I've heard the KRKs - don't remember which ones but they were about $400 for the pair - and they were great. I recommend the ones I use, the M-Audio BX5 which are $300 a pair. Not mobile and light like the MA-8s but for your price range they have terrific sound and put out 75 watts as opposed to the DM-20s 20 watts. I also have the SP-5Bs on my turntables and they are basically the same as the bx5s but they allow you to adjust the direction of the tweeter which can be useful in critical listening environments. If you're recording these are nice monitors for the price. I've listened to $1000+ Event monitors and they do sound much nicer; if I had the money and wanted a recording studio I would probably spend it on those, but for $300 a pair these suit my needs fine.
Is there any PPC Linux (Live CD or otherwise) that will work on a Blue G3 that has SCSI (most of them had ATA interface but they made a few with SCSI)? I've been messing with one on and off over the last year, with several distros to no avail. It's been a few months but as I recall the machine would not even boot from the CDs.
Get yourself a set of Roland MA-8 Powered Studio Monitors. They are small and simple, with a big sound for such a small speaker. They're meant to be reference monitors so they have a nice clean sound; I haven't heard the Bose but I can almost guarantee you'll like the Rolands at least as well if not better. Only slightly less portable than the Bose. And you can plug anything into them that has an RCA-style adapter.
The US already has plans to shutter bases in Saudi Arabia.
That was a Bush Administration decision; hard to claim that Kerry is better for Osama there.
Kerry has already said he wants to pull US troops out of Iraq based on a timeline rather than milestones.
The longer US troops stay in Iraq, the better for bin Laden. We're talking thousands of new al Qaeda (and affiliate) recruits for every additional month we stay there. The invasion of Iraq itself was a gift to bin Laden, wasting US lives, resources, and energy focused on the wrong enemy (who was in fact an enemy of al Qaeda!) Apart from the new recruits the Iraq war has brought, it has also taken out one of bin Laden's biggest enemies in the middle east (Saddam) and has created a power vacuum and instability in Iraq, where al Qaeda can now roam free (which never happened under Saddam). Not to mention the tons of unguarded munitions that have been made available to terrorists. Again, your argument suggests that bin Laden would much prefer four more years of Bush.
Bush has made it clear that the mission in Iraq is not just to oust a repressive dictatorship but to act as a lever for taking control of other countries from royal families or clerics and giving it to the people's directly elected representatives.
Actually that is Osama's declared goal, at least with respect to Saudi Arabia. And you're crazy if you think either Bush or Kerry would ever permit it to happen (assuming they get any say in it at all). Bush's friends run Saudi Arabia and the other Arab emirates. The last thing Bush wants is them replaced with truly representative governments, and I think Kerry is on the same boat here.
Kerry does not want the US to lead the world; he wants some "global test" on policies
Are you saying that bin Laden supports the UN? Again, that's just idiotic. Kerry wants a US policy that doesn't make us the laughing stock of the rest of the world. One that recognizes the need to lead with credibility, not just force. Bush opposes that. I think bin Laden would prefer the leader who constantly embarrasses the US and runs our international legitimacy into the ground.
Finally, a Kerry victory will -- as has been covered by quite a few Western and Middle Eastern bloggers -- be seen as a retreat by the US, and a victory for forces of terror.
Seen by whom? In what way? If Kerry is elected and focuses our energy on getting bin Laden and destroying al Qaeda, that will not be seen as a victory for terrorism.
All in all, I think it is clear that Osama bin Laden has more to gain from a Kerry victory than a Bush victory. If you listen to other translations of his recent tapes, there is a fairly strong suggestion that states that vote Kerry will be spared from bin Laden's wrath.
You're obviously talking about the MEMRI translation, which mentions this sentence. The majority of MEMRI's analysis is not from the bin Laden tape but from an anonymous Islamist website. (Arabic speaker) As'ad Abu Khalil had the following to say about the MEMRI selection:
To follow up on the previous post, I went to the "Islamic" kooky website that was cited by MEMRI in its attempt to offer more scare tactics to the American electorate and to help Bush. First, the writer is anonymous: nobody knows who he is, and his "pen name" is Mudad `Uluj (or Anti-`Uluj--and `Uluj is a word (I wrote about it before) that was used by Saddam's buffoon Minister of Information, Muhammad Sa`id As-Sahhaf, to refer to American and British forces. And at the end of the very passage that MEMRI refers to, the writer says: "This does not mean that the Shaykh [Bin Laden] supports Kerry." But that was conveniently left out. (
Finally, if you want to give credence to what terrorist leaders say, look back to earlier this year when the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades (an al Qaeda affiliate organization) officially endorsed
The 15,000 figure comes from iraqbodycount.net who bases the number on western media reports of civilians killed, and only includes those reports that have been reported by at least 2 sources. Their methodology is very conservative and if anything vastly underestimates the number of civilian casualties. The 100,000 figure is probably closer to the reality, but it is based on extrapolation so it is not very precise.
Wiki is great but it isn't the best tool for everything. Technical FAQs are perhaps better maintained by a small group of people who know what needs to be covered because they are the ones who answer those questions all the time. Wiki probably isn't the tool you need for a FAQ. I remember the linux-ppc faq-o-matic, which was sort of wiki-ish, and while there were some incredibly useful pages, it was very hard to find specific information you might want. FAQ's are better handled through a more straightforward index. The Wiki model is more of the kind of thing Vannevar Bush had in mind with "associative indexing" -- a kind of intuitive movement through data based on what grabs you at the moment, rather than a systematic but linear index.
If they hired a squadron of editors and fact checkers, things might be better, but that's not how wiki is supposed to work...
Actually, I don't think hiring people to keep wiki honest would go against the spirit of wiki any more than getting paid to work on free software would go against the spirit of free software. I think the open source model works best if people have a stake in keeping the project progressing -- which includes deleting junk material in wiki entries just like you would delete junk code from an open source project. If Wikipedia had the funding to pay people to delete vandalism and other crap, it would be much more consistently reliable. As it is it is much more reliable than I ever would have expected most of the time. I contribute a reasonable amount to wiki, so I notice how quickly vandalism gets noticed and removed, at least on popular pages. Subtle misinformation is more difficult -- entries have to be reviewed by someone familiar with the issues -- but I think if it was someone's full time job to do this, a lot less would slip through.
Funny how you've ignored all of the arguments I've made except the ones you thought you could answer and those continued to dwindle away until we're arguing about Richard Clarke testifying to the 9/11 Commission -- I watched the hearings and I don't know what you're talking about, nor how it is relevant. Which specific claim of Clarke's do you disagree with that I mentioned? You're the one who brought him up. I was talking about Bush and Ashcroft; but I guess since you couldn't defend them you'd attack Clarke instead. Whatever.
Just to clarify on the Ashcroft thing, you're saying then that you agree with his decision not to enforce laws that would have helped us find out if known terrorists were buying firearms? Whether or not you agree he's in the NRA's "back pocket" is irrelevant; what matters to me is that he's made the country less safe.
This is trademark law, not copyright law. Nintendo wants to protect their trademark, and they are probably upset seeing their wholesome epileptic seizure-inducing videogames slandered by association with hot goth chicks. Of course, this has got to be the stupidist thing I've ever heard of, and I wish suicidegirls could sue them for threatening a frivolous lawsuit. There is no way Nintendo would win this they are just trying to intimidate the site. You can see from the letter it's a form letter they spam to anyone mentioning their characters on a "sexually oriented" site.
Let's see if they'll send me a letter: Hey Nintendo! Zelda and Metorid love to get naked and oiled up and have sex with linux goth sluts all day long!! Black fishnets, fuck yeah!!!
LOL... Clarke is one of the most honest people in public service. I haven't seen a credible motive for him lying about anything. But the 9-11 Commission confirmed much of what he said, so I don't see your point. The Ashcroft thing was a bad link on my part -- try this one to see an example of him not enforcing laws that exist (as opposed to the other link which was about him turning a blind eye to the ease of terrorists acquiring legal guns). But legal or illegal, my point that Ashcroft is in the NRA's back pocket stands. And no I don't want Ashcroft to take guns away from crybaby hunters; I just want him to make the really deadly stuff harder for terrorists to get.
I could go on and on about the crimes of Bush and Ashcroft, but it's clear you're not interested in hearing other sides of an argument.
Cute. I guess the other things don't count then. I don't doubt he's a hard worker; I do question his fitness for office.
"re-started" what?
The war on terrorism; you might have heard of it? The war on al Qaeda specifically, which the Bush administration completely ignored until 9/11, after which Bush gave a speech that almost word for word copied Clinton's 1998 speech.
And he has not refused to enforce any laws. It's never happened. You're confused.
(ME): His refusal to go after terrorists and their ilk on the American right.
(YOU):Never happened.
Again, cute, but not responsive. Of course it happened; read the link to the UPI article from my post. Unless you prefer to answer arguments by putting your hands over your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!" which is basically what your "it never happened" amounts to.
Those tons of weapons went missing right out from under the Bush Administration's nose, you moron! In case you forgot, we left the UN out of our little obsession with invading Iraq. And that dreamops site you link is a great source of selective information filtered for the dittohead, but get real; there was no Iraq-alQaeda connection, there were no WMDs, and there was no threat to the US. Saddam was an evil thug who the world should be glad to be rid of, but the war has made al Qaeda stronger and the US more vulnerable. That is what we should be concerned with, not still gloating about the sight of a miserable old man climbing out of a hole in the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't think He was going to just sit around and watch people destroy His main source of cheap cocaine, do you?
Finally, someone who can explain free market economics in terms we all can understand.
I think Homer Simpson inadvertently walked out with it.
Oops, sorry, wrong OS troll....
Well, after hearing the election results, Microsoft figured the dollar was going to tank soon....
I've heard the KRKs - don't remember which ones but they were about $400 for the pair - and they were great. I recommend the ones I use, the M-Audio BX5 which are $300 a pair. Not mobile and light like the MA-8s but for your price range they have terrific sound and put out 75 watts as opposed to the DM-20s 20 watts. I also have the SP-5Bs on my turntables and they are basically the same as the bx5s but they allow you to adjust the direction of the tweeter which can be useful in critical listening environments. If you're recording these are nice monitors for the price. I've listened to $1000+ Event monitors and they do sound much nicer; if I had the money and wanted a recording studio I would probably spend it on those, but for $300 a pair these suit my needs fine.
The machines worked perfectly. The candidate who was supposed to get elected, did.
Yeah no doubt! That's why our national anthem goes "America, Fuck yeah!!"
What do you mean, that's not our national anthem?
You mean the tally box registered a bunch of votes for Al Gore?
Is there any PPC Linux (Live CD or otherwise) that will work on a Blue G3 that has SCSI (most of them had ATA interface but they made a few with SCSI)? I've been messing with one on and off over the last year, with several distros to no avail. It's been a few months but as I recall the machine would not even boot from the CDs.
Only if you're also serious about paying $2,000-4,000 per meter!
Get yourself a set of Roland MA-8 Powered Studio Monitors. They are small and simple, with a big sound for such a small speaker. They're meant to be reference monitors so they have a nice clean sound; I haven't heard the Bose but I can almost guarantee you'll like the Rolands at least as well if not better. Only slightly less portable than the Bose. And you can plug anything into them that has an RCA-style adapter.
That was a Bush Administration decision; hard to claim that Kerry is better for Osama there.
Kerry has already said he wants to pull US troops out of Iraq based on a timeline rather than milestones.
The longer US troops stay in Iraq, the better for bin Laden. We're talking thousands of new al Qaeda (and affiliate) recruits for every additional month we stay there. The invasion of Iraq itself was a gift to bin Laden, wasting US lives, resources, and energy focused on the wrong enemy (who was in fact an enemy of al Qaeda!) Apart from the new recruits the Iraq war has brought, it has also taken out one of bin Laden's biggest enemies in the middle east (Saddam) and has created a power vacuum and instability in Iraq, where al Qaeda can now roam free (which never happened under Saddam). Not to mention the tons of unguarded munitions that have been made available to terrorists. Again, your argument suggests that bin Laden would much prefer four more years of Bush.
Bush has made it clear that the mission in Iraq is not just to oust a repressive dictatorship but to act as a lever for taking control of other countries from royal families or clerics and giving it to the people's directly elected representatives.
Actually that is Osama's declared goal, at least with respect to Saudi Arabia. And you're crazy if you think either Bush or Kerry would ever permit it to happen (assuming they get any say in it at all). Bush's friends run Saudi Arabia and the other Arab emirates. The last thing Bush wants is them replaced with truly representative governments, and I think Kerry is on the same boat here.
Kerry does not want the US to lead the world; he wants some "global test" on policies
Are you saying that bin Laden supports the UN? Again, that's just idiotic. Kerry wants a US policy that doesn't make us the laughing stock of the rest of the world. One that recognizes the need to lead with credibility, not just force. Bush opposes that. I think bin Laden would prefer the leader who constantly embarrasses the US and runs our international legitimacy into the ground.
Finally, a Kerry victory will -- as has been covered by quite a few Western and Middle Eastern bloggers -- be seen as a retreat by the US, and a victory for forces of terror.
Seen by whom? In what way? If Kerry is elected and focuses our energy on getting bin Laden and destroying al Qaeda, that will not be seen as a victory for terrorism.
All in all, I think it is clear that Osama bin Laden has more to gain from a Kerry victory than a Bush victory. If you listen to other translations of his recent tapes, there is a fairly strong suggestion that states that vote Kerry will be spared from bin Laden's wrath.
You're obviously talking about the MEMRI translation, which mentions this sentence. The majority of MEMRI's analysis is not from the bin Laden tape but from an anonymous Islamist website. (Arabic speaker) As'ad Abu Khalil had the following to say about the MEMRI selection:
Finally, if you want to give credence to what terrorist leaders say, look back to earlier this year when the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades (an al Qaeda affiliate organization) officially endorsed
...and Eye, for one, welcome our cephalopod overlords!
The 15,000 figure comes from iraqbodycount.net who bases the number on western media reports of civilians killed, and only includes those reports that have been reported by at least 2 sources. Their methodology is very conservative and if anything vastly underestimates the number of civilian casualties. The 100,000 figure is probably closer to the reality, but it is based on extrapolation so it is not very precise.
Wiki is great but it isn't the best tool for everything. Technical FAQs are perhaps better maintained by a small group of people who know what needs to be covered because they are the ones who answer those questions all the time. Wiki probably isn't the tool you need for a FAQ. I remember the linux-ppc faq-o-matic, which was sort of wiki-ish, and while there were some incredibly useful pages, it was very hard to find specific information you might want. FAQ's are better handled through a more straightforward index. The Wiki model is more of the kind of thing Vannevar Bush had in mind with "associative indexing" -- a kind of intuitive movement through data based on what grabs you at the moment, rather than a systematic but linear index.
Actually, I don't think hiring people to keep wiki honest would go against the spirit of wiki any more than getting paid to work on free software would go against the spirit of free software. I think the open source model works best if people have a stake in keeping the project progressing -- which includes deleting junk material in wiki entries just like you would delete junk code from an open source project. If Wikipedia had the funding to pay people to delete vandalism and other crap, it would be much more consistently reliable. As it is it is much more reliable than I ever would have expected most of the time. I contribute a reasonable amount to wiki, so I notice how quickly vandalism gets noticed and removed, at least on popular pages. Subtle misinformation is more difficult -- entries have to be reviewed by someone familiar with the issues -- but I think if it was someone's full time job to do this, a lot less would slip through.
first.post
Just to clarify on the Ashcroft thing, you're saying then that you agree with his decision not to enforce laws that would have helped us find out if known terrorists were buying firearms? Whether or not you agree he's in the NRA's "back pocket" is irrelevant; what matters to me is that he's made the country less safe.
Wow - you must live in Soviet Russia.
Let's see if they'll send me a letter: Hey Nintendo! Zelda and Metorid love to get naked and oiled up and have sex with linux goth sluts all day long!! Black fishnets, fuck yeah!!!
I could go on and on about the crimes of Bush and Ashcroft, but it's clear you're not interested in hearing other sides of an argument.
Cute. I guess the other things don't count then. I don't doubt he's a hard worker; I do question his fitness for office.
"re-started" what?
The war on terrorism; you might have heard of it? The war on al Qaeda specifically, which the Bush administration completely ignored until 9/11, after which Bush gave a speech that almost word for word copied Clinton's 1998 speech.
And he has not refused to enforce any laws. It's never happened. You're confused.
Here's one example of what I'm talking about.
(ME): His refusal to go after terrorists and their ilk on the American right.
(YOU):Never happened.
Again, cute, but not responsive. Of course it happened; read the link to the UPI article from my post. Unless you prefer to answer arguments by putting your hands over your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!" which is basically what your "it never happened" amounts to.
George Bush, fuck yeah!
Those tons of weapons went missing right out from under the Bush Administration's nose, you moron! In case you forgot, we left the UN out of our little obsession with invading Iraq. And that dreamops site you link is a great source of selective information filtered for the dittohead, but get real; there was no Iraq-alQaeda connection, there were no WMDs, and there was no threat to the US. Saddam was an evil thug who the world should be glad to be rid of, but the war has made al Qaeda stronger and the US more vulnerable. That is what we should be concerned with, not still gloating about the sight of a miserable old man climbing out of a hole in the ground.