> "This toned me up a great deal but made zero difference to my mass."
The you must of increased you intake.
That would be true if your body didn't have the ability to dynamically adjust. It does respond by retaining water etc, in a complicated way.
> And weight is FINE
No, "weight" is inaccurate. It is as bad as people calling desktop computer chassis the "hard drive" while the monitor are "the computer". Sure, you understand what they mean to say, but just because it is common use doesn't mean that bad habits should be allowed to persist - especially amongst Slashdotters that should know the difference between mass and weight. Some may even know the difference between inertia mass and gravitational mass (there is no difference, only the Principle of Equivalence holds them to be equal, but we yet don't understand why this must be so - but that is another story).
Actually it is the *eating less* that controls body mass ("earth weight" if you must use the term "weight"). There is no normal (non-surgical, non-diahorrea) way of losing mass without eating less. Smaller portions, less sugar and almost no snacks will work.
Exercising will not counter the effects of eating too many calories (not matter what form they come in - fruit has plenty of calories too, it's just they are not "empty" as you get additional vitamins and minerals too). I exercise nearly every day of the week doing either 40 min runs, cycles or weights. This toned me up a great deal but made zero difference to my mass. This was a surprise to me, for a normal person (moderately active, non-couch potato) the extra calories burnt in exercise (and resulting extended metabolic increase) can't compensate if you are eating too much. This is a big danger in those that exercise, "Oh I worked out, I can afford to reward myself with a coke/beer/cheezeburger etc" - the exercise can't really compensate for those treats. You have to cut them out to lose body mass. I hope this helps someone else out there that is exercising enough but wondering why their mass is not monotonically decreasing - the exercise is not enough to make up for any level (even if small) of over-eating.
> In your third paragraph you attack the Sovs again from a different angle, again without acknowledging that Americans, if you take the same angle that you took on their Sov counterparts, are acknowledging (look up the Occupy movement in your favorite search engine) that the American system is a mistake.
Incidentally I'm not from the US. I can see plenty of its flaws. However one would have to be a total retard to try and place what is wrong with the US system in the same scheme as the flaws in the Soviet system (arbitrary arrests on a massive scale, closed courts (if there was even a trial), widespread execution, wholesale shipment of political prisoners to the gulags, etc etc).
> Tell me -- are you practicing to become a script writer for Fox news, or a research assistant for Rush Limbaugh? Or are you honestly unaware that your "answer" is just propaganda, and doesn't really answer the question posed by the GP?
For an ad hominem that is pretty lame. Politically I'd be considered a socialist by US standards, but fairly mainstream by my own country's standards. Despite these views I'm well aware of the political left's rampant anti-Americanism (eg. your non-sensical and a-historical attempt to equate (the numerous) US flaws with the Soviet system - they are not in the same league). In fact, it was with great delight I discovered a book yesterday where your particular point-of-view is examined and dissected in detail. The opinion of the book is basically that anti-Americanism has now so blinded the left that their actions are now fairly contra to their original purpose. If you are interested in expanding your view you can have a look at:
It's ok (of course) if you disagree with Bernard-henry Levi's point of view, but at least be aware that he might just well be right - that is, the prevailing anti-Americanism of the left is blinding people to the fact that this results in support for regimes that are vastly more odious that the US one. This is not "giving the US a free pass" at all - IMHO this is choosing to condemn regimes based on their relative level of evil - which puts the US down the list somewhat (to be dealt with later).
> My point is that, from a strict scientific perspective, there isn't really any difference between genetic modification and selective cultivation. Genetic modification is simply a way of speeding up a process that historically took centuries or even millennia to accomplish with less advanced technology.
Although cross-species gene transplants are extremely new and kinda unknown ground. Especially for long-term effects. I'm originally a scientist myself (astrophysics rather than biology) so I'm interested in the caveats with regard to the "scientifically proven" aspects of GE. It would be wonderful if GE fulfills its promises (which it may well do), but I'm a bit hesitant about long-term implications (although, as I admit, I'm no geneticist so perhaps I'm too conservative in this regard).
> Anyway, I've been around this site long enough to know that unpopular points of view are regularly modded down as “trolls”. Most people here, ultimately, aren't really qualified to moderate because they can't tell an actual troll from somebody who simply has a differing viewpoint. Luckily, in the fifteen years or so that I've been here I've racked up enough karma that I don't really give a damn about moderators with an agenda to push.:)
Good on ya mate!:)
You've been modded Troll when I think you are trying to make a point:( Unfortunately you've confused the difference between GM/GE and regular selective cultivation. IMHO, it was very worthwhile you asking that question as it enlightened others. Slashdotters are harsh!
... except for freedom to make an informed choice? In my country all food must be labelled with nutritional information so consumers are able to make choices about what they eat. With the advent of genetically engineered or modified foods ("GE" or "GM") this labeling is very likely to be extended - as is being proposed in the US. For me this makes perfect sense, don't ban GE food, simply give people the choice whether they want to consume it or not. Consumer market forces will either make GE food a success or remove it far more effectively than tipping the scales with legal regulation.
Why proponents of GE are trying to stop (via outspending) those who promote informed consumer choice is beyond me. If GE really is beneficial then consumers will see the reduced prices of the food, notice the improvement in quality and associate those with GE. If GE turns out to be hazardous in some cases then an informed consumer is made responsible for their own decision (although, in the US this hardly seems to be a factor these days in lawsuits). What could possibly go wrong with labeling food?
The 17" MacBook Pro hardware is pretty nice, and I was able to pick one up at an ok price when visiting in the US for work. I'd also lost some faith in the implementation of Linux due to newer kernels breaking previously working stuff on my previous system. So, when coupled with my disappointment with Unity I found the Mac a refreshing change. Now Apple are moving toward closing things off I'll probably move back to Linux - so thanks for the suggestion about Xfce.
Interesting points but you are diverging from the point of the debate. To get back on track, look at your statement, "US Presidents, for example, are temporary employees by law;". My argument is that this is true in Russian law too. Yet that is not what has happened, yes? Putin may be no worse than the law-breaking Nixon, but that still doesn't justify either's behavior in any way.
> Each time an idealist proposed happiness it ended up with rivers of blood in the streets.
This is the tyrant's argument. I'm afraid it is simply not true. A Ghandi or Mandela can change the system without there being mass slaughter. Yet your argument follow's Putin's megalomanical argument, that only he stands between order and chaos. This is total bullshit. It is the same bullshit that the Communist Party of China espouses. It is simply not true. In fact, because they are so oppressive they keep the lid on the pot until the pressure builds up so far until it explodes. Instead, if he actually obeyed the Russian Constitution there would be a decent chance that those outside the mainstream would get to have a say and actually influence things from time to time (which can be healthy: eg. environmentalists can be a PITA but they do have a role to play in keeping governments and industry honest through exposures [not possible under Putin; journalists exposing corruption have a habit of waking up dead]). Note also that if a Russian Ghandi-equivalent ever emerged he would never get a chance to bring peaceful progress, the current regime (aided by commentators like yourself) would condemn and destroy such people before they could bring such progress.
I understand your cynicism. Progression is not simple and certainly does not involve rainbows and ponies. However, that doesn't mean we should stand by and let a corrupt tyrant have their way (or worse, actually try and make apologies for them - as you do). On its current trajectory Russia is getting more oppressive and eventually that may not be much worse than a 'spring clean' that restores power to the people again. So why would one defend a tyrant on these forums?
As vulgar as Pussy Riot are and annoying as Kasperov may be they both serve a purpose that benefits society as a whole. The State handling of these cases has exposed Russian's totalitarian shift in a way that gets far more attention that reasoned debate would. This is why the West is calling Russia over this.
With regard to life for the ordinary Russian being better under Putin than Yeltsin. Do you actually think it some magic that Putin has done that has achieved this? If so, then I have some of the same magic to sell you. It is fairly clear that the Russian economy grew on the back of growth of natural resource prices and the boom has happened despite colossal corruption and graft enabled (encouraged?) under Putin's watch (remember, he will trade economic favors for power).
Do you really think that free and fair elections are to be feared? don't you think there is a chance that Russia could do democracy better than the West provided that appropriate safeguards were installed (since the Russia can learn from the West what not to do). If that is the case, then why do you oppose those who would like to bring this about? Again, if you do oppose it then you are on the wrong side of history (-1 Not Insightful) since Putin's reign will not last forever, although it is very likely to be worse over time.
Just because democracy is not perfect doesn't mean the yoke of a nascent dictator should be applauded, as your postings do. I'll leave you with two quotes:
"Democracy is the worst form of government except, for all the rest", Lord Winston Churchill
"Any government that is strong enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take it all away", Thomas Jefferson.
I personally left Ubuntu for the Mac with the whole Unity debacle. For me Unity was a step backward for several reasons:
I hated having to search for applications before being able to use them. Being able to search is fine, but I found the menu structure (eg. administrator tools vs applications) in earlier Gnome was actually better at helping me find what I want than an ab initio search (which assumes I know and remember all the often-bizarre names of all the programs now on my system).
I also hated how the control panel was dumbed down to the point of being unusable. A lot of configurability that was present in Gnome 2 was removed. So when I went to change a setting I couldn't. Einstein said "As simple as possible, but no simpler". Notice how there are two parts to that sentence. The Gnome 3 crew designed by the first part of it only.
I'm a Mac user these days and I *loath* the single menu. Gnome 3 is cursed with this also. One of the things I missed when going from Gnome to Mac is that each application window could have its own menu. When you are doing stuff on two or more screens then moving back to the main screen to access the menu is a PITA. And no, I use so many programs for different purposes it is impossible to memorize all the menu commands for each application - so menu use is essential.
Reliability matters more than anything just about else. Unfortunately with Gnome 3 being new it hadn't got to a mature point where stuff works flawlessly and reliably. It's nice if the backend is "teh new shiney" and will support stuff in the future, but if you are continually reinventing the core all the time then the system never gets to be stable (plus, it takes time for applications to be built on new core tech, so every time you change the core you lose applications - and it is the applications that end users actually care about).
Just because you want to work on tablets don't forget your existing userbase. Making a better tablet workflow at the expense of smoothly working (fewer clicks) with mouse, keyboard and multi-screen is of no use to me. Hence, bye bye Gnome ol' pal.
Science is fascinating. There are two main problems:
The first problem is that most journalists are so poor at science (many are barely numerate) they can't distinguish good science from pseudo-science so counter-factual stories get published all the time, plus because the journalists don't grok science they have a hard time breaking down the essential ideas so they can be presented for the target audience.
The second "problem" is that most people simply don't care about science (or biology, or mathematics,or politics, or history, or art/theatre, or exercise, or philosophy, or reality, or...). Some people do, but most don't. The extreme apathy of most people leads those in television to conclude that putting out scientific articles is a waste of time. You get more articles about who an actress is having an affair with, which sports team will will the same competition that has been running year after year (Piggers are number One. Piggers are gonna go all the way this year! : The Oatmeal), what some gay guy thinks you should be consuming (shoes, handbags, makeup, clothes, accessories, etc). Blah blah.
So there are a lot of factors in play other than the simplistic (and IMHO inaccurate) "Science is boring" myth. When presented correctly, most people can probably stomach 30 seconds of scientific facts once in a while.
Postgresql has a model where there is a "database server" containing many "databases". You can of course, have project-specific databases provided you conform to this model.
So, when you say, "I don't want a global database. I want a project specific one" it seems a bit confused. Do you want a database embedded with your project rather than a database server? In that case, I would suggest you try something like the Derby database, that can be run either in database server mode (eg. for production) or embedded directly into your application (for small scale stuff).
> There are many opponents - anyone and his dog can sign up as one
Totally wrong. Anyone who had even a slim shot of being a realistic opponent is prevented from standing, often from technicalities. Putin's regime will trump up charges against all opponents, they will murder journalists, they will poison Ukrainian leaders to ensure "their man" is installed and they retain access to Sevastopol, they will run "kangaroo courts" against girls that refuse to listen to any evidence. Instead of making Russia strong (as in "stable equilibrium") he is turning it into a banana republic (unstable equilibrium). As someone once said, Russia is "Upper Volta with missiles" (meaning, not exactly a civilized European country, but one that is feared because it is dangerously armed).
I'm ok with the Russian people electing Putin through an actual democratic process. However, that is not what has happened and your earlier statement that Putin was elected through the will of the people is false when scrutinized - the rules and officials were set to ensure the dictated outcome came to pass. Now if Putin actually reflected the will of the people he wouldn't need to having cheating election officials, bus voters around different polling stations, or prevent measures used in other countries (even little poor ones) to prevent fraud. With that in mind are you still willing to repeat your fiction that Putin represents the will of the people (of course, this fiction comes from Kremlin controlled sources, like Russia Today).
> The voters do not judge him on how he got there.
Bollox. The Russian voters clearly see Putin as having usurped power illegitimately. That's why they have taken to the streets despite Putin utilizing fascist tactics against them (and Kasparov).
> You need to understand that the "street opposition" is deeply undemocratic.
More rubbish. The street opposition is the only way the people can show the democratic feeling. What is in question is whether this is representative. Perhaps it is not representative of the whole country, but democracy is about letting these groups represent the proportion of the country that feels the same way. Each group represents a segment of society and together they arrive at consensual government. Instead, the Kremlin are so afraid they crush any diverging views. This is the anti-thesis of democracy. Why are the Kremlin so afraid? because they know they cannot retain power through legitimate means (that is, they actually understand that the will of the people is actually against them - despite what the State controlled media outlets say). Admit this to yourself, you know this is true.
With regard to Saddam and crew. Your original statement was that they were "neutral" (as in, not badasses). I'm glad upon reflection you have come to realise that in fact he was a murderous monster. With regard to the Shia rebellion, this was because Saddam oppressed (as in, slaughtered) the Shia so badly that armed opposition was their only recourse. No large scale rebellion happens without the people getting so desperate that the risk of death in rebellion outweighs their condition otherwise. Rather than brutal oppression Saddam (and Putin, and Al Assad) could do what civilized countries do, use the democratic process to negotiate with representatives of the disaffected and seek a just solution to the problem (making concessions in proportion to the size of the effected party). Many countries have been able to do this. You may argue that this would not work in Russia or the Middle East but I disagree - these countries are perfectly able to adapt and improve. Even if it is a rocky road you have to start along the road sometime. Putin and Al Assad are retarding the march of progress (and the will of their own people to define their own destiny). Hence, your arguments are on the wrong side of history, and are supportive of dictatorships. This is not enlightened at all.
The Russian people tolerate Putin at the moment. Again they have to be put under intense pr
Not really. There are many flaws in the US system but at least if the will of the people really wanted independent politicians in power they could have them (although the US populace are so borked in their thinking this would never happen, no matter how outrageous their mainstream parties positions become, eg Tea Party with some radical ideas mixed with a large dose of craziness; and the whole rabidly religious aspect of their politics).
This is simply not a possibility in present day Russia. Anyone who may have made a good alternative to Putin was simply not allowed to stand (not accidental, this was by design). The only possible candidates to Putin on the ballot sheet are people who had no chance of getting many votes, since any good person was disallowed (possible since Putin got courts to prosecute them or disallow them from being on the ballot). This is not the same as the US situation at all (and is far far worse, IMHO).
Awesome, +1 informative. I thought they might finally get around to it (since older versions of SQL Server are completely hopeless for global projects involving things like the Traditional Chinese characters set).
I suggest you go and research the Iran Tudeh for a reason why Mossadegh was replaced. Originally Mossadegh was not in favour of them but IIRC as time wen't on their influence grew. This was a large contributing factor in his removal (along with oil concerns - but don't make the mistake of thinking it was only about the oil).
> Communism was used as a smokescreen during the cold war just as terrorism is used as a smokescreen today.
Rubbish. The opposition of communism was the reason the US acted so forcefully - despite having to support some shady characters. The US realized if they didn't oppose the communists then the communists themselves would carry out anti-democratic actions to place their own people into power in the places you mention. You have got the reasoning backwards. The US did dodgy thinks to fight communism, it was not the US said it was fighting communism so it could do dodgy things. You are repeating typical revisionist claptrap and thinking it is insightful. Adjust your tinfoil hat.
> However he is a dictator by consent of the people.
Aha! but here is the trick. No-one who was a realistic opponent to Putin were even allowed to stand for election. What were allowed were "strawmen" who were clearly not going to appeal to the masses. I'm a bit surprised anyone who has an interested in Russian events fell for this - since it was very obvious that is what happened. So, Putin was elected by default. Fortunately the educated Muscovites and Lenigraders are now awake to these schemes - that is why the bravely protest despite Putin changing laws left, right and center to repress them (eg. fines for protesting have been increased by 15000% ! all foreign NGOs now registered as "foreign agents" such as independent political/electoral observers).
So, I suggest you reconsider your position on Putin, and see him for what he really is. He is a dictator that manipulated the electoral process and electoral commission (not to ) to remove any realistic opposing candidates (going so far as to trump up charges for some opponents) - which resulted in an apparent election by popular vote but was actually as rigged as any election could be without outright seizing the throne. Recognize a man who will actually stop at nothing to retain power - as the more intelligent Russians wake up to his scheming and oppose him he will become more ruthless. He is not merely a power-hungry politician, he is actually rather deluded and I daresay, "evil".
> Saddam Hussein's actions were neutral, modulo his sons.
Completely wrong. Hussein murdered colossal numbers of his people, particularly the Shia. Then there is the famous Halabja massacre were poison gas was used against Kurdish civilians.
Please dig a little deeper on both history and current events.
Postgresql is also a Free Software multi-platform database. It was designed properly (unlike MySQL, Postgresqlwas designed with transactions in mind), has excellent internationalization support (proper 3 and 4 byte UTF, unlike MS SQL-Server with its UCS-2 or blob unicode [unless the very latest version has fixed this]).
Personally I prefer Postgresql to MySQL. While Postgresql looks more 'plain vanilla' I actually find it more straightforward to get easy things done (that is, pgadminIII doesn't look so flashy but I found it is much easier to get connected and get going than mysqlworkbench). YMMV of course, but if you are concerned about corporate control and the future of MySQL taking a look at Postgresql won't harm you - it is a nice(r) place to land if you have to.
The US is getting worse, for sure. However, the US is nowhere in the league of current day China or Russia in terms of repression, lack of transparency, killings of journalists, bias against of minorities, bullying neighbours, etc etc. It is not even close.
... after Putin having completed his "rokirovka". In english this is the chess move "castling". In this case, the rokirovka was the dictatorial and anti-democratic switch Putin used with Medvedev to get around the Russian constitution (which was designed to stop people like Putin from becoming President for longer than was healthy for the State).
The amazing thing is people don't see Putin as the dictator he is - there really is little difference between Putin and the North Korean crew, Putin is just much much better at manipulating apparently democratic rules to achieve non-democratic results (and just as good at staging bizarre photo opportunities).
> Russian culture is different. They want a great strong leader.
No country wants a weak leader. The Russians are no different to anyone else in this regard (this should be no surprise, they are generally intelligent human beings too). The Russians don't want a dictator either. The Russian "Strong Leader" myth is nothing more than propaganda put out by the ruthless and opportunistic dictators the Russians have been cursed with. Please don't justify the subversion of democracy in Russia by using such statements - it is not helpful for the people of Russia.
> Something I never understood was why the fuck the US cared about the polytical system in a far region.
Well, the ideology was that global socialism was inevitable, but the USSR and China wanted to speed the process up (eg. encouraging and supply weaponry to the Chinese in their Civil War, the North Korean invasion, the North Vietnamese invasion, the communist Afghanistan government, invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, arming insurgents and dodgy governments across the globe [Yemen, Malaysia, Angola, Ethiopia etc etc]).
Then there was the massive Warsaw Pact tank armies poised to drive through Western Europe at a moment's notice. Some of this was "the best defense is a good offense" mindset in the aftermath of The Great Patriotic War (as the USSR called World War 2), but plenty of it was itching to get their hands on more territory too. Fortunately the US, despite its other flaws, had the 'minerals' (translation: testicles; for those in the US), the capability, and (most importantly) the will to contain communist expansion around the globe (since many other countries would wring their hands but then appease the Soviets).
Even the Russians now acknowledge that the Soviet system was a mistake (although as time passes nostalgia is starting to take of the edge off the horrors for newer generations of Russians).
It is an interesting period of history. You can't really understand the post-Cold War of today unless you understand the Cold War. Similarly, you won't understand the Cold War unless you understand the historical aspects of World War 2. It's not exactly "turtles all the way down" but if you want to understand why the US acts as it does (which, on a strategic scale, is usually quite rational) then I suggest you make an effort and trawl through the colossal masses of information available at all levels that describe the relevant history. Then you won't be forced to make statements on Slashdot from not knowing why the actors (US, Russia, Europeans, Israel, Iran etc) act as they do. Good luck.
Correct. Apple aren't targetting gamers, but they do target market segments (eg "multi-media") that just happens to be useful for gamers re-purposing their Macs. Unfortunately by increasing their screen resolution while not simultaneously increasing their video ram they aren't helping either market particularly much (gamers or those doing multimedia). Of course, that's just my opinion.
Not gamers per se, users who want a more powerful laptop for doing graphics, music, swizzy presentations etc. They require relatively good hardware (especially when compositing and doing effects on large images). So you are right, Apple were not aiming for gamers, but their hardware used to be relatively good for it anyway as a by-product of their actual target markets.
You do realize that for (multi-sampled) anti-aliasing, translucent blending, convolution effects etc you go through a lot of video RAM, yeah? By keeping the same amount of video RAM and increasing the resolution by a significant factor it means the application software and operating system will have worse performance as it swaps between video ram and main ram. This has nothing to do with 3D gaming (although I would like to point out that it would be helpful for my game).
So what is the advantage of a lovely Retina display when the video ram-per-pixel is going down? How is this a good thing? What is wrong with me pointing out that it would have been better for Apple to increased video ram when they increased their resolution (since this is something Apple's competitors seem to be able to do) ?
Everyone on Slashdot thinks that Mac users are in a reality distortion field, yet when I as a Mac user point out limitations in Apple products this is something wrong (despite the logic of what I'm saying being fairly straightfoward) ?
Slashdot Mirror
> "This toned me up a great deal but made zero difference to my mass." The you must of increased you intake.
That would be true if your body didn't have the ability to dynamically adjust. It does respond by retaining water etc, in a complicated way.
> And weight is FINE
No, "weight" is inaccurate. It is as bad as people calling desktop computer chassis the "hard drive" while the monitor are "the computer". Sure, you understand what they mean to say, but just because it is common use doesn't mean that bad habits should be allowed to persist - especially amongst Slashdotters that should know the difference between mass and weight. Some may even know the difference between inertia mass and gravitational mass (there is no difference, only the Principle of Equivalence holds them to be equal, but we yet don't understand why this must be so - but that is another story).
Actually it is the *eating less* that controls body mass ("earth weight" if you must use the term "weight"). There is no normal (non-surgical, non-diahorrea) way of losing mass without eating less. Smaller portions, less sugar and almost no snacks will work.
Exercising will not counter the effects of eating too many calories (not matter what form they come in - fruit has plenty of calories too, it's just they are not "empty" as you get additional vitamins and minerals too). I exercise nearly every day of the week doing either 40 min runs, cycles or weights. This toned me up a great deal but made zero difference to my mass. This was a surprise to me, for a normal person (moderately active, non-couch potato) the extra calories burnt in exercise (and resulting extended metabolic increase) can't compensate if you are eating too much. This is a big danger in those that exercise, "Oh I worked out, I can afford to reward myself with a coke/beer/cheezeburger etc" - the exercise can't really compensate for those treats. You have to cut them out to lose body mass. I hope this helps someone else out there that is exercising enough but wondering why their mass is not monotonically decreasing - the exercise is not enough to make up for any level (even if small) of over-eating.
> In your third paragraph you attack the Sovs again from a different angle, again without acknowledging that Americans, if you take the same angle that you took on their Sov counterparts, are acknowledging (look up the Occupy movement in your favorite search engine) that the American system is a mistake.
Incidentally I'm not from the US. I can see plenty of its flaws. However one would have to be a total retard to try and place what is wrong with the US system in the same scheme as the flaws in the Soviet system (arbitrary arrests on a massive scale, closed courts (if there was even a trial), widespread execution, wholesale shipment of political prisoners to the gulags, etc etc).
> Tell me -- are you practicing to become a script writer for Fox news, or a research assistant for Rush Limbaugh? Or are you honestly unaware that your "answer" is just propaganda, and doesn't really answer the question posed by the GP?
For an ad hominem that is pretty lame. Politically I'd be considered a socialist by US standards, but fairly mainstream by my own country's standards. Despite these views I'm well aware of the political left's rampant anti-Americanism (eg. your non-sensical and a-historical attempt to equate (the numerous) US flaws with the Soviet system - they are not in the same league). In fact, it was with great delight I discovered a book yesterday where your particular point-of-view is examined and dissected in detail. The opinion of the book is basically that anti-Americanism has now so blinded the left that their actions are now fairly contra to their original purpose. If you are interested in expanding your view you can have a look at:
It's ok (of course) if you disagree with Bernard-henry Levi's point of view, but at least be aware that he might just well be right - that is, the prevailing anti-Americanism of the left is blinding people to the fact that this results in support for regimes that are vastly more odious that the US one. This is not "giving the US a free pass" at all - IMHO this is choosing to condemn regimes based on their relative level of evil - which puts the US down the list somewhat (to be dealt with later).
> My point is that, from a strict scientific perspective, there isn't really any difference between genetic modification and selective cultivation. Genetic modification is simply a way of speeding up a process that historically took centuries or even millennia to accomplish with less advanced technology.
Although cross-species gene transplants are extremely new and kinda unknown ground. Especially for long-term effects. I'm originally a scientist myself (astrophysics rather than biology) so I'm interested in the caveats with regard to the "scientifically proven" aspects of GE. It would be wonderful if GE fulfills its promises (which it may well do), but I'm a bit hesitant about long-term implications (although, as I admit, I'm no geneticist so perhaps I'm too conservative in this regard).
> Anyway, I've been around this site long enough to know that unpopular points of view are regularly modded down as “trolls”. Most people here, ultimately, aren't really qualified to moderate because they can't tell an actual troll from somebody who simply has a differing viewpoint. Luckily, in the fifteen years or so that I've been here I've racked up enough karma that I don't really give a damn about moderators with an agenda to push. :) :)
Good on ya mate!
You've been modded Troll when I think you are trying to make a point :( Unfortunately you've confused the difference between GM/GE and regular selective cultivation. IMHO, it was very worthwhile you asking that question as it enlightened others. Slashdotters are harsh!
Why proponents of GE are trying to stop (via outspending) those who promote informed consumer choice is beyond me. If GE really is beneficial then consumers will see the reduced prices of the food, notice the improvement in quality and associate those with GE. If GE turns out to be hazardous in some cases then an informed consumer is made responsible for their own decision (although, in the US this hardly seems to be a factor these days in lawsuits). What could possibly go wrong with labeling food?
The 17" MacBook Pro hardware is pretty nice, and I was able to pick one up at an ok price when visiting in the US for work. I'd also lost some faith in the implementation of Linux due to newer kernels breaking previously working stuff on my previous system. So, when coupled with my disappointment with Unity I found the Mac a refreshing change. Now Apple are moving toward closing things off I'll probably move back to Linux - so thanks for the suggestion about Xfce.
Interesting points but you are diverging from the point of the debate. To get back on track, look at your statement, "US Presidents, for example, are temporary employees by law;". My argument is that this is true in Russian law too. Yet that is not what has happened, yes? Putin may be no worse than the law-breaking Nixon, but that still doesn't justify either's behavior in any way.
> Each time an idealist proposed happiness it ended up with rivers of blood in the streets.
This is the tyrant's argument. I'm afraid it is simply not true. A Ghandi or Mandela can change the system without there being mass slaughter. Yet your argument follow's Putin's megalomanical argument, that only he stands between order and chaos. This is total bullshit. It is the same bullshit that the Communist Party of China espouses. It is simply not true. In fact, because they are so oppressive they keep the lid on the pot until the pressure builds up so far until it explodes. Instead, if he actually obeyed the Russian Constitution there would be a decent chance that those outside the mainstream would get to have a say and actually influence things from time to time (which can be healthy: eg. environmentalists can be a PITA but they do have a role to play in keeping governments and industry honest through exposures [not possible under Putin; journalists exposing corruption have a habit of waking up dead]). Note also that if a Russian Ghandi-equivalent ever emerged he would never get a chance to bring peaceful progress, the current regime (aided by commentators like yourself) would condemn and destroy such people before they could bring such progress.
I understand your cynicism. Progression is not simple and certainly does not involve rainbows and ponies. However, that doesn't mean we should stand by and let a corrupt tyrant have their way (or worse, actually try and make apologies for them - as you do). On its current trajectory Russia is getting more oppressive and eventually that may not be much worse than a 'spring clean' that restores power to the people again. So why would one defend a tyrant on these forums?
As vulgar as Pussy Riot are and annoying as Kasperov may be they both serve a purpose that benefits society as a whole. The State handling of these cases has exposed Russian's totalitarian shift in a way that gets far more attention that reasoned debate would. This is why the West is calling Russia over this.
With regard to life for the ordinary Russian being better under Putin than Yeltsin. Do you actually think it some magic that Putin has done that has achieved this? If so, then I have some of the same magic to sell you. It is fairly clear that the Russian economy grew on the back of growth of natural resource prices and the boom has happened despite colossal corruption and graft enabled (encouraged?) under Putin's watch (remember, he will trade economic favors for power).
Do you really think that free and fair elections are to be feared? don't you think there is a chance that Russia could do democracy better than the West provided that appropriate safeguards were installed (since the Russia can learn from the West what not to do). If that is the case, then why do you oppose those who would like to bring this about? Again, if you do oppose it then you are on the wrong side of history (-1 Not Insightful) since Putin's reign will not last forever, although it is very likely to be worse over time.
Just because democracy is not perfect doesn't mean the yoke of a nascent dictator should be applauded, as your postings do. I'll leave you with two quotes:
I hated having to search for applications before being able to use them. Being able to search is fine, but I found the menu structure (eg. administrator tools vs applications) in earlier Gnome was actually better at helping me find what I want than an ab initio search (which assumes I know and remember all the often-bizarre names of all the programs now on my system).
I also hated how the control panel was dumbed down to the point of being unusable. A lot of configurability that was present in Gnome 2 was removed. So when I went to change a setting I couldn't. Einstein said "As simple as possible, but no simpler". Notice how there are two parts to that sentence. The Gnome 3 crew designed by the first part of it only.
I'm a Mac user these days and I *loath* the single menu. Gnome 3 is cursed with this also. One of the things I missed when going from Gnome to Mac is that each application window could have its own menu. When you are doing stuff on two or more screens then moving back to the main screen to access the menu is a PITA. And no, I use so many programs for different purposes it is impossible to memorize all the menu commands for each application - so menu use is essential.
Reliability matters more than anything just about else. Unfortunately with Gnome 3 being new it hadn't got to a mature point where stuff works flawlessly and reliably. It's nice if the backend is "teh new shiney" and will support stuff in the future, but if you are continually reinventing the core all the time then the system never gets to be stable (plus, it takes time for applications to be built on new core tech, so every time you change the core you lose applications - and it is the applications that end users actually care about).
Just because you want to work on tablets don't forget your existing userbase. Making a better tablet workflow at the expense of smoothly working (fewer clicks) with mouse, keyboard and multi-screen is of no use to me. Hence, bye bye Gnome ol' pal.
The first problem is that most journalists are so poor at science (many are barely numerate) they can't distinguish good science from pseudo-science so counter-factual stories get published all the time, plus because the journalists don't grok science they have a hard time breaking down the essential ideas so they can be presented for the target audience.
The second "problem" is that most people simply don't care about science (or biology, or mathematics,or politics, or history, or art/theatre, or exercise, or philosophy, or reality, or ...). Some people do, but most don't. The extreme apathy of most people leads those in television to conclude that putting out scientific articles is a waste of time. You get more articles about who an actress is having an affair with, which sports team will will the same competition that has been running year after year (Piggers are number One. Piggers are gonna go all the way this year! : The Oatmeal), what some gay guy thinks you should be consuming (shoes, handbags, makeup, clothes, accessories, etc). Blah blah.
So there are a lot of factors in play other than the simplistic (and IMHO inaccurate) "Science is boring" myth. When presented correctly, most people can probably stomach 30 seconds of scientific facts once in a while.
Fair enough criticism.
Postgresql has a model where there is a "database server" containing many "databases". You can of course, have project-specific databases provided you conform to this model.
So, when you say, "I don't want a global database. I want a project specific one" it seems a bit confused. Do you want a database embedded with your project rather than a database server? In that case, I would suggest you try something like the Derby database, that can be run either in database server mode (eg. for production) or embedded directly into your application (for small scale stuff).
> There are many opponents - anyone and his dog can sign up as one
Totally wrong. Anyone who had even a slim shot of being a realistic opponent is prevented from standing, often from technicalities. Putin's regime will trump up charges against all opponents, they will murder journalists, they will poison Ukrainian leaders to ensure "their man" is installed and they retain access to Sevastopol, they will run "kangaroo courts" against girls that refuse to listen to any evidence. Instead of making Russia strong (as in "stable equilibrium") he is turning it into a banana republic (unstable equilibrium). As someone once said, Russia is "Upper Volta with missiles" (meaning, not exactly a civilized European country, but one that is feared because it is dangerously armed).
I'm ok with the Russian people electing Putin through an actual democratic process. However, that is not what has happened and your earlier statement that Putin was elected through the will of the people is false when scrutinized - the rules and officials were set to ensure the dictated outcome came to pass. Now if Putin actually reflected the will of the people he wouldn't need to having cheating election officials, bus voters around different polling stations, or prevent measures used in other countries (even little poor ones) to prevent fraud. With that in mind are you still willing to repeat your fiction that Putin represents the will of the people (of course, this fiction comes from Kremlin controlled sources, like Russia Today).
> The voters do not judge him on how he got there.
Bollox. The Russian voters clearly see Putin as having usurped power illegitimately. That's why they have taken to the streets despite Putin utilizing fascist tactics against them (and Kasparov).
> You need to understand that the "street opposition" is deeply undemocratic.
More rubbish. The street opposition is the only way the people can show the democratic feeling. What is in question is whether this is representative. Perhaps it is not representative of the whole country, but democracy is about letting these groups represent the proportion of the country that feels the same way. Each group represents a segment of society and together they arrive at consensual government. Instead, the Kremlin are so afraid they crush any diverging views. This is the anti-thesis of democracy. Why are the Kremlin so afraid? because they know they cannot retain power through legitimate means (that is, they actually understand that the will of the people is actually against them - despite what the State controlled media outlets say). Admit this to yourself, you know this is true.
With regard to Saddam and crew. Your original statement was that they were "neutral" (as in, not badasses). I'm glad upon reflection you have come to realise that in fact he was a murderous monster. With regard to the Shia rebellion, this was because Saddam oppressed (as in, slaughtered) the Shia so badly that armed opposition was their only recourse. No large scale rebellion happens without the people getting so desperate that the risk of death in rebellion outweighs their condition otherwise. Rather than brutal oppression Saddam (and Putin, and Al Assad) could do what civilized countries do, use the democratic process to negotiate with representatives of the disaffected and seek a just solution to the problem (making concessions in proportion to the size of the effected party). Many countries have been able to do this. You may argue that this would not work in Russia or the Middle East but I disagree - these countries are perfectly able to adapt and improve. Even if it is a rocky road you have to start along the road sometime. Putin and Al Assad are retarding the march of progress (and the will of their own people to define their own destiny). Hence, your arguments are on the wrong side of history, and are supportive of dictatorships. This is not enlightened at all.
The Russian people tolerate Putin at the moment. Again they have to be put under intense pr
Not really. There are many flaws in the US system but at least if the will of the people really wanted independent politicians in power they could have them (although the US populace are so borked in their thinking this would never happen, no matter how outrageous their mainstream parties positions become, eg Tea Party with some radical ideas mixed with a large dose of craziness; and the whole rabidly religious aspect of their politics).
This is simply not a possibility in present day Russia. Anyone who may have made a good alternative to Putin was simply not allowed to stand (not accidental, this was by design). The only possible candidates to Putin on the ballot sheet are people who had no chance of getting many votes, since any good person was disallowed (possible since Putin got courts to prosecute them or disallow them from being on the ballot). This is not the same as the US situation at all (and is far far worse, IMHO).
Awesome, +1 informative. I thought they might finally get around to it (since older versions of SQL Server are completely hopeless for global projects involving things like the Traditional Chinese characters set).
I suggest you go and research the Iran Tudeh for a reason why Mossadegh was replaced. Originally Mossadegh was not in favour of them but IIRC as time wen't on their influence grew. This was a large contributing factor in his removal (along with oil concerns - but don't make the mistake of thinking it was only about the oil).
> Communism was used as a smokescreen during the cold war just as terrorism is used as a smokescreen today.
Rubbish. The opposition of communism was the reason the US acted so forcefully - despite having to support some shady characters. The US realized if they didn't oppose the communists then the communists themselves would carry out anti-democratic actions to place their own people into power in the places you mention. You have got the reasoning backwards. The US did dodgy thinks to fight communism, it was not the US said it was fighting communism so it could do dodgy things. You are repeating typical revisionist claptrap and thinking it is insightful. Adjust your tinfoil hat.
... oops, the "(not to)" should read "(not to mention the outright vote rigging)". Apologies for my bad editing.
> However he is a dictator by consent of the people.
Aha! but here is the trick. No-one who was a realistic opponent to Putin were even allowed to stand for election. What were allowed were "strawmen" who were clearly not going to appeal to the masses. I'm a bit surprised anyone who has an interested in Russian events fell for this - since it was very obvious that is what happened. So, Putin was elected by default. Fortunately the educated Muscovites and Lenigraders are now awake to these schemes - that is why the bravely protest despite Putin changing laws left, right and center to repress them (eg. fines for protesting have been increased by 15000% ! all foreign NGOs now registered as "foreign agents" such as independent political/electoral observers).
So, I suggest you reconsider your position on Putin, and see him for what he really is. He is a dictator that manipulated the electoral process and electoral commission (not to ) to remove any realistic opposing candidates (going so far as to trump up charges for some opponents) - which resulted in an apparent election by popular vote but was actually as rigged as any election could be without outright seizing the throne. Recognize a man who will actually stop at nothing to retain power - as the more intelligent Russians wake up to his scheming and oppose him he will become more ruthless. He is not merely a power-hungry politician, he is actually rather deluded and I daresay, "evil".
> Saddam Hussein's actions were neutral, modulo his sons.
Completely wrong. Hussein murdered colossal numbers of his people, particularly the Shia. Then there is the famous Halabja massacre were poison gas was used against Kurdish civilians.
Please dig a little deeper on both history and current events.
Postgresql is also a Free Software multi-platform database. It was designed properly (unlike MySQL, Postgresqlwas designed with transactions in mind), has excellent internationalization support (proper 3 and 4 byte UTF, unlike MS SQL-Server with its UCS-2 or blob unicode [unless the very latest version has fixed this]).
Personally I prefer Postgresql to MySQL. While Postgresql looks more 'plain vanilla' I actually find it more straightforward to get easy things done (that is, pgadminIII doesn't look so flashy but I found it is much easier to get connected and get going than mysqlworkbench). YMMV of course, but if you are concerned about corporate control and the future of MySQL taking a look at Postgresql won't harm you - it is a nice(r) place to land if you have to.
The US is getting worse, for sure. However, the US is nowhere in the league of current day China or Russia in terms of repression, lack of transparency, killings of journalists, bias against of minorities, bullying neighbours, etc etc. It is not even close.
The amazing thing is people don't see Putin as the dictator he is - there really is little difference between Putin and the North Korean crew, Putin is just much much better at manipulating apparently democratic rules to achieve non-democratic results (and just as good at staging bizarre photo opportunities).
> Russian culture is different. They want a great strong leader.
No country wants a weak leader. The Russians are no different to anyone else in this regard (this should be no surprise, they are generally intelligent human beings too). The Russians don't want a dictator either. The Russian "Strong Leader" myth is nothing more than propaganda put out by the ruthless and opportunistic dictators the Russians have been cursed with. Please don't justify the subversion of democracy in Russia by using such statements - it is not helpful for the people of Russia.
> Something I never understood was why the fuck the US cared about the polytical system in a far region.
Well, the ideology was that global socialism was inevitable, but the USSR and China wanted to speed the process up (eg. encouraging and supply weaponry to the Chinese in their Civil War, the North Korean invasion, the North Vietnamese invasion, the communist Afghanistan government, invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, arming insurgents and dodgy governments across the globe [Yemen, Malaysia, Angola, Ethiopia etc etc]).
Then there was the massive Warsaw Pact tank armies poised to drive through Western Europe at a moment's notice. Some of this was "the best defense is a good offense" mindset in the aftermath of The Great Patriotic War (as the USSR called World War 2), but plenty of it was itching to get their hands on more territory too. Fortunately the US, despite its other flaws, had the 'minerals' (translation: testicles; for those in the US), the capability, and (most importantly) the will to contain communist expansion around the globe (since many other countries would wring their hands but then appease the Soviets).
Even the Russians now acknowledge that the Soviet system was a mistake (although as time passes nostalgia is starting to take of the edge off the horrors for newer generations of Russians).
It is an interesting period of history. You can't really understand the post-Cold War of today unless you understand the Cold War. Similarly, you won't understand the Cold War unless you understand the historical aspects of World War 2. It's not exactly "turtles all the way down" but if you want to understand why the US acts as it does (which, on a strategic scale, is usually quite rational) then I suggest you make an effort and trawl through the colossal masses of information available at all levels that describe the relevant history. Then you won't be forced to make statements on Slashdot from not knowing why the actors (US, Russia, Europeans, Israel, Iran etc) act as they do. Good luck.
Correct. Apple aren't targetting gamers, but they do target market segments (eg "multi-media") that just happens to be useful for gamers re-purposing their Macs. Unfortunately by increasing their screen resolution while not simultaneously increasing their video ram they aren't helping either market particularly much (gamers or those doing multimedia). Of course, that's just my opinion.
Not gamers per se, users who want a more powerful laptop for doing graphics, music, swizzy presentations etc. They require relatively good hardware (especially when compositing and doing effects on large images). So you are right, Apple were not aiming for gamers, but their hardware used to be relatively good for it anyway as a by-product of their actual target markets.
You do realize that for (multi-sampled) anti-aliasing, translucent blending, convolution effects etc you go through a lot of video RAM, yeah? By keeping the same amount of video RAM and increasing the resolution by a significant factor it means the application software and operating system will have worse performance as it swaps between video ram and main ram. This has nothing to do with 3D gaming (although I would like to point out that it would be helpful for my game).
So what is the advantage of a lovely Retina display when the video ram-per-pixel is going down? How is this a good thing? What is wrong with me pointing out that it would have been better for Apple to increased video ram when they increased their resolution (since this is something Apple's competitors seem to be able to do) ?
Everyone on Slashdot thinks that Mac users are in a reality distortion field, yet when I as a Mac user point out limitations in Apple products this is something wrong (despite the logic of what I'm saying being fairly straightfoward) ?