Right. Like they would have been allowed to pass the security guards with impunity if they were only members of one of the bigger parties. Claiming that these guys were imprisoned because of their political opinions is the height of stupidity -- the people who arrested them almost certainly didn't even know who they were.
Incidentally, I was thinking of voting for Badnarik before this. Not a chance, now. What an idiot.
It seems to me that it might be better to first aim for a moon settlement. Or even a self-sustaining Antarctica settlement. Sure, neither one is as sexy, but we'd probably learn a lot more than putting all our resources into getting to mars.
Supposing for a moment that the speculation is correct: If they were publishing DNC delegate names, or bank/credit card customer names, or even the names under which people had registered at a web site, you'd argue that such an activity ought also to be protected under the First Amendment?
Of course not, but do you really think that he'd admit it?
Electrons dont move through copper at the speed of light. However, they do move faster than sound does through a fluid.
No, they don't. Not by a long shot. (Link to a page that lets you see how the size of the wire and the current changes the drift velocity, but typical speeds are measured in centimeters per hour.) However, you don't actually need to move electrons all the way through the circuit to have a current, so the drift speed of the electrons is not really relevant.
Come on, CowboyNeal. You and I both know that this doesn't belong on the front page of slashdot. Of all the political news coming through the pipe, you choose this one to hit the front page of a tech website?
Opera and Firefox both have ways of 'maximizing' a frame so that it's no longer under Hotmail's evil influence. That's the first thing I do when going to an outside link, because even if it's not necessary, I still don't like having the stupid Hotmail banner on top of the pages.
Hotmail seems to have changed their spam filtering lately for the worse. It used to be that I would get perhaps one spam every day or two that wasn't caught by the filters. Now, I don't get any spam in my inbox, but there are false positives -- so I have to look through the junk mail folder for messages that I want. Sort of defeats the purpose of filtering in the first place, if I still have to read them.
Tom Lord has been to those lists as well. In all those times, including this one, he has never explained how arch is better.
This is exactly what turned me off from trying arch when I was looking to replace my CVS stuff with something a little less wonky. Subversion is very clear about what it does, and why it does it. When trying to find out if arch might meet my needs better, all I found were a bunch of rants by Lord about how "Subversion won't work, because it's deeply flawed, and arch is better" Which, of course, is completely counter to the reality that subversion has been working great for years. Maybe arch really is better, but I'm not going to go through the pain of finding out if it's obvious that even the author can't really explain why.
It's interesting that although the article claims that searching for "George Bush" presents a balanced view, if you actually run the search you'll find no less than six links to Kos in the first ten stories. I find it hard to believe that anyone can call that "conservative bias."
I was just pricing this out this morning. My conclusion: Given my typical usage, a new 17" LCD (to replace my 17" CRT) would save me $10-$15 per year in electricity costs. (This is figuring about 5 hours of usage a day; probably a bit on the high side, when I remove sleeping, eating, and work time, though I know that many people are at their screens 24/7.) Certainly not enough to justify buying it based on energy costs alone.
So, the problem isn't the drug use.
And it isn't even the running over people persay, though that's clearly a problem.
So what are you saying? "Yeah, sure, OSS runs over people just like Microsoft, but only Microsoft deserves criticism because they're more arrogant about it?" Maybe I didn't get your analogy because I couldn't believe that anyone would make such a bizarre statement.
It sounds to me like you've already decided that you want to bash Microsoft, and now you're just fishing for excuses. And you're coming up with old boots.
Your analogy doesn't work. The complaint about security vulnerabilities is that they hurt people. Thus, your analogy would make (a little) more sense by equating drug use with "arrogance" and running over people with software bugs. And then, of course, your argument kind of completely falls apart.
And what the hell is up with the moderation the last few days? It's usually sycophantic, but lately it's been getting ridiculous.
Oh, sorry. When you said "The reason we bash Microsoft for its bugs and security holes is not because they have bugs and holes; the reason is that Microsoft paints itself as the savior of computing, as software that will make your life infallibly better and easier, and along the way has made quite a lot of unethical business decisions," I thought you meant it.
In other words, the reason why everyone complains about Microsoft's software has nothing to do with Microsoft's software. Well, at least you're being honest.
You, on the other hand, atheist_gospel@yahoo.com, are of course perfectly qualified to make "impartial, unbiased, and untainted" on the subject of religion and science.
Second, the point of the mathematics professor was that it wouldn't be appropriate to name the building after Donald Trump even if he had payed for most of the building.
If that's what he meant, maybe he should have said that instead.
it shouldn't be appropriate to name the building after Bill Gates simply because he provided a large chunk of the financing.
Why, because an unknown mathematician and an anonymous coward say so?
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally, I was thinking of voting for Badnarik before this. Not a chance, now. What an idiot.
It seems to me that it might be better to first aim for a moon settlement. Or even a self-sustaining Antarctica settlement. Sure, neither one is as sexy, but we'd probably learn a lot more than putting all our resources into getting to mars.
"The lawsuit alleged that the driver emptied the contents of the bus' septic tank into the river below" would do just fine.
Come on, CowboyNeal. You and I both know that this doesn't belong on the front page of slashdot. Of all the political news coming through the pipe, you choose this one to hit the front page of a tech website?
And you ought to be modded down for spamming (in a transparent attempt to get extra karma by posting four seperate replies to the same post.)
Opera and Firefox both have ways of 'maximizing' a frame so that it's no longer under Hotmail's evil influence. That's the first thing I do when going to an outside link, because even if it's not necessary, I still don't like having the stupid Hotmail banner on top of the pages.
Hotmail seems to have changed their spam filtering lately for the worse. It used to be that I would get perhaps one spam every day or two that wasn't caught by the filters. Now, I don't get any spam in my inbox, but there are false positives -- so I have to look through the junk mail folder for messages that I want. Sort of defeats the purpose of filtering in the first place, if I still have to read them.
It's interesting that although the article claims that searching for "George Bush" presents a balanced view, if you actually run the search you'll find no less than six links to Kos in the first ten stories. I find it hard to believe that anyone can call that "conservative bias."
I was just pricing this out this morning. My conclusion: Given my typical usage, a new 17" LCD (to replace my 17" CRT) would save me $10-$15 per year in electricity costs. (This is figuring about 5 hours of usage a day; probably a bit on the high side, when I remove sleeping, eating, and work time, though I know that many people are at their screens 24/7.) Certainly not enough to justify buying it based on energy costs alone.
It sounds to me like you've already decided that you want to bash Microsoft, and now you're just fishing for excuses. And you're coming up with old boots.
And what the hell is up with the moderation the last few days? It's usually sycophantic, but lately it's been getting ridiculous.
Oh, sorry. When you said "The reason we bash Microsoft for its bugs and security holes is not because they have bugs and holes; the reason is that Microsoft paints itself as the savior of computing, as software that will make your life infallibly better and easier, and along the way has made quite a lot of unethical business decisions," I thought you meant it.
In other words, the reason why everyone complains about Microsoft's software has nothing to do with Microsoft's software. Well, at least you're being honest.
You, on the other hand, atheist_gospel@yahoo.com, are of course perfectly qualified to make "impartial, unbiased, and untainted" on the subject of religion and science.