I may be misinformed, but I dont recall the vast majority of those held captive in Cuba as being Iraqi Citizens, but rather from bordering or neighboring countries. If that is truly the case, your point is not valid.
The persons held in Cuba were captured mostly in Afghanistan; that's the reason they're there. Iraqis captured in battle are held at Iraqi prisons and must be treated according to the Geneva Conventions (which is one of the reasons Saddam Hussein remains in Iraq).
The entire post was regarding Afghanistan, not Iraq.
the people at Guantanamo were all captured on the battlefield against US soldiers, operating under the control of no nation, not signatories to any of the Geneva conventions, are not US citizens, and in many cases have been shown to have attended training events on terrorism tactics.
So, what, is war now something that you can't go to without first passing some tests? People aren't allowed to defend their land from invasion by a foreign force without first checking in with the head-office and reading "7 Habits of Highly Effective Soldiers" and "Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned at the Geneva Convention"?
I think people are quick to dismiss the rights of those held in Cuba; if our places were reversed and it was a Middle Eastern country invading the US to spread Shariah Islamic Law, would you be so quick to condemn your countrymen--fellow citizens--caught fighting that force? Because they're disorganized and haven't been through boot camp?
The fact is those people were defending against invaders, ideological differences aside, and were not wealthy enough to have a highly-organized and well-trained militia like much of the rest of the world. Just like many Americans don't feel the government adequately represents their interests abroad, it's certainly within the realm of reason that some of those individuals did not feel Osama bin Laden represented their interests in attacking the US, but when a counter-attack was launched it was a matter of defending their home and way of life.
Being poor requires fighting face-to-face and with short-range mortar and explosives, not invisibly from the skies like Americans, and these people resorted to whatever tactics were necessary to muster a defense against invaders. In my opinion (whose weight is questionable), it is much more a terrorist act to strike at an enemy from the sky without fear of retribution than to fight him on level-ground, face-to-face. At least when you can see your enemy you know who you've killed, instead of accidentally exploding a wedding party.
The reasons you're giving for giving the OK for locking up these prisoners of war sound an awful lot like the reasons given for rounding up and imprisoning or killing Native Americans (and I have therefore a hard time accepting that). My point behind replying is to say that the quickness with which you determine guilt and innocence can easily be turned on you and the ones about whom you care. Justification of the treatment is justification of your own treatment.
I am not speaking regarding the rest of your post (which may or may not have merit).
If everyone else is in the Bluy-Ray camp and Microsoft isn't, then Microsoft will not look like it is leading the industry - an image they have been cultivating for nearly two decades.
The problem is it's not just an image: it's a reality. Microsoft's customer base is huge, and while many companies would probably enjoy being able to snub them, sometimes pride has to take a back seat to profit.
When you know ahead of time that Microsoft is going to sell a hundred million Xbox 360s with HD-DVD drives, you've suddenly overcome the most expensive part of the process of having consumers adopt a new technology without spending a cent. Many companies are inclined to go along for the ride on the money train.
They will have to make HD-DVD work as a standard or accept defeat and use Blue-Ray in their next iteration of XBox.
What is more likely is that as time goes on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD drives will become combo drives much like DVD+R/-R/+RW/DL/etc. drives of today.
Besides, I think just about the worst thing that can happen is to have everyone settle on either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Both are going to have their benefits and drawbacks, but without choice and without competition the field will stagnate. There's often no reason to make something better than what's out there when you know no one else will either.
I feel like I ought to know better than to call a troll out, but let's get to it.
if you're going to post two dictionary definitions, take the time to read them.
I didn't post anything of the sort; I got swept up in reading you try to bulldoze your way over sense and decided to chime in the one time I have thus far.
Second,
vanishingly
adv : so as to disappear or approach zero
If you're using the damned word "vanishingly" then that's what you're saying: that the number of 64-bit platform Flash player users is approaching zero percent. Just to be sure, let's see what you said:
Flash player users on 64-bit platforms are a vanishingly small percentage of Flash player users
Or one could say, Flash player users on 64-bit platforms are a small percentage approaching zero of Flash player users.
You're hopefully done denying that you've said things you've said. That aside, can't we just agree that, fuck, there are some users of the player and that by alienating those users Macromedia isn't doing itself any favors?
Yes, it appears your point was that the number of 64-bit platform Flash player users is approaching zero percent. To do that the number of 64-bit platform Flash player users must be greater than 0 but decreasing towards zero.
You offer no evidence to support this but you still proclaim it to be factual. The point the poster was making is that what you're saying is untrue as the number of 64-bit systems is increasing.
The larger point to be made is that while Macromedia doesn't make money from the Flash player, they make money from Flash developers. Flash developers need their content, which they use to make money, to reach certain audiences. If major computer vendors are now selling 64-bit capable computers running 64-bit operating systems and those users, by default, cannot view Flash content, then the developers lose money and are less inclined to develop in Flash. Why continue using Flash if it will not run on modern hardware available for purchase today for the same cost as yesterday's hardware? Macromedia then loses money.
Your post makes it sound like Macromedia is an altruistic angel doing what they do only for the good of the Internet, the community and the world. They're doing it for money and they're ignoring an emerging (and the all-encompassing future) market.
Macintosh computers make up a vanishingly (literally, since Mac sales have declined as of late) small percentage of computer users as well and are 64-bit; ought Macromedia ignore them as well?
As long as you're lumping everyone together let's say that members of the military will never win a war because the cook aboard the Kitty Hawk is a conscientious objector and never took weapons training. Actors will never star in a movie that generates a hundred million dollars in revenue because Paul Reubens is still acting. Every surgery will result in the death of the patient because Jane Nurse of Cleveland brought the wrong blood type for transfusion. And every psychologist and psychiatrist will tell you the problem is your fault and no one will conquer mental malaise.
Your descriptions are vivid but are relegated to a niche. One thing I notice is that you seem to be advocating that there be the right solution or no solution at all. Medicines, gene therapy, electro-shock therapy, none of those things sound all that hot too me. While they may cure anxiety or depression or any other problem, they're not even close to something I would want to touch.
You appear to be advocating a "do it this way or it will never be fixed" approach. Somehow I imagine that someone else has thought of this only to be asked how they were able to successfully diagnose and provide the framework for a cure for people they had never met, never examined, and never talked to.
What irks me most is that you are nearly stating that if they can't fix everything they shouldn't fix anything. Sort of a We can't get this collapsed building back together and upright, so let's not even bother to clean up the mess. Not all medicine is about cures. There is no cure for HIV, so should we stop dealing with the effects of the disease? I would say no. We do what we can with what we have to best try to affect the change we want.
I'll close by saying that you seem to be as passionate about this topic as I am about others not telling me or others how they should approach healthcare.
exactly my point, lossy encoders like xvid (or any kind of mpeg4) and mp3 (or ogg or aac), will remove the digital watermarks or at least make them unrecognizeable...
No, they won't. You don't seem to have seen downloaded movies before. Those dots make it through--in fact, it's the exact reason they're there. Simply because no one is being sued or arrested means nothing; the people that are putting the dots there are doing it for research purposes. Where are the majority of cams made? In which theatres are the cams made? How successful is transcoding in removing watermarks?
No, sorry, watermarking is not so easily removed, and your knowledge of modern video codecs is profoundly lacking.
(and the riaa wont be there to sue them too, they are far too corrupted for this:s)
The RIAA won't sue people because the RIAA is corrupt? I imagine this is a result of your local language causing you not to make sense. Either that, or once again you just don't know what you're talking about.
If i can capture both, the image and audio stream output from a media playing device, then re-encoding it will pretty definetly loose all the watermarks... so.... how can you backtrace just about anything ?
That must be why films shown in theatres have red dots all over the print-- because recording them with a camcorder and encoding as XviD just makes them magically disappear.
Her reasons for keeping it may be inscrutable, but she doesn't need to explain that to strangers on the street. It's not for sale.
Not for sale. And as a whole lot of other posters have pointed out, just because the web site only has banner ads doesn't mean the DNS entry is used only for that purpose. You're endorsing exactly the role of that committee: we'll decide whether or not you're properly using what you paid for.
Maybe you're being purposely obtuse, maybe you're just trolling, or maybe you just don't get that you can't take other people's property because you don't like, or understand, how they use it.
You seem to have misunderstood my example of the displays... My intention was to state that since I'm not using the old one, should I be forced to give it up even though it's mine?
That misunderstanding aside, your explanation that I'm not preventing anyone else from buying a flat panel display frames my point exactly: the OP can go buy a domain name, he just can't have that domain name. My hypothetical monitor-thief can go buy a monitor, he just can't have mine. The reason he can't have mine is because I went to the store and bought it before he did.
To put it another way, if my daughter purchases a custom wedding dress there is no person that has a right to take it from her, even with reasonable compensation, simply because she has already worn it the one time she'll wear it. Her reasons for keeping it may be inscrutable, but she doesn't need to explain that to strangers on the street. It's not for sale.
There are legitimate cases where some knob bought the domain name just because they wanted to feel better about themselves, and aren't really doing anything with it.
I bought a new flat panel monitor about a year ago. My old CRT monitor is sitting in my closet, on the floor, and hasn't been plugged in in over a year. Is it the right of you, or anyone else, to come into my home and tell me that since I am not putting my property to the use that others have deemed it should be that I must relinquish ownership?
I don't want to answer my own question, but give me a break. There is no such right. My neighbor's Jaguar is hardly ever driven, and just because I'd prefer to take a car to work instead of the bus doesn't mean I can appropriate it for my own use. It's not mine.
Your "A Good Thing" logic is nothing more than second-guessing and is a short ride down the slope to explaining to a committee why you want to withdraw a hundred dollars from the ATM.
Could NASA have gotten away with flying Shuttles after Columbia?
Yes, and honestly I'm surprised they ever stopped. There had been over a hundred flights when the fleet was grounded after two catastrophes spaced fifteen years apart. Certainly that's something to endeavour to learn from and eliminate, but space flight is an inherently risky venture. There is a risk of loss of life but the opportunity to leave the planet for the heavens and perform scientific studies that will benefit mankind is supposed to outweigh that. Please don't think I'm saying "who cares" with regard to safety, but it seems Americans, so trapped by their fear of pain or death, have decided that everything must be perfectly safe or they're not doing anything.
The people in the shuttle program are primarily military personnel, so it's even more interesting that we are now requiring the same level of security and safety for shuttle flights as we are for commercial airline flights. These are supposed to be our frontiersmen, who explore the next and most dangerous places to be explored. So why is it that if a shuttle engineer has a bad dream the night before the launch they cancel the entire flight?
What the hell happened to taking risks? The risks are what made the payout worthwhile--now we've got years and billions of dollars between shuttle flights for reasons that wouldn't have made NASA flinch ten years ago. A cry-baby syndrome has snuck its way into its bureaucracy via whiny Americans that have lived their entire lives without risk or discomfort. It is due in part to this that our space program is in as poor shape as it is.
The plan is to pick up a second one when the price drops to around $100.
By the time you pick up a second one for $100 you're going to be a long, long way behind the curve. The GeForce 6800 GT (the previous generation equivalent of your card), released in June of 2004, still retails for $260-$280. Even the vanilla 6800s are ~$175. I would be surprised if you could buy a 9800 Pro for $100.
SLI is a neat idea if the performance increase is tangible, but considering a single 7800 GTX can outperform an SLI setup of 6800 Ultras in many cases after only one year since the previous generation's release... by the time a 7800 GT is $100, it won't be worth $100 (much like all $100 video cards).
New version of Sysprep, better unattended setup functionality
AMD64
Integrated CD writing
Larger base of hardware compatibility
But yeah, I mean, if the GP says there's no difference there mustn't be. All the things you and I listed exist only if you know what you're talking about.
I'm no apologist, but at least I'm not also an idiot.
I think this is the first time I have seen the words "practical" and "pragmatic" in the same sentence with "Steve Jobs". Remember the reality distortion field?
Steve Jobs is a very, very successful business man and one of the most recognized names in technology. He's the head of a company whose customers are in reverence of it, insanely and irresponsibly wealthy, and played a large role in the current state of the music business and its impact on society. These things happened because he is practical and pragmatic and shrewd with no small amount of luck. The RDF is a product of marketing and hype and exists only because Jobs is good at what he does.
This is a great example of how using colors and shapes can easily obviate the need for long text. If every single dialog that results from a non-undoable action is red, it takes far less time to think "Red -> Non-undoable" than "The action you are about to perform cannot be undone. -> Non-undoable."
Gnome, Windows, KDE and Mac OS X all do things I like with the GUI, but their relationships are so incestual it's getting a little tiresome. How about shaking things up (even a little bit, like Enlightenment)?
It's 2005 and Microsoft is just now getting around to fixing redraws of Windows? And Christ, what's their solution? Draw the same window the same way but require a DX9 compatible video card to do it. Microsoft has basically said "Dual core hyperthreading processors don't work that well with Windows, so go buy a third processor with another 225 million transistors that sucks up another 100 watts to enable you to... draw a window." Nevermind that the damn thing is called Windows.
It's only used if your using the same partitions as were on the disk before. What this does is just wipe out the "table of contents" of the partition. [...] Im not 100% certain this applies to ntfs though.
This is incorrect. If the disk has never been formatted (and is truly raw) then there is no quick format option available as there is no layout structure on the disk. If the disk has ever been formatted then quick format is an option.
Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 2003 have always formatted the drive as NTFS if selected and installed directly onto it. There are full and quick format options available in the setup process.
Manipulating Windows setup during the setup was the only way to get it to install on some older hardware. I used a lot of NTFSDOS to get things done. I ran into the same issues when manipulating files to have integrated SCSI drivers.
Out of curiosity, where did you get that little factoid?
Of course, the real answer here is AGAIN is use the CPU that best suits your application. They each have strengths and weaknesses. Any comparison is necessarily apples/oranges.
Wait, let me get this straight: two x86 CPUs using the same type of memory and identical peripheral hardware is "apples/oranges"? If your comparison were a different architecture against x86, like PowerPC, then you'd be a little more on target. This is more like fuji apples/gala apples
They can only track an individual on CCTV if they suspect them of criminal activity.
This is what the tinfoil-hat crowd fears, and rightly so. It shows that the entire surveillance system's propriety hinges on what is determined to be criminal activity at the time. Even though all criminal law is a determination at the time, there is a difference between outlawing something and having a system in place to immediately track/follow/eavesdrop/arrest/incarcerate all offenders.
The first step is to put the police-state infrastructure into place with the assurance that it won't be used in such a manner. In reality, it is entirely possible that it never will be used, and it would be foolish to believe that it must be. Likewise, it is foolish to believe that it never will be. The next step is to make criminal anything you want, and is considerably easier than the first step once you've completed that first step.
Beginning a police-state is far, far easier than ending one, and like most people I am spectacularly lazy. That's why I work now to stop it from ever materializing.
Hey now. So you're not into the game, can't tell the difference between plays... yet you're knowledgeable enoguh to complain that there's not a lot of new stuff happening?
I'm not into the game, am familiar with the rules and gameplay and can tell the difference between plays. Just like the multitude of secret handshakes, though, it's the same shit, different way. Am I knowledgable enough to complain there's not a lot of new stuff happening? Yes, absolutely. When The Matrix came out, were people wrong to complain about bullet-time not being new technology to them or were other people wrong to claim it was new to them? The answer, surprisingly, is that opinions, like assholes and elbows, aren't wrong. They're opinions. That's why they usually include "to me." Either way, I didn't say nothing new happened. I said not a lot of new stuff happens. That's why the primary complaint regarding the video game is that it doesn't do much but change which players are on what teams--the same thing happens in real football.
Your same argument could be made about modern art ("it all looks the same"), rock music ("it all sounds the same"), etc. It basically boils down to "I'm not well enough educated in the subject to understand it, but let me tell you why it's no good."
Yep, and those are all opinions. You might be bothered to notice that in my OP I said "While I'm not saying that people are in the wrong to appreciate football," indicating that I was stating my opinion and that people are free to believe and say whatever they want. I was, after all, explaining my reasons for not liking football (in reply to someone explaining their reasons for liking it). Maybe you missed that?
I suppose what bothers me the most about your statement is that if I don't like football then I must be an idiot about it. It's entirely possible to understand something and still dislike it. It's possible to understand something and dislike it and not appreciate it.
And saying that any given play is either dependent on the coach *or* a player is terribly ignorant; it's like saying that the success of a tech product comes down to *either* the CEO or *an* engineer. It doesn't make any sense; like any team activity, the interesting thing is the sum of the contributions and interactions by everyone involved.
You're right about it being a sum, and had you read carefully you would have noticed I was saying if it's not just the coach and it's not just the player, then it must be a combination of the two. If it's a combination then it isn't the poetic ballet the GP made it out to be, at least in my opinion, because the coach either orchestrates or he doesn't and it's either planned or generated on the spot. Either way, we're talking about a very limited field of play with very limited directions of motion and very limited variety for what most players do. In my world, that translates to "Whoopdee-doo." It's not the complexity of the quantum foam the GP made it out to be.
Football's not for everyone, certainly. Heck, I have a lot of problems with it. But then again, I understand the game well enough to have *educated* complaints.
I'm glad to see we agree on something: football is not for everyone. Before you jump the gun again, though, understand that it's possible to have an understanding of the game and still not like it, and that while you may not like my opinion of the game, it's only an opinion and it will only hurt you if you let it. Even if my opinion was based on a complete misunderstanding of the game it is still my right to dislike the thing.
One thing I cherish a great deal is the idea that no matter how much it might irk someone, disagreement with an opinion doesn't make it wrong, and there fortunately exists no right for that opinion to be suppressed simply because it's not well-informed (by your wildly varying metric). You have yours, I have mine, they have theirs. Welcome to reality.
As a person that doesn't like football, I'll say a compelling reason not to like it is that it is four to ten seconds of action surrounded by five and six minutes of nothing.
I fail to appreciate the brilliance of a coach or coaches that coordinate the moves eleven people for four to ten seconds. It's like a castrated and sissified version of war combat played out by the grossly overweight.
While I'm not saying that people are in the wrong to appreciate football, as far as complexity and intellectual process goes one has only to notice that every play looks almost exactly the same to realize that the complexity is highly limited given the narrow field of play and direction of motion for each given player. The intellectual process is drowned out by the insane gaps in playtime. Most chess games progress at a better clip. The onus of skill is either on the player, in which case the direction of the coach is lost, or on the coach, in which case the player is a pawn. Either way, the last time I saw something truly creative come out of football was the very first time I heard of a Hail Mary play, on Happy Days. There's not a lot of new and exciting stuff happening in the world of rote football.
What they really ought to do is use a Bayesian classifier to tell them which blogs are spam and which aren't.
Just about the last thing Google should be doing is full-text statistical analysis. The leap from statistical analysis of blog content to statistical analysis of web content in search of terrorists or dissenting voices or whatever conveniently classified scapegoats is as large a leap as any electron has to make.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire post was regarding Afghanistan, not Iraq.
I think people are quick to dismiss the rights of those held in Cuba; if our places were reversed and it was a Middle Eastern country invading the US to spread Shariah Islamic Law, would you be so quick to condemn your countrymen--fellow citizens--caught fighting that force? Because they're disorganized and haven't been through boot camp?
The fact is those people were defending against invaders, ideological differences aside, and were not wealthy enough to have a highly-organized and well-trained militia like much of the rest of the world. Just like many Americans don't feel the government adequately represents their interests abroad, it's certainly within the realm of reason that some of those individuals did not feel Osama bin Laden represented their interests in attacking the US, but when a counter-attack was launched it was a matter of defending their home and way of life.
Being poor requires fighting face-to-face and with short-range mortar and explosives, not invisibly from the skies like Americans, and these people resorted to whatever tactics were necessary to muster a defense against invaders. In my opinion (whose weight is questionable), it is much more a terrorist act to strike at an enemy from the sky without fear of retribution than to fight him on level-ground, face-to-face. At least when you can see your enemy you know who you've killed, instead of accidentally exploding a wedding party.
The reasons you're giving for giving the OK for locking up these prisoners of war sound an awful lot like the reasons given for rounding up and imprisoning or killing Native Americans (and I have therefore a hard time accepting that). My point behind replying is to say that the quickness with which you determine guilt and innocence can easily be turned on you and the ones about whom you care. Justification of the treatment is justification of your own treatment.
I am not speaking regarding the rest of your post (which may or may not have merit).
When you know ahead of time that Microsoft is going to sell a hundred million Xbox 360s with HD-DVD drives, you've suddenly overcome the most expensive part of the process of having consumers adopt a new technology without spending a cent. Many companies are inclined to go along for the ride on the money train. What is more likely is that as time goes on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD drives will become combo drives much like DVD+R/-R/+RW/DL/etc. drives of today.
Besides, I think just about the worst thing that can happen is to have everyone settle on either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Both are going to have their benefits and drawbacks, but without choice and without competition the field will stagnate. There's often no reason to make something better than what's out there when you know no one else will either.
Second,
vanishingly
adv : so as to disappear or approach zero
If you're using the damned word "vanishingly" then that's what you're saying: that the number of 64-bit platform Flash player users is approaching zero percent. Just to be sure, let's see what you said: Or one could say, Flash player users on 64-bit platforms are a small percentage approaching zero of Flash player users.
You're hopefully done denying that you've said things you've said. That aside, can't we just agree that, fuck, there are some users of the player and that by alienating those users Macromedia isn't doing itself any favors?
Yes, it appears your point was that the number of 64-bit platform Flash player users is approaching zero percent. To do that the number of 64-bit platform Flash player users must be greater than 0 but decreasing towards zero.
You offer no evidence to support this but you still proclaim it to be factual. The point the poster was making is that what you're saying is untrue as the number of 64-bit systems is increasing.
The larger point to be made is that while Macromedia doesn't make money from the Flash player, they make money from Flash developers. Flash developers need their content, which they use to make money, to reach certain audiences. If major computer vendors are now selling 64-bit capable computers running 64-bit operating systems and those users, by default, cannot view Flash content, then the developers lose money and are less inclined to develop in Flash. Why continue using Flash if it will not run on modern hardware available for purchase today for the same cost as yesterday's hardware? Macromedia then loses money.
Your post makes it sound like Macromedia is an altruistic angel doing what they do only for the good of the Internet, the community and the world. They're doing it for money and they're ignoring an emerging (and the all-encompassing future) market.
Macintosh computers make up a vanishingly (literally, since Mac sales have declined as of late) small percentage of computer users as well and are 64-bit; ought Macromedia ignore them as well?
As long as you're lumping everyone together let's say that members of the military will never win a war because the cook aboard the Kitty Hawk is a conscientious objector and never took weapons training. Actors will never star in a movie that generates a hundred million dollars in revenue because Paul Reubens is still acting. Every surgery will result in the death of the patient because Jane Nurse of Cleveland brought the wrong blood type for transfusion. And every psychologist and psychiatrist will tell you the problem is your fault and no one will conquer mental malaise.
Your descriptions are vivid but are relegated to a niche. One thing I notice is that you seem to be advocating that there be the right solution or no solution at all. Medicines, gene therapy, electro-shock therapy, none of those things sound all that hot too me. While they may cure anxiety or depression or any other problem, they're not even close to something I would want to touch.
You appear to be advocating a "do it this way or it will never be fixed" approach. Somehow I imagine that someone else has thought of this only to be asked how they were able to successfully diagnose and provide the framework for a cure for people they had never met, never examined, and never talked to.
What irks me most is that you are nearly stating that if they can't fix everything they shouldn't fix anything. Sort of a We can't get this collapsed building back together and upright, so let's not even bother to clean up the mess. Not all medicine is about cures. There is no cure for HIV, so should we stop dealing with the effects of the disease? I would say no. We do what we can with what we have to best try to affect the change we want.
I'll close by saying that you seem to be as passionate about this topic as I am about others not telling me or others how they should approach healthcare.
No, sorry, watermarking is not so easily removed, and your knowledge of modern video codecs is profoundly lacking. The RIAA won't sue people because the RIAA is corrupt? I imagine this is a result of your local language causing you not to make sense. Either that, or once again you just don't know what you're talking about.
I hope that answers your question.
Maybe you're being purposely obtuse, maybe you're just trolling, or maybe you just don't get that you can't take other people's property because you don't like, or understand, how they use it.
You seem to have misunderstood my example of the displays... My intention was to state that since I'm not using the old one, should I be forced to give it up even though it's mine?
That misunderstanding aside, your explanation that I'm not preventing anyone else from buying a flat panel display frames my point exactly: the OP can go buy a domain name, he just can't have that domain name. My hypothetical monitor-thief can go buy a monitor, he just can't have mine. The reason he can't have mine is because I went to the store and bought it before he did.
To put it another way, if my daughter purchases a custom wedding dress there is no person that has a right to take it from her, even with reasonable compensation, simply because she has already worn it the one time she'll wear it. Her reasons for keeping it may be inscrutable, but she doesn't need to explain that to strangers on the street. It's not for sale.
I don't want to answer my own question, but give me a break. There is no such right. My neighbor's Jaguar is hardly ever driven, and just because I'd prefer to take a car to work instead of the bus doesn't mean I can appropriate it for my own use. It's not mine.
Your "A Good Thing" logic is nothing more than second-guessing and is a short ride down the slope to explaining to a committee why you want to withdraw a hundred dollars from the ATM.
The people in the shuttle program are primarily military personnel, so it's even more interesting that we are now requiring the same level of security and safety for shuttle flights as we are for commercial airline flights. These are supposed to be our frontiersmen, who explore the next and most dangerous places to be explored. So why is it that if a shuttle engineer has a bad dream the night before the launch they cancel the entire flight?
What the hell happened to taking risks? The risks are what made the payout worthwhile--now we've got years and billions of dollars between shuttle flights for reasons that wouldn't have made NASA flinch ten years ago. A cry-baby syndrome has snuck its way into its bureaucracy via whiny Americans that have lived their entire lives without risk or discomfort. It is due in part to this that our space program is in as poor shape as it is.
SLI is a neat idea if the performance increase is tangible, but considering a single 7800 GTX can outperform an SLI setup of 6800 Ultras in many cases after only one year since the previous generation's release... by the time a 7800 GT is $100, it won't be worth $100 (much like all $100 video cards).
- Wireless network config management
- Remote Desktop
- Group Policies unavailable below XP
- Windows Media Player 10
- Fast User Switching
- Better EFS functionality
- New version of Sysprep, better unattended setup functionality
- AMD64
- Integrated CD writing
- Larger base of hardware compatibility
But yeah, I mean, if the GP says there's no difference there mustn't be. All the things you and I listed exist only if you know what you're talking about.I'm no apologist, but at least I'm not also an idiot.
For being so feisty, are you quite sure there's no such thing as alpha and beta radiation?
http://www.orau.gov/reacts/alpha.htm
http://www.orau.gov/reacts/beta.htm
Both are particle radiation and both plentifully originate in stars. You can read more about them in Wikipedia also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_radiation
This is a great example of how using colors and shapes can easily obviate the need for long text. If every single dialog that results from a non-undoable action is red, it takes far less time to think "Red -> Non-undoable" than "The action you are about to perform cannot be undone. -> Non-undoable."
Gnome, Windows, KDE and Mac OS X all do things I like with the GUI, but their relationships are so incestual it's getting a little tiresome. How about shaking things up (even a little bit, like Enlightenment)?
It's 2005 and Microsoft is just now getting around to fixing redraws of Windows? And Christ, what's their solution? Draw the same window the same way but require a DX9 compatible video card to do it. Microsoft has basically said "Dual core hyperthreading processors don't work that well with Windows, so go buy a third processor with another 225 million transistors that sucks up another 100 watts to enable you to... draw a window." Nevermind that the damn thing is called Windows.
Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 2003 have always formatted the drive as NTFS if selected and installed directly onto it. There are full and quick format options available in the setup process.
Manipulating Windows setup during the setup was the only way to get it to install on some older hardware. I used a lot of NTFSDOS to get things done. I ran into the same issues when manipulating files to have integrated SCSI drivers.
Out of curiosity, where did you get that little factoid?
The first step is to put the police-state infrastructure into place with the assurance that it won't be used in such a manner. In reality, it is entirely possible that it never will be used, and it would be foolish to believe that it must be. Likewise, it is foolish to believe that it never will be. The next step is to make criminal anything you want, and is considerably easier than the first step once you've completed that first step.
Beginning a police-state is far, far easier than ending one, and like most people I am spectacularly lazy. That's why I work now to stop it from ever materializing.
I suppose what bothers me the most about your statement is that if I don't like football then I must be an idiot about it. It's entirely possible to understand something and still dislike it. It's possible to understand something and dislike it and not appreciate it. You're right about it being a sum, and had you read carefully you would have noticed I was saying if it's not just the coach and it's not just the player, then it must be a combination of the two. If it's a combination then it isn't the poetic ballet the GP made it out to be, at least in my opinion, because the coach either orchestrates or he doesn't and it's either planned or generated on the spot. Either way, we're talking about a very limited field of play with very limited directions of motion and very limited variety for what most players do. In my world, that translates to "Whoopdee-doo." It's not the complexity of the quantum foam the GP made it out to be. I'm glad to see we agree on something: football is not for everyone. Before you jump the gun again, though, understand that it's possible to have an understanding of the game and still not like it, and that while you may not like my opinion of the game, it's only an opinion and it will only hurt you if you let it. Even if my opinion was based on a complete misunderstanding of the game it is still my right to dislike the thing.
One thing I cherish a great deal is the idea that no matter how much it might irk someone, disagreement with an opinion doesn't make it wrong, and there fortunately exists no right for that opinion to be suppressed simply because it's not well-informed (by your wildly varying metric). You have yours, I have mine, they have theirs. Welcome to reality.
As a person that doesn't like football, I'll say a compelling reason not to like it is that it is four to ten seconds of action surrounded by five and six minutes of nothing.
I fail to appreciate the brilliance of a coach or coaches that coordinate the moves eleven people for four to ten seconds. It's like a castrated and sissified version of war combat played out by the grossly overweight.
While I'm not saying that people are in the wrong to appreciate football, as far as complexity and intellectual process goes one has only to notice that every play looks almost exactly the same to realize that the complexity is highly limited given the narrow field of play and direction of motion for each given player. The intellectual process is drowned out by the insane gaps in playtime. Most chess games progress at a better clip. The onus of skill is either on the player, in which case the direction of the coach is lost, or on the coach, in which case the player is a pawn. Either way, the last time I saw something truly creative come out of football was the very first time I heard of a Hail Mary play, on Happy Days. There's not a lot of new and exciting stuff happening in the world of rote football.