move the country forward, but in hindsight, I wish he hadn't.
I think there were a lot of up and coming Republicans that took the pardoning of Nixon to indicate that what was done was right, that the mistake was getting caught, not committing crimes.
When you look back at the people that are running the U.S. into the ground now, it seems to me that there are more people dating back to the Nixon GOP than would be explained by random chance.
Pug
Yes by god - once they've destroyed your covert career, you damn well don't get on with your life or anything.
You roll over and die!
Riiiggghhhttttt. . . . .
Pug
Nooo - the law in question says it's a crime for someone to *knowingly* out a covert agent.
Armitage was unaware she was covert. He was also not the first source on the issue - that was inside the white house.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Pug
Oh, yeah, because it's really stupid to send a covert operative specializing in WMD's into Nigeria to see if Saddam was actually getting uranium with a team mate who has experience in the region.
My god, two people checking different sources, one checking the official sources, another one quietly checking a network of intelligence sources while everyone was watching her husband?
Why, what kind of idiots would send two people that could cross check their information that way!
Hell, sending a team like this might be the only intelligent and competent thing this damn administration has *done* in the last seven years. Sure, it was accidental, but it's nice to know that they aren't actually prevented from doing something competent due to natural law or something.
Pug
He thought he was - the actual timeline shows he wasn't - his leak occured after the initial leak.
Moreover, Armitage was not told, and was not positioned to know, that the woman was covert operative. He just knew she was CIA, because he came across a memo from the whitehouse.
Now, if only we knew someone from the whitehouse that both leaked the information, and knew she was covert? I wonder who would know that, maybe the Vice Presidents Chief of Staff would be familiar with the issue?
Pug
What - you mean you don't like it when the market decides?
Or you just don't like it when it decides against you.
Pug
As I understand it, that number comes from John Hopkins - the Methodology they used is a standard and widely accepted methodology, and was considered pretty accurate until it came up with numbers conservatives don't like.
Now of course it's pseudoscience, like climate change and evolution.
New Plan folks - lets force the right to declare everything psuedoscience and not use it. Evolution, climate change, modern medicine, transistors, integrated circuits, mathematics, astronomy, y'know - everything. Eventually they'll kill them selves off, but until then they'll be happy, and afterwards *I* will be happy.
Can we work on this? Remember, God declared the value of Pi as egual to 3, so that's a good start.
Pug
Sorry - I'm sick of this argument, and I'm going to keep saying it every time I see someone try to say it's okay because Bill Clinton perjured himself.
He didn't. Perjury involves two things -
A - the statement must be untrue - In point of fact, a lawyer used a legal definition, in a court of law, when asked a question by another lawyer. Deceptive? Yes. Not untrue.
B - the statement must be germane to the case at hand. The judge on the case ruled that it was not. END OF STORY
He didn't perjure himself. He was stupid, he lied to the public, and it was an unholy mess that could have bee avoided, but it was never perjury, and no matter how many time Rush Limbaugh screams that he did, it still isn't so.
Pug
Yes, remember people, using legal terms while being questioned about something not relevant to the case in a court of law is the exact legal, moral, and ethical equivalent to helping cover up the deliberate exposure of covert operatives for political reasons.
THEY'RE THE SAME DAMMIT. IF I YELL LOUD ENOUGH I CAN MAKE THEM THE SAME!!!!!
PUG
It wasn't illegal for Richard armitage because Richard Armitage was never informed she was covert, and wasn't placed to simply be aware of this fact.
Interestingly enough, this would imply that someone who leaked it that *was* aware that she was a covert agent, *would* be breaking the law. Perhaps someone that had asked the CIA to investigate a rumor of a Uranium Purchase in Africa might be positioned to be aware of this fact.
However it Turns out that Scooter Libby's testimony never implicated anyone in the administration of both leaking this information, and being aware of her covert status. Of course, that testimony turned out to be verifiably untrue, but there's no reason for anyone in the GOP to be held accountable for this, because it's not like his telling the truth might have implicated anyone in this honest, upright, and indeed, honorable administration.
Dumbass.
Pug
Actually, no. Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred for using the legal definition of the term sex, while being questioned in a court of law, by a lawyer. You can argue that he lied to *us* (the public), and frankly I agree, but what happened in the court was not perjury (The judge ruled it wasn't applicable to the case at hand, which defines perjury - it's untrue *and* it's relevant. The judge ruled it wasn't relevant to the case at hand, which meant the question of whether it was untrue was moot), and in my opinion wasn't even a lie - he was playing according to the rules of the situation.
Scooter Libby was found guilty of presenting multiple verifiably untrue statements that *were* germane to the investigation at hand while under oath to federal investigators.
See, one lied about things that were relevant, the other told the truth (admittedly in a deceptive way) to a question that wasn't relevant to the case. The second is an impeachable offense according to the republican party - I can only assume it's the telling the truth part that bothered them at the time, since they've very much backed a pardon for actually perjuring yourself.
Pug
My only objection to that, is the number of people I've seen that reject things out of hand that I accept as pretty well proven. I've seen people insist there were no atrocities during Vietnam, or that the Mai Lai Massacre was the only one and anything else that was alleged was lies, etcetera.
For me too assume that I'm right about Things the government tried to coverup, but failed to, it's awfuly arrogant for me to assume I'm *always* right when I make that call between reality and conspiracy theory. It doesn't have to be a successful coverup, it just has to be successful enough for me to not really examine it.
Where is the line between the guy that doesn't believe in a UFO conspiracy, despite all evidence, and the guy that doesn't believe in My Lai, despite all the evidence.
Pug
Yet that is not the flood myth the Judeo-Christian mythology maintains happened. Yeah, I'll happily concede the theory that the flood myth was due to rising sea levels flooding the Med and from there the Black Sea basin - but that has nothing to do with the Christian insistence on a worldwide flood.
Pug