If this MOOX dude would give us.msi files or an installer.exe, I'd be down. If I were on a unix machine, I'd be happy with a directory that I could throw in/usr/local/bin/ & add to the path, but on Windows I expect some infrastructure. Because I'm a spoiled brat.
I tried expanding MOOX's zips over my existing installation, and only succeeded at breaking everything. OK, I admit that was dumb.
Also, shouldn't it be possible to build a binary with SSE optimizations for all x86 processors?
A laser can blind a camera, but only while it is pointed at the camera. The blinding can be mitigated by postprocessing if you filter out colors correspond to the laser. Of course, that mitigation could be mitigated by using multiple lasers at different frequencies, or perhaps by frequency cycling.
If you are buying an Apple laptop, buy AppleCare and use it. If you are getting a PC laptop, get an extended warranty. All laptops break all the time. This is the case whether or not Apple laptops are of a higher quality than PC laptops.
Reverse mergers tend to be at that level of flakeyness.
Yes. And, occasionally, legitimate companies will choose to do it. It can be a good way to get listed and avoid the peaks & valleys of an IPO. Right? I can't recall any totally legit reverse mergers off the top of my head, but I can recall recalling one:)
Nope. The CAN-SPAM act explicitly legalizes unsolicited ads via email. It requires that those unsolicited ads comply with a few (totally useless) requirements. The recent lawsuits under the CAN-SPAM act (read "The Yes, you are allowed to SPAM act") are because many spammers do not comply with those totally useless requirements. So the ISPs can go after them, even though spam is legal.
And it's possible that this release will never be exploited by Microsoft some day.
No, what I'm saying is that if the FSF says "We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL." then that means they do not think Microsoft can exploit this license.
Uh, no, I don't think so. From that discription, it sounds like a totally acceptable license. In fact, from the FSF's page:
Common Public License Version 1.0
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.
For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
This is the same issue with the latest Apache license. It's good, it's just GPL incompatible. If they ever make a new version of the GPL, it might contain identical requirements.
Oh, then I think we disagree about what happened. My understanding was:
They took the list of felons and the list of reigstered voters. If someone was on both lists, they added them to the list for potential purging. Matches were made by name and race (and other criterion as well). One source list did not give "hispanic" as an option for race, while the other one did (or vice versa).
There were hispanic people on both source lists, but due to the mismatch in listed race, only about 61 hispanic voters were actually added to the purge list.
Do I have that completely wrong? My interpretation fits both Carter's statement, and the quote that you provided. While I've read other articles on the issue, I didn't read the Miami Herald article that you linked.
Since this info wasn't included in the DB anyone who says it was is lying.
My understanding was that this figure was investigated outside of the DB, after the news became public.
Right. And your "Carter Lies" post does not contradict that statement. When he says "fumbling attempt", my understanding would be that the attempt was not successful.
Perhaps YOU should read the fucking article before you tell others they haven't.
Fuck you.
When I said, "Did you read the linked article?" It was because I honestly couldn't tell. I was curious whether you got your take from the summary, or because we disagreed about what Carter had said.
From my point of view - Mrs. Harris followed the letter of the law. It was the State Supreme court that kept on making it up as it went along!
Yeah, well... are you partisan?
Obviously, Jimmy Carter is a Democrat. If being a Democrat entails being so partisan that his comments should be ignored... then you should ignore my comment too. And probably yours as well.
Otherwise, Carter has proven himself to be one of the most honorable and honest people to have ever entered public service. No, I don't think he was necesarily a great president. But he was certainly honest. His credibility is impeccable.
I use Software Update Services (SUS) to deploy security updates in my enterprise. Should I deploy the GDI+ Detection Tool to all of my systems?
The GDI+ Detection Tool was available via SUS but has been removed. This tool is not designed for use or supported in enterprise environments.
Hopefully they won't ever do that again. I'd consider this an admission that their tool was worse than useless. Even before they removed the detection tool from SUS, they said that they did not recommend it for corporate networks, so it seems that they already knew it was useless.
No, as pointed out by this post, he was defending the executive power to grant presidential pardons:
Q Why did you decide not to challenge the Clinton pardon, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, on Marc Rich? First of all, I didn't agree with the decision. I would not have made that decision myself. But the ability for a president to make decisions is -- a decision on pardons, is inviolate, as far as I'm concerned. It's an important part of the office. I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well. And that's why I made the decision.
IMH and Liberal O, Tod Landis is either a moron or a despicable liar. GW's statement here is rather unimpeachable.
Can someone please provide context for that quote by Bush?
I can only find quotes of that individual sentence. I can't even tell what executive powers he says he's preserving, so, as a raving liberal, I can't even tell why this quote means I should hate Bush.
In that case you have no problem with Matt Gonzalez's position. If we wanted to change something on the state or national level... we'd have to do it on a state or national level, now wouldn't we.
BTW, what elections happen on a national level? Aren't you voting for electors when you vote for the president? Isn't that why y'all Floridians get to pick your own criterion for who is and isn't allowed to vote for president in your state?
it seems as though this erodes the differences between having citizenship or not.
That is because it literally does "erode the differences between having citizenship or not". You seem to assume that this is a problem. Maybe it is. Maybe not.
You should have to be a citizen to vote. Just because you pay taxes and respect local laws doesn't give you the right to vote.
Or, the citizens of San Francisco could decide that for their local elections, they would like to allow permanent residents to vote. Wouldn't that be up to us, the city of San Francisco? If the city of Clermont, Florida would not like to allow non citizens to vote in your local election, that's your problem.
There's nothing inherently correct about only allowing citizens to vote. There's nothing inherently wrong with it either. The only thing that gives you that right is the law. And we can change how the law works.
There is no such thing as nuclear waste "disposal."
All 6 of the "low-level" nuclear waste dumps in the United States have leaked. Generation of additional nuclear wastes must be stopped.
We call for the early retirement of nuclear power reactors as soon as possible (in no more than 5 years); for a phase-out of other technologies that use or produce nuclear waste; and for an intensive campaign to educate the public about nuclear problems, including disposal, clean-up and long-term dangers.
I'm not a green, but my bullet point would be the Price-Anderson Act. The Libertarians seem to think that deregulation would allow nuke plants to be able to afford their own insurance. I don't see why. If nukes can fly without government subsidy & indemnification, then I'm pro-nuke too. But they have to pay for their own waste disposal, and if they fail to contain their waste, they should have to pay for the damages, too.
Do you really think nuke plants could get built without government subsidy? No one has ever really tried to convince me, but maybe it's possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything I know about the subject I learned from this article, where the dude points out:Guess I should have linked that in the original post. I just didn't want to use my google.
Mod parent down. He makes a somewhat helpful point, but so have other people... and 800 469 9269 is 800 4MY XBOX, Microsoft's XBOX support line.
Dick.
If this MOOX dude would give us .msi files or an installer .exe, I'd be down. If I were on a unix machine, I'd be happy with a directory that I could throw in /usr/local/bin/ & add to the path, but on Windows I expect some infrastructure. Because I'm a spoiled brat.
I tried expanding MOOX's zips over my existing installation, and only succeeded at breaking everything. OK, I admit that was dumb.
Also, shouldn't it be possible to build a binary with SSE optimizations for all x86 processors?
(Can a readily available laser damage a CCD?)
A laser can blind a camera, but only while it is pointed at the camera. The blinding can be mitigated by postprocessing if you filter out colors correspond to the laser. Of course, that mitigation could be mitigated by using multiple lasers at different frequencies, or perhaps by frequency cycling.
If you are buying an Apple laptop, buy AppleCare and use it. If you are getting a PC laptop, get an extended warranty. All laptops break all the time. This is the case whether or not Apple laptops are of a higher quality than PC laptops.
Your tone seems weirdly antagonistic.
Reverse mergers tend to be at that level of flakeyness.
:)
Yes. And, occasionally, legitimate companies will choose to do it. It can be a good way to get listed and avoid the peaks & valleys of an IPO. Right? I can't recall any totally legit reverse mergers off the top of my head, but I can recall recalling one
How come no response to my previous reply?
(or maybe the can-spam act already does this)
Nope. The CAN-SPAM act explicitly legalizes unsolicited ads via email. It requires that those unsolicited ads comply with a few (totally useless) requirements. The recent lawsuits under the CAN-SPAM act (read "The Yes, you are allowed to SPAM act") are because many spammers do not comply with those totally useless requirements. So the ISPs can go after them, even though spam is legal.
I can't tell whether your post is a farce.
And it's possible that this release will never be exploited by Microsoft some day.
No, what I'm saying is that if the FSF says "We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL." then that means they do not think Microsoft can exploit this license.
Oh, then I think we disagree about what happened. My understanding was:
They took the list of felons and the list of reigstered voters. If someone was on both lists, they added them to the list for potential purging.
Matches were made by name and race (and other criterion as well). One source list did not give "hispanic" as an option for race, while the other one did (or vice versa).
There were hispanic people on both source lists, but due to the mismatch in listed race, only about 61 hispanic voters were actually added to the purge list.
Do I have that completely wrong? My interpretation fits both Carter's statement, and the quote that you provided. While I've read other articles on the issue, I didn't read the Miami Herald article that you linked.
Since this info wasn't included in the DB anyone who says it was is lying.
My understanding was that this figure was investigated outside of the DB, after the news became public.
Right. And your "Carter Lies" post does not contradict that statement. When he says "fumbling attempt", my understanding would be that the attempt was not successful.
Perhaps YOU should read the fucking article before you tell others they haven't.
Fuck you.
When I said, "Did you read the linked article?" It was because I honestly couldn't tell. I was curious whether you got your take from the summary, or because we disagreed about what Carter had said.
From my point of view - Mrs. Harris followed the letter of the law. It was the State Supreme court that kept on making it up as it went along!
Yeah, well... are you partisan?
Obviously, Jimmy Carter is a Democrat. If being a Democrat entails being so partisan that his comments should be ignored... then you should ignore my comment too. And probably yours as well.
Otherwise, Carter has proven himself to be one of the most honorable and honest people to have ever entered public service. No, I don't think he was necesarily a great president. But he was certainly honest. His credibility is impeccable.
Right?
Did you read the linked article? Carter's statement is neither a lie, nor is it misleading. Perhaps you don't like the summary.
Yeah. Good point.
France generates nearly all their power with nuclear reactors
Who carries their insurance?
This isn't a safety argument. It's a government subsidy.
IMH and Liberal O, Tod Landis is either a moron or a despicable liar. GW's statement here is rather unimpeachable.
Can someone please provide context for that quote by Bush?
I can only find quotes of that individual sentence. I can't even tell what executive powers he says he's preserving, so, as a raving liberal, I can't even tell why this quote means I should hate Bush.
What executive powers?
In that case you have no problem with Matt Gonzalez's position. If we wanted to change something on the state or national level... we'd have to do it on a state or national level, now wouldn't we.
BTW, what elections happen on a national level? Aren't you voting for electors when you vote for the president? Isn't that why y'all Floridians get to pick your own criterion for who is and isn't allowed to vote for president in your state?
it seems as though this erodes the differences between having citizenship or not.
That is because it literally does "erode the differences between having citizenship or not". You seem to assume that this is a problem. Maybe it is. Maybe not.
You should have to be a citizen to vote. Just because you pay taxes and respect local laws doesn't give you the right to vote.
Or, the citizens of San Francisco could decide that for their local elections, they would like to allow permanent residents to vote. Wouldn't that be up to us, the city of San Francisco? If the city of Clermont, Florida would not like to allow non citizens to vote in your local election, that's your problem.
There's nothing inherently correct about only allowing citizens to vote. There's nothing inherently wrong with it either. The only thing that gives you that right is the law. And we can change how the law works.
As the Green Party Presidential candidate, would you support the disposal of fission byproducts by shooting them into the sun?
Yeah, so long as they carry insurance that would cover the damage done by a disastrous accident.
Do you really think nuke plants could get built without government subsidy? No one has ever really tried to convince me, but maybe it's possible.
And for Office to be exploited in a SP2 system, the user has to open the file manually.
Uh... wouldn't the preview pane work just fine?