3.) He lied under oath to a grand jury....that's why he was impeached...get it straight.
Its debatable if he even lied, and even if he did lie, its not necessarily purgery. He said he "did not have sexual relations" with Monica.
sexual relations==euphamism for intercourse oral sex!=intercourse
So, at least in that statement, he wasn't lying. Splitting hairs yes, lying no.
But even if he did lie under oath, its not purgery if its not relevant. As his getting a BJ from Monica didn't have anything to do with the supposed harrasment against Paula Jones, it wasn't relevant.
The marketplace didn't kill the Newton, Steve Jobs did. Apple spun off the Newton into its own profitable company, but when Jobs came back he gave it the axe.
People who think the Palm was a Newton copy are nuts.
Copied, no, but many of the laid off Newton engineers went to work at Palm.
The real problem with the list was that the Newton was on it
Bzzt! The only problem with the Newtons is that there wasn't a low cost, compact consumer model. They didn't have time to try to make one. But a used Newton is still one of the most powerful PDA's you can have.
If you can't do maintainance on it, expecting 10 years of regular use out of something with moveable parts is probably a pipe dream, no matter how old you are.:)
You've got it a$$-backwards. Republicans wanted to redistrict primarily because 56% of Republicans voted Republican in 2002-2003 yet the Democrats have over 50% of the seats in the U.S. House. Whatever the motivations are, the end result is that it's more fair and that the votes of Texas become *more* meaningful, not less.
Sounds like you are the one who has it backwards. 56% you say? Is that why they're "adjusting" it so they'll have 70% of the seats? How, in any way whatsoever, is that fair to the other 44% of the voters?
Nonsense. It was the Democrat who forced the issue to the Tex. Supreme Court which would predictably (for a variety of reasons) decide to keep the districts as they were; if they had passed a redistricting bill like they should have, Democrats would have inevitably lost seats.
The only one spouting nonsense is you. As the Democrats in Pennselvania put it, why should they get 5 seats for a million Democratic voters, while the Republicans get 10 seats for the same number? If the Republicans were pushing for 56% of congressional districts you might have a point about Democratic obstruction, but they weren't so you don't.
Term limits make politicians less responsive to people's needs, not more. They will make for more corruption and graft, not less. If a congressman is only going to be around for a couple of terms, whats going to stop him for selling you out for some corporation in exchange for kickbacks or the promise of a cushy job for a vote on key legislation? If a congressional politician can't make a career out of it, he'll constantly be looking for their next career. What's going to get him another career: pleasing voters or pleasing corporations who can actually give him a job after he's out of office?
And term limits wont do a damn thing to fix the problem of gerrymandering. The reason all these seats are unchallenged is because there is a concentration of voters of one party or another in those districts. All term limits will do is you'll have different people holding these seats, but they'll still be of the same party, the partisanship will be just as bad and congressional representation will be just as out of touch with the actual population as it is now.
Finally, term limits restrict your choice to vote for whomever you want to. Why would anyone want to limit their own right to vote, the bedrock of any democracy or republic?
It seems that those with their heads up their asses forget that those votes were certified by Katherine Harris, the Republican Secretary of State and Bush's campaign manager, who for some reason was in a hurry to have the first count (which coincidentally had Bush ahead) as the official count.
Its also "funny" how illegitimate overseas ballots were counted if they were for Bush, in one case a Republican election official even allowed workers to take home some of those ballots and finish filling them out so they could be counted.
The agency is bloated, outmoded, and far to political. It's long since ceased to be a research and engineering agency, and is now a political animal, intent purely on justifying its budget to congress.
In defense to NASA, Congress had a great hand in making said mess. Senators cared little for scientific advancement and cared a lot about brining home some pork to their home state. Its amazing how a blathering "all taxes are evil! Evil!" Senator will love a bloated, wasteful government program if it brings jobs to his state. Phil Gram was a perfect example of this: big government, high taxes, blah blah blah, and then turned around and said "I'm carrying so much pork I've got trichinosis". I heard somebody say that one reason why the shuttle program hasn't been improved or replaced is because it makes jobs for 30 states.
So NASA learned how to play the game and promotes projects that create lots of jobs for the home states of a few senators.
The only hope, strangely, comes from the military.
I think it was a briliant gambit, that ended 40 years of the "Cold War."
I disagree. You may be leaps and bounds over you adversary (i.e. our within-3-meters missile targeting technology vs their hope-it-lands-within-a-mile), but that doesn't mean much when said adversary can still kill you 1,000 times over.
The one who deserves the credit for the change in Soviet Russia is Gorbachev , and his policy of glasnost, or openess, not Reagan, who merely continued a 40 year long arms race.
the anti-God secular humanist agenda being a prime one
Oh, what "the anti-God secular humanist agenda" are you talking about, exactly? The United States is probably the most religious country in the western world, likely because we never had a state-sponsored religion shoved down our throats to create a backlash (i.e. Ireland and Italy). A politician who regularly mixed their religion and their politics together would be an oddity in Europe, as opposed to most Republicans and a few Democrats here. Its a wonder its taken almost 50 years to challenged that little addition made to the Pledge of Allegiance back in the mid-fifties.
Just as government isn't the answer for everything because it doesn't have to care about efficiency, business isn't the answer to everything be cause its first and last priority is making money. The problem with space exploration is that safety requirements are astronomically higher than anything else that only governments can do it. If its "left up to private enterprise", its a question of when, not if, corners will be cut and we'll have a Challenger or Columbia disaster on a regular basis rather than once every 20 years.
Its not so much that I don't like Ogg, I think its great that we have a open, decent sounding, lossy compression for audio. What's annoying is the number of people who bitch about player $foo not supporting it, when most of those people probably have mostly mp3 collections, mostly.
Um, no. Due to the "safe harbor" provisions for isp's in federal law, isp's are only liable if they are *notified* about infringing activity and don't take any reasonable action. They don't have to search people's machines to cover their asses if there has been no such notification.
Just because it doesn't say "privacy" anywhere in the amendment doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with it. "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." sounds pretty specific to me. And, just how do you violate someone's privacy, *without* violating the security of said items, or doing "unreasonable searches and seizures"?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You're embarrassed because either you have a lack of understanding, or you know you're doing something wrong.
Baloney. Sex with your wife is a perfectly normal, healthy thing. Would you be embarrased if she was giving you head and her parents walked in on you during a surprise visit?
Household rules need to be followed by everybody, but a lot of parents make a mistake of laying down all kinds of rules for their kids to follow, but fraglently violate those rules themselves. i.e. telling your 16 year old that she will never see 17 if you catch her drinking beer or smoking, while you have one every day while you get off work and smoke two packs a day.
If you can snoop on their internet activities, they should be able to snoop on yours. After all, they need to be certain that their dad isn't a tax evading child molester from the 70's.
And because Microsoft makes it incredibly easy for them to do so. Even if Apple had 95% marketshare, they would only have a fraction of a percentage of the number of problems that Microsoft has.
Most of the "show stopper" worms and viruses for MS's products aren't from some obscure buffer overflow, but because they were designed without any thought to security.
Yes, they allow people to "undermine" the law by getting around traffic tickets (if you're alert,)
From my standpoint, why should people *not* have the right to know when they're being watched? Furthermore, there are plenty of legit reasons to use a radar dector: oversealous patrolmen (the kind who pull you over for 1 mile over the limit), and those last couple days of the month when officers are trying to meet their "performance expectations". Oh, and if you are worried about getting pulled over for a DWB offense.
Slashdot Mirror
3.) He lied under oath to a grand jury....that's why he was impeached...get it straight.
Its debatable if he even lied, and even if he did lie, its not necessarily purgery. He said he "did not have sexual relations" with Monica.
sexual relations==euphamism for intercourse
oral sex!=intercourse
So, at least in that statement, he wasn't lying. Splitting hairs yes, lying no.
But even if he did lie under oath, its not purgery if its not relevant. As his getting a BJ from Monica didn't have anything to do with the supposed harrasment against Paula Jones, it wasn't relevant.
because it's properitary hardware
What hardware would that be, exactly? Name a single piece of any modern Mac that is.
The Newton was a short-lived market failure.
The marketplace didn't kill the Newton, Steve Jobs did. Apple spun off the Newton into its own profitable company, but when Jobs came back he gave it the axe.
People who think the Palm was a Newton copy are nuts.
Copied, no, but many of the laid off Newton engineers went to work at Palm.
The real problem with the list was that the Newton was on it
Bzzt! The only problem with the Newtons is that there wasn't a low cost, compact consumer model. They didn't have time to try to make one. But a used Newton is still one of the most powerful PDA's you can have.
Zip drives, to put it bluntly, are reliability disasters.
They're still 100x better than floppies.
I expect my stuff to last at least 10 years.
:)
If you can't do maintainance on it, expecting 10 years of regular use out of something with moveable parts is probably a pipe dream, no matter how old you are.
You've got it a$$-backwards. Republicans wanted to redistrict primarily because 56% of Republicans voted Republican in 2002-2003 yet the Democrats have over 50% of the seats in the U.S. House. Whatever the motivations are, the end result is that it's more fair and that the votes of Texas become *more* meaningful, not less.
Sounds like you are the one who has it backwards. 56% you say? Is that why they're "adjusting" it so they'll have 70% of the seats? How, in any way whatsoever, is that fair to the other 44% of the voters?
Nonsense. It was the Democrat who forced the issue to the Tex. Supreme Court which would predictably (for a variety of reasons) decide to keep the districts as they were; if they had passed a redistricting bill like they should have, Democrats would have inevitably lost seats.
The only one spouting nonsense is you. As the Democrats in Pennselvania put it, why should they get 5 seats for a million Democratic voters, while the Republicans get 10 seats for the same number? If the Republicans were pushing for 56% of congressional districts you might have a point about Democratic obstruction, but they weren't so you don't.
Term limits make politicians less responsive to people's needs, not more. They will make for more corruption and graft, not less. If a congressman is only going to be around for a couple of terms, whats going to stop him for selling you out for some corporation in exchange for kickbacks or the promise of a cushy job for a vote on key legislation? If a congressional politician can't make a career out of it, he'll constantly be looking for their next career. What's going to get him another career: pleasing voters or pleasing corporations who can actually give him a job after he's out of office?
And term limits wont do a damn thing to fix the problem of gerrymandering. The reason all these seats are unchallenged is because there is a concentration of voters of one party or another in those districts. All term limits will do is you'll have different people holding these seats, but they'll still be of the same party, the partisanship will be just as bad and congressional representation will be just as out of touch with the actual population as it is now.
Finally, term limits restrict your choice to vote for whomever you want to. Why would anyone want to limit their own right to vote, the bedrock of any democracy or republic?
It seems that those with their heads up their asses forget that those votes were certified by Katherine Harris, the Republican Secretary of State and Bush's campaign manager, who for some reason was in a hurry to have the first count (which coincidentally had Bush ahead) as the official count.
Its also "funny" how illegitimate overseas ballots were counted if they were for Bush, in one case a Republican election official even allowed workers to take home some of those ballots and finish filling them out so they could be counted.
The agency is bloated, outmoded, and far to political. It's long since ceased to be a research and engineering agency, and is now a political animal, intent purely on justifying its budget to congress.
In defense to NASA, Congress had a great hand in making said mess. Senators cared little for scientific advancement and cared a lot about brining home some pork to their home state. Its amazing how a blathering "all taxes are evil! Evil!" Senator will love a bloated, wasteful government program if it brings jobs to his state. Phil Gram was a perfect example of this: big government, high taxes, blah blah blah, and then turned around and said "I'm carrying so much pork I've got trichinosis". I heard somebody say that one reason why the shuttle program hasn't been improved or replaced is because it makes jobs for 30 states.
So NASA learned how to play the game and promotes projects that create lots of jobs for the home states of a few senators.
The only hope, strangely, comes from the military.
No pork there, either.
I think it was a briliant gambit, that ended 40 years of the "Cold War."
I disagree. You may be leaps and bounds over you adversary (i.e. our within-3-meters missile targeting technology vs their hope-it-lands-within-a-mile), but that doesn't mean much when said adversary can still kill you 1,000 times over.
The one who deserves the credit for the change in Soviet Russia is Gorbachev , and his policy of glasnost, or openess, not Reagan, who merely continued a 40 year long arms race.
the anti-God secular humanist agenda being a prime one
Oh, what "the anti-God secular humanist agenda" are you talking about, exactly? The United States is probably the most religious country in the western world, likely because we never had a state-sponsored religion shoved down our throats to create a backlash (i.e. Ireland and Italy). A politician who regularly mixed their religion and their politics together would be an oddity in Europe, as opposed to most Republicans and a few Democrats here. Its a wonder its taken almost 50 years to challenged that little addition made to the Pledge of Allegiance back in the mid-fifties.
Just as government isn't the answer for everything because it doesn't have to care about efficiency, business isn't the answer to everything be cause its first and last priority is making money. The problem with space exploration is that safety requirements are astronomically higher than anything else that only governments can do it. If its "left up to private enterprise", its a question of when, not if, corners will be cut and we'll have a Challenger or Columbia disaster on a regular basis rather than once every 20 years.
Its not so much that I don't like Ogg, I think its great that we have a open, decent sounding, lossy compression for audio. What's annoying is the number of people who bitch about player $foo not supporting it, when most of those people probably have mostly mp3 collections, mostly.
A product not meeting your exacting needs means that its not meeting your exacting needs, not that its "flawed".
2) No ogg vorbis support.
Fuck Ogg. Fuck it up its stupid ass. Outside of about 5 regular trolls on Slashdot, nobody cares about Ogg.
a generous 100megs a day
Cirra 1992, sure, but today? 100 megs? Generous? Please. You can do more than that a day on a modem, much less broadband.
In a word, liability.
Um, no. Due to the "safe harbor" provisions for isp's in federal law, isp's are only liable if they are *notified* about infringing activity and don't take any reasonable action. They don't have to search people's machines to cover their asses if there has been no such notification.
Just because it doesn't say "privacy" anywhere in the amendment doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with it. "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." sounds pretty specific to me. And, just how do you violate someone's privacy, *without* violating the security of said items, or doing "unreasonable searches and seizures"?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Eat that, bizzo.
You're embarrassed because either you have a lack of understanding, or you know you're doing something wrong.
Baloney. Sex with your wife is a perfectly normal, healthy thing. Would you be embarrased if she was giving you head and her parents walked in on you during a surprise visit?
Household rules need to be followed by everybody, but a lot of parents make a mistake of laying down all kinds of rules for their kids to follow, but fraglently violate those rules themselves. i.e. telling your 16 year old that she will never see 17 if you catch her drinking beer or smoking, while you have one every day while you get off work and smoke two packs a day.
If you can snoop on their internet activities, they should be able to snoop on yours. After all, they need to be certain that their dad isn't a tax evading child molester from the 70's.
Parents, once you're past making the huge mistake of actually letting the kids have computers in their rooms
So, Kent, how long have you been beating your wife?
People write for MS because it's what people use.
And because Microsoft makes it incredibly easy for them to do so. Even if Apple had 95% marketshare, they would only have a fraction of a percentage of the number of problems that Microsoft has.
Most of the "show stopper" worms and viruses for MS's products aren't from some obscure buffer overflow, but because they were designed without any thought to security.
Heck, it used to pay money to the families of suicide bombers.
Heck, we give billions in military and economic aid to support an illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Yes, they allow people to "undermine" the law by getting around traffic tickets (if you're alert,)
From my standpoint, why should people *not* have the right to know when they're being watched? Furthermore, there are plenty of legit reasons to use a radar dector: oversealous patrolmen (the kind who pull you over for 1 mile over the limit), and those last couple days of the month when officers are trying to meet their "performance expectations". Oh, and if you are worried about getting pulled over for a DWB offense.
Stealing is stealing and this is theft.
Gah. Did you explain to this sap that P2P is copyright infringment, not theft?