Is that really such a big gig? Surely there are a few crickets to spare. I can't imagine the deceitful wooden kid job market is all that large.
Re:About the Book
on
Book on NR-1
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The excerpt is fantastic! First of all, the think had wheels and could roll along on the floor of the ocean. Check this out: ----------- Maurer added still more water to the forward ballast tanks, which brought the bow down and put both wheels back in contact. Unfortunately, the extra ballast made the boat so heavy that the maximum upward force from the combined fore-and-aft thrusters would not be able to lift it. We rolled ahead.
Wruble suddenly noticed a slight change in the character of the ocean floor, and then saw what looked like the edge of the world crawl beneath the little window. The front wheel ran off a precipice and Wruble heard a loud whummpp as the boat lurched and his head smacked some overhead pipes that sliced a cut in his scalp. The sound he heard was the bottom of the NR-1 scraping along a canyon rim. Blood ran down his face as he yelled into his microphone, "Go back! Go back! We're going over the edge!"
But our forward, downward momentum made that impossible and over we went, slowly sinking into an unknown cavern. Wruble felt his stomach turn over, as if he was falling from a great height, for he saw nothing but blackness below. The weight that had glued us to the bottom now pulled us inexorably into the void, nose first. The submarine was a half mile deep, nearly a ton too heavy, and falling.
Re:Creepy...
on
Book on NR-1
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The problem is the nuclear-ness means that it stays underwater for a _long_ time. The WWII boats had to come up, which meant a walk in the sun or the fresh air every so often.
Really cool, nonetheless. It must have been thrilling to be looking out the funky viewports at things that no human had ever seen before at the bottom of the ocean.
Maybe I'm the only one left, but I can't fathom printing from Photoshop _or_ the Gimp. That's what your page layout program is for. If you care enough to waste paper and ink/toner on something, you should care enough to put it on the page properly. I have once (just once) in ten years of doing this semi-professionally, printed something from Photoshop. I quickly realized what a mistake that was and have had no need to go back.
And that's just not much of a point. Billboards are unsightly, but they're passive. You don't have to take specific action to avoid dealing with them. You don't have to delete them, and they don't take up any of your resources (unless they start making roads windier to allow for more billboard space.)
Oh come now. You can't say that any first world Capitalist country doesn't have many of the same problems. I've been a lot of places in this world, and while I'll be the first to admit that the US is far from perfect, I'll also be the second or third to point out that the rest of the world isn't a city on a hill, either.
Re:The solution to problems like this...
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
Second point: I was just surprised that the tone and the content of the summary dated it so clearly. I'm not accustomed to government content being of such plain origins. I wasn't attempting to cast any aspersions on it because of that.
Taking things out of a bill is as major a change as putting things in. Simple as that. (I honestly don't really care either way about the issue of riders. If someone came up with a solution that didn't raise my Constitution flags, I'd make no argument against it.) But back to the first point: Taking something out is as substantially improper for the President to do as is putting something in. And I can't imagine anyone out there would argue that it's anywhere near constitutional to allow the executive to put content into bills.
I dunno. I'm a little more confused by the alternative spelling.
Re:The solution to problems like this...
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
How isn't that completely changing legislation? Take a look at the house summary of the legislation (here). Besides being covered in mid-'90s Republicanism, it gives the President the authority to cancel specific dollar amounts of new discretionary spending. So if Congress passes a bill that establishes subsidies for security costs associated with protecting abortion clinics and gun shows, the President could line-item the abortion clinic funding but preserve the gun show funding. Tell me that isn't "completely changing" legislation in a manner specifically antithetical to the intent of the framers.
Re:The solution to problems like this...
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
No, I in fact know I'm correct. And I know how the line item veto works. "Enhances his ability to 'accept or reject'" is one of the slickest word-warpings I've seen in a while. The enhancement of his ability to accept or reject flies in the face of the framers' intent. The point I was making (and I thought I made it fairly simply and clearly) is that the Constitution's goal is to creates a flow of legislation that establishes a fairly strict distribution of power among the three branches of the federal government. The very crux of the power of the Congress is to be able to present the executive branch with a package of legislation over which the president has no control other than a 'yes'/'no' decision. To do otherwise would be to decimate the abilities of the Congress to exercise their discretionary abilities over the creation of legislation.
Re:The solution to problems like this...
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Yes. It's a fundamental blow to the separation of powers in the Constitution. The intent is for Congress to provide legislation that the President must either accept or reject. If the President can go about completely changing the legislation, then he's dangerously intruding on the power of Congress, and throwing the balance of government off.
Sir, I strongly suspect that the prescision of my speech is not the cause of your lack of understanding.
I do remember being fairly sure of its origin. It was a long time ago that I was sure of its origin. I no longer remember the origin of this quote, but I recall being sufficiently confident in the veracity of the fact at the time I heard it that I committed it to memory.
I find it amusing that a non-trivial number of consumers think that Bill Gates writes Windows. (I have no source, but I do remember being fairly sure of its origin.)
I'm glad someone else feels this way. I'm not really into games, but I have a bit of nostalgia for the original Dragon's Lair. Honestly, I was disappointed by the screenshots. It looks like all of the other "walk around in 3d and kill things" games. And the graphics really don't seem all that hot (not that that matters, but if you're plugging the graphics, they should at least be compelling.)
As I said, it's been a few years. I seem to recall it being principally purple with some gruesome scenes of people burning up in the nuclear explosion. But re. my original question: what's up with the annoying kids? Are they that much a part of the Japanese culture? They're beyond awful in the kids' shows (Tenchi, Dragonball, etc.) and they're annoying enough to make me not like the shows that people have thought I'd like (Cowboy Bebop [which I was really close to not minding], others.)
I still think gopher is better than the www. I've been thinking of setting up a gopher or wais server to support my home website but I suspect it would be greeted with a big "huh?"
They're gorgeous photographs. Very artistic: he really captures the magic of the old machines and the culture of the employees. Man. I'd love those on my wall.
Does it have an obnoxious little kid who screams and jumps around? Every time I try and get into an anime at my friends' request, I am repulsed by the outrageously obnoxious characters. Most specifically, small round girls who shriek and bounce around. Really annoying. Even 'serious' ones like a movie about Hiroshima (I forget the name, it's been a couple of years.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not if you use 3D colors.
Is that really such a big gig? Surely there are a few crickets to spare. I can't imagine the deceitful wooden kid job market is all that large.
The excerpt is fantastic! First of all, the think had wheels and could roll along on the floor of the ocean. Check this out:
-----------
Maurer added still more water to the forward ballast tanks, which brought the bow down and put both wheels back in contact. Unfortunately, the extra ballast made the boat so heavy that the maximum upward force from the combined fore-and-aft thrusters would not be able to lift it. We rolled ahead.
Wruble suddenly noticed a slight change in the character of the ocean floor, and then saw what looked like the edge of the world crawl beneath the little window. The front wheel ran off a precipice and Wruble heard a loud whummpp as the boat lurched and his head smacked some overhead pipes that sliced a cut in his scalp. The sound he heard was the bottom of the NR-1 scraping along a canyon rim. Blood ran down his face as he yelled into his microphone, "Go back! Go back! We're going over the edge!"
But our forward, downward momentum made that impossible and over we went, slowly sinking into an unknown cavern. Wruble felt his stomach turn over, as if he was falling from a great height, for he saw nothing but blackness below. The weight that had glued us to the bottom now pulled us inexorably into the void, nose first. The submarine was a half mile deep, nearly a ton too heavy, and falling.
The problem is the nuclear-ness means that it stays underwater for a _long_ time. The WWII boats had to come up, which meant a walk in the sun or the fresh air every so often.
Really cool, nonetheless. It must have been thrilling to be looking out the funky viewports at things that no human had ever seen before at the bottom of the ocean.
Maybe I'm the only one left, but I can't fathom printing from Photoshop _or_ the Gimp. That's what your page layout program is for. If you care enough to waste paper and ink/toner on something, you should care enough to put it on the page properly. I have once (just once) in ten years of doing this semi-professionally, printed something from Photoshop. I quickly realized what a mistake that was and have had no need to go back.
There are no billboards in Alaska.
And that's just not much of a point. Billboards are unsightly, but they're passive. You don't have to take specific action to avoid dealing with them. You don't have to delete them, and they don't take up any of your resources (unless they start making roads windier to allow for more billboard space.)
Oh come now. You can't say that any first world Capitalist country doesn't have many of the same problems. I've been a lot of places in this world, and while I'll be the first to admit that the US is far from perfect, I'll also be the second or third to point out that the rest of the world isn't a city on a hill, either.
Second point: I was just surprised that the tone and the content of the summary dated it so clearly. I'm not accustomed to government content being of such plain origins. I wasn't attempting to cast any aspersions on it because of that.
Taking things out of a bill is as major a change as putting things in. Simple as that. (I honestly don't really care either way about the issue of riders. If someone came up with a solution that didn't raise my Constitution flags, I'd make no argument against it.) But back to the first point: Taking something out is as substantially improper for the President to do as is putting something in. And I can't imagine anyone out there would argue that it's anywhere near constitutional to allow the executive to put content into bills.
I dunno. I'm a little more confused by the alternative spelling.
How isn't that completely changing legislation? Take a look at the house summary of the legislation (here). Besides being covered in mid-'90s Republicanism, it gives the President the authority to cancel specific dollar amounts of new discretionary spending. So if Congress passes a bill that establishes subsidies for security costs associated with protecting abortion clinics and gun shows, the President could line-item the abortion clinic funding but preserve the gun show funding. Tell me that isn't "completely changing" legislation in a manner specifically antithetical to the intent of the framers.
No, I in fact know I'm correct. And I know how the line item veto works. "Enhances his ability to 'accept or reject'" is one of the slickest word-warpings I've seen in a while. The enhancement of his ability to accept or reject flies in the face of the framers' intent. The point I was making (and I thought I made it fairly simply and clearly) is that the Constitution's goal is to creates a flow of legislation that establishes a fairly strict distribution of power among the three branches of the federal government. The very crux of the power of the Congress is to be able to present the executive branch with a package of legislation over which the president has no control other than a 'yes'/'no' decision. To do otherwise would be to decimate the abilities of the Congress to exercise their discretionary abilities over the creation of legislation.
Yes. It's a fundamental blow to the separation of powers in the Constitution. The intent is for Congress to provide legislation that the President must either accept or reject. If the President can go about completely changing the legislation, then he's dangerously intruding on the power of Congress, and throwing the balance of government off.
Ain't nothing wrong with that, brother. (And he looks like he could handle the sex games pretty well, I might add.)
Sir, I strongly suspect that the prescision of my speech is not the cause of your lack of understanding.
I do remember being fairly sure of its origin. It was a long time ago that I was sure of its origin. I no longer remember the origin of this quote, but I recall being sufficiently confident in the veracity of the fact at the time I heard it that I committed it to memory.
<smooch>
I find it amusing that a non-trivial number of consumers think that Bill Gates writes Windows. (I have no source, but I do remember being fairly sure of its origin.)
I'm glad someone else feels this way. I'm not really into games, but I have a bit of nostalgia for the original Dragon's Lair. Honestly, I was disappointed by the screenshots. It looks like all of the other "walk around in 3d and kill things" games. And the graphics really don't seem all that hot (not that that matters, but if you're plugging the graphics, they should at least be compelling.)
This guy thought it was a decent idea.
Wow. It's been three years since I put a quote in my quotes file, but this is going in there. That's rich.
A Heinlein quote in that file seems applicable just now: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
As I said, it's been a few years. I seem to recall it being principally purple with some gruesome scenes of people burning up in the nuclear explosion. But re. my original question: what's up with the annoying kids? Are they that much a part of the Japanese culture? They're beyond awful in the kids' shows (Tenchi, Dragonball, etc.) and they're annoying enough to make me not like the shows that people have thought I'd like (Cowboy Bebop [which I was really close to not minding], others.)
Here
I still think gopher is better than the www. I've been thinking of setting up a gopher or wais server to support my home website but I suspect it would be greeted with a big "huh?"
They're gorgeous photographs. Very artistic: he really captures the magic of the old machines and the culture of the employees. Man. I'd love those on my wall.
Does it have an obnoxious little kid who screams and jumps around? Every time I try and get into an anime at my friends' request, I am repulsed by the outrageously obnoxious characters. Most specifically, small round girls who shriek and bounce around. Really annoying. Even 'serious' ones like a movie about Hiroshima (I forget the name, it's been a couple of years.)
Berkeley Standard Distribution in my book.
That's lewd!