And this is surprising, why? Floods occur all over the place, every year. Guess what... that's because it rains all over the place. However, does that mean there was a global flood? Hardly. It just means that a bunch of cultures experienced their own floods, since they're not all that unusual, and then wrote about them, since that's what cultures do after a traumatic experience.
has... some ardent anti-spammers wondering whether 'proportionality is becoming a completely forgotten concept.
Have these people been paying attention? When you can get a life sentence for carrying two ounces of pot, it makes me think that proportionality went out the window a *loooong* time ago.
On a somewhat tangential note, where did you get the 10% figure from? I'd always heard the homosexual population was on the order of 1-2%. Of course, much like other "sensitive" subjects, I suspect the numbers are lower than reality, as many people are afraid to come out.
Why not? If the government sent them to war and allowed them to die for the wrong reasons, then, yes, we should admit that their sacrifice was for the wrong reasons and then proceed to *change the government*. Blindly agreeing with the war because you're afraid of "[cheapening] their sacrifice" is nothing but weak-mindedness, not unlike being against protesting the war because you feel the need to "support the troops".
And, back to the main point, while you may believe that "many of them are quite proud", there are also many who are devasted and disgusted that their government would send their sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters to die for an unjust cause.
at least a terrible dictator that has killed millions of innocent people is now behind bars.
Ahh... the infamous tactic of post-justification. You republicans are *remarkably* good at it. I mean, the GOP executive spent months claiming that Iraq was a key player in worldwide terror, despite most people being unconvinced, and then justified a war based on these claims (ie, deposing Saddam would make the US safer from terror). And now that it has come out that Iraq was not, in fact, involved in Al Qaeda, etc, the tune has suddenly changed! Now it's all about removing a "terrible dictator". Honestly, you accused Kerry of flip-flopping, but this... this is remarkable! It's doubleplusgood thinking, comrade. Now, were we at war with Eurasia, or Eastasia?
What bugs me is they don't describe the type of parser being generated. Parse::RecDescent does just what it says... it generates recursive decent parsers. However, recursive descent parsers are not as powerful as the bottom-up parsers generated by, for example, Yacc/Bison (LL vs LR).
Actually, it's really that similar at all. Xen is a virtualization architecture that allows you to run "ported" OSs concurrently. QEMU is a full x86 hardware emulator, CPU and all, meaning that the OS thinks it's running on real hardware. VMWare, which is in yet another class, virtualizes the x86 CPU, along with trapping and executing "leaky" instructions (since Intel can't seem to make a real, virtualizable ISA), meaning the majority of the guest software instructions are executed on the underlying CPU, but the rest of the architecture is emulated, just like in QEMU. Note, this requires VMWare to run on real x86 hardware, though, whereas QEMU can run basically anywhere, and Xen could, in theory, run any OS that was ported to the underlying hardware architecture.
Riiight... and having an underground drug culture helps how, exactly? All pushing drugs underground does is hides the problem while putting the abusers at even great risk (not unlike the increases in alcohol poisoning during prohibition, due to people illicitly producing their own alcohol).
Other nations had not been asked 10 years ago to disarm and blatanly ignored UN warnings
Funny, my impression is that, over the last 10 years, UN inspectors had personally seen many weapons being destroyed, and Hans Blix himself didn't feel that Iraq was in possession of any WMDs.
Pile on top of that various governments around the world saying that Iraq was in posession of weapons of mass destruction
You mean the US and UK? Riiight, that's a real pile. AFAIR, no other nation *except* the US and UK felt that Iraq was in possession of these weapons, and were very dubious of their "proof".
But the intelligence was there,
Well, no, actually it wasn't. The best they could come up with was rather fictitious mobile chem weapon factories, and those mysterious tubes that were supposedly being used for building centrifuges, ignoring the fact that they were the *completely wrong type of tube*. But, hey, apparently intelligence is more a matter of opinion.
meanwhile the entire culture from that area of the world was being used as a sesspool of american assassin training camps.
*snicker* Is there *any* proof of this? And are you telling me it's any better now, with the power vacuum that exists? Please...
Maybe you don't understand how democray works.
And maybe you don't remember your history. Installing democracies in areas that don't historically have them hasn't gone terribly well in the past.
If a free and open society prevails in Iraq it sets a precidence for the whole region.
Assuming, of course, that a free and open society prevails. Of course, if you look at the past in say, countries like Iran, that generally doesn't happen, unless, of course, an external entity is "monitoring" the elections (like the one in Afghanistan). But, hey, I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
Oh, and BTW, you do realize that such a democracy may just be seen as cultural imperialism on the part of the US, right? And *that* has never bred hatred or terrorism.
Installing democratic values defeats the terrorist mindset
Does it? See, I thought increasing economic prosperity, ensuring people have food, jobs, and a place to live in safety, and not *killing their countrymen* was a good way to defeat the terrorist mindset. Apparently Bush doesn't agree, though, since, prior to the war, most people had all of those things (yes, including safety... your average Iraqi was pretty safe, over all), and now they have none of them.
That way we don't have to go hang out there anymore.
HAH! If you think the US will just vacate the area after an "approved" government is installed, you're even more deluded than I thought.
Riight, 'cuz that's worked *so* well for the War on Drugs (well, it has, if you mean it's lined the pockets of the corps that run the US prison system).
I assume then that no threat to anyone included the population of the country
No, actually I wasn't including that. I was referring to the fact that Iraq was absolutely no threat to any of it's neighbours (as opposed to, say, Germany) and as such, it is in no way similar to Germany. But, thanks for, yet again, demonstrating how to efficiently create a strawman argument.
Moreover, if you really want to use that argument, one could ask why the US hasn't stepped into a host of other countries who are committing as bad, if not worse atrocities (you've heard of the Rwandan genocide, right?), and have done so more recently than the 80's.
So, no, as much as you'd like to believe it, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with such noble aspirations as freeing the Iraqi people. It was a great way to post-justify the invasion, though.
she was agast at the anti-soldier sentiment here.
And I'm agast that people don't understand the difference between being anti-war and anti-soldier. Why is it that protesting a war, which is a result of the actions of a government, is equivalent to protesting soldiers, which are merely instruments of said government? Oh, wait, I remember, it's because 1) people are *idiots*, and 2) the US government, in it's attempt to garner support for said war, makes this connection, and the aforementioned idiots believe it.
I think you have confused the terms "deposting" and "democratically elected".
And I think you're confusing the term "depositing" with "deposing", which would involve the US removing democratically elected representatives like, say, the Prime Minister of Iran.
When you say don't turn yourselves into a religeous state, you really mean "turn secular".
And watch, everyone, as he quickly sets up his straw man... very deft!
Yeah...like France...and Saddam's Iraq. Great.
And look! Look how he knocks it down! Excellent form!
Nice work putting words in the mouth of the grandparent. Did he say "secular state"? No. He only said the US is, in effect, becoming a theocracy, and in this, I'm not sure I disagree. The government is working very hard to insinuate Christian values into it's workings, from it's policies on abortion and stem cell research (even to the point of releasing disinformation), "faith based initiatives" in place of proper social services, supporting the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, attempting to codify that marriage is between a man and a woman *in the constitution*... I could go on.
The separation of church and state is paramount. As you say, this means the goverment should be completely indifferent on the topic. And in case you didn't realize it, things like "under God" being in the pledge of allegiance fly straight in the face of this doctrine.
The U.N. has proven itself pointless.
Only because the US (and other major powers on the security council) veto anything useful.
We are alot like the America who went after the Nazi's actually. That was unpopular in alot of areas too...for awhile.
Holy shit! This is simply outrageous! Revisionist history, anyone? The US went into WWII only AFTER Hitler started driving his war machine across Europe. This is in absolutely NO WAY at all similar to the US's approach to Iraq, which involved attacking, unilaterally, a country which posed absolutely no threat to anyone!
Sure...Florida sucked last time around, but you people overseas need to understand that you really don't get to decide what happens in someone else's democracy.
Unless, of course, you're the US, in which case you can stomp around the world installing dictators and deposing democratically elected leaders all you like.
I'm sure you're right in some caes. Heck, I'm a Canadian, and I'm constantly amazed that 1) they elected Bush, and 2) they'll likely re-elect Bush. Moreover, I have yet to meet someone who feels differently. However, with a site like that, there will be a self-selection bias, period. So, I wouldn't be so sure that the voters aren't just a vocal minority. For some nations, the poll might be representative, but I wouldn't assume that.
I believe you are referring to the concept of a vocal minority, or, in this case, the combination of a vocal minority which results in a self-selection bias in the study sample.
To you and the grandparent, a huge thanks! I wasn't aware of these tools, but now I have SMART monitoring enabled for the two drives which comprise my primary RAID. Thanks!
So actually - they do. When scientists talk about large celestial objects though, they don't mean there is a total absense of something - they mean that it is below a certain level. Thus, the moon is considered to have a very very weak magnetic field that probably would not affect any passing object and that its gravitational field is probably stronger than its magnetic field by some order of magnitude. Thus, to simplify (or dumb it down to the level the masses so they will understand), they just say - it has no magnetic field. Or no magnetic field to speak of. (to use bad english and all ending with a prep. phrase)
However, in the context of this particular discussion, when examining the various forces which act to mold a planet or moon (like, say, Titan) and it's atmosphere, there's little difference between an incredibly weak magnetic field and no field at all. Thus, from a practical standpoint, these planets have essentially no magnetic field. Much like I have essentially no gravitational field.
Actually, that's not true at all. Among the objects that don't generate a real, structured magnetic field, we have Venus, The Moon , Io, Europa, and Mars. Of course, *why* some planets have fields and some don't is still up in the air (rotation of the Earth's core generates our magnetic field, or so it is assumed, and yet Mercury, which almost certainly has a solid core, possesses a planetary magnetosphere).
Re:Fairdom of the press?
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
The problem with this, of course, is that in nations where control of the media is in the hands of a precious few (like, say, the US, where most of the media outlets are owned by a handful of companies), it is exceedingly difficult for a dissident voice to be heard. Of course, things like the Internet have made things easier, but it's still not nearly so simple as you make it seem.
This is unlike Objective C and Smalltalk, which "get it wrong" big time by calling derived class (subclass) versions in base class (superclass) construction code, breaking the already-debugged code.
I'm kind of curious what you mean by this. First off, there there no constructors in Objective-C and Smalltalk. In both languages, you have "init" functions which serve to initialize an allocated object, but these are no different from any other message. They just happen to set fields and do other initialization tasks. So, in Smalltalk, I do something like this:
obj:= [MySubClass newWithValue: 5]
Where newWithValue is defined in MyClass. Now, if I understand you correctly, your problem is that, if newWithValue: is defined as:
and MySubClass overrides setField:, then the subclass' version is called, rather than the superclass. Correct?
Now, my response to this is: newWithValue is *nothing special*. It has no special semantics that make it different from other messages. As such, the message setField: called inside newWithValue: is no different than an external entity calling setField: directly. And in the latter case, you expect the subclass implementation to be called, and as such, you should expect the same from the "constructor".
So, what I'm wondering is, what's "wrong" about this? To me, it seems like the height of consistency, especially when you understand that newWithValue: is just like any other message. As such, it's simply up to the programmer to avoid doing something stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is surprising, why? Floods occur all over the place, every year. Guess what... that's because it rains all over the place. However, does that mean there was a global flood? Hardly. It just means that a bunch of cultures experienced their own floods, since they're not all that unusual, and then wrote about them, since that's what cultures do after a traumatic experience.
has ... some ardent anti-spammers wondering whether 'proportionality is becoming a completely forgotten concept.
Have these people been paying attention? When you can get a life sentence for carrying two ounces of pot, it makes me think that proportionality went out the window a *loooong* time ago.
On a somewhat tangential note, where did you get the 10% figure from? I'd always heard the homosexual population was on the order of 1-2%. Of course, much like other "sensitive" subjects, I suspect the numbers are lower than reality, as many people are afraid to come out.
Why not? If the government sent them to war and allowed them to die for the wrong reasons, then, yes, we should admit that their sacrifice was for the wrong reasons and then proceed to *change the government*. Blindly agreeing with the war because you're afraid of "[cheapening] their sacrifice" is nothing but weak-mindedness, not unlike being against protesting the war because you feel the need to "support the troops".
And, back to the main point, while you may believe that "many of them are quite proud", there are also many who are devasted and disgusted that their government would send their sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters to die for an unjust cause.
at least a terrible dictator that has killed millions of innocent people is now behind bars.
Ahh... the infamous tactic of post-justification. You republicans are *remarkably* good at it. I mean, the GOP executive spent months claiming that Iraq was a key player in worldwide terror, despite most people being unconvinced, and then justified a war based on these claims (ie, deposing Saddam would make the US safer from terror). And now that it has come out that Iraq was not, in fact, involved in Al Qaeda, etc, the tune has suddenly changed! Now it's all about removing a "terrible dictator". Honestly, you accused Kerry of flip-flopping, but this... this is remarkable! It's doubleplusgood thinking, comrade. Now, were we at war with Eurasia, or Eastasia?
What bugs me is they don't describe the type of parser being generated. Parse::RecDescent does just what it says... it generates recursive decent parsers. However, recursive descent parsers are not as powerful as the bottom-up parsers generated by, for example, Yacc/Bison (LL vs LR).
Actually, it's really that similar at all. Xen is a virtualization architecture that allows you to run "ported" OSs concurrently. QEMU is a full x86 hardware emulator, CPU and all, meaning that the OS thinks it's running on real hardware. VMWare, which is in yet another class, virtualizes the x86 CPU, along with trapping and executing "leaky" instructions (since Intel can't seem to make a real, virtualizable ISA), meaning the majority of the guest software instructions are executed on the underlying CPU, but the rest of the architecture is emulated, just like in QEMU. Note, this requires VMWare to run on real x86 hardware, though, whereas QEMU can run basically anywhere, and Xen could, in theory, run any OS that was ported to the underlying hardware architecture.
Riiight... and having an underground drug culture helps how, exactly? All pushing drugs underground does is hides the problem while putting the abusers at even great risk (not unlike the increases in alcohol poisoning during prohibition, due to people illicitly producing their own alcohol).
Other nations had not been asked 10 years ago to disarm and blatanly ignored UN warnings
Funny, my impression is that, over the last 10 years, UN inspectors had personally seen many weapons being destroyed, and Hans Blix himself didn't feel that Iraq was in possession of any WMDs.
Pile on top of that various governments around the world saying that Iraq was in posession of weapons of mass destruction
You mean the US and UK? Riiight, that's a real pile. AFAIR, no other nation *except* the US and UK felt that Iraq was in possession of these weapons, and were very dubious of their "proof".
But the intelligence was there,
Well, no, actually it wasn't. The best they could come up with was rather fictitious mobile chem weapon factories, and those mysterious tubes that were supposedly being used for building centrifuges, ignoring the fact that they were the *completely wrong type of tube*. But, hey, apparently intelligence is more a matter of opinion.
meanwhile the entire culture from that area of the world was being used as a sesspool of american assassin training camps.
*snicker* Is there *any* proof of this? And are you telling me it's any better now, with the power vacuum that exists? Please...
Maybe you don't understand how democray works.
And maybe you don't remember your history. Installing democracies in areas that don't historically have them hasn't gone terribly well in the past.
If a free and open society prevails in Iraq it sets a precidence for the whole region.
Assuming, of course, that a free and open society prevails. Of course, if you look at the past in say, countries like Iran, that generally doesn't happen, unless, of course, an external entity is "monitoring" the elections (like the one in Afghanistan). But, hey, I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
Oh, and BTW, you do realize that such a democracy may just be seen as cultural imperialism on the part of the US, right? And *that* has never bred hatred or terrorism.
Installing democratic values defeats the terrorist mindset
Does it? See, I thought increasing economic prosperity, ensuring people have food, jobs, and a place to live in safety, and not *killing their countrymen* was a good way to defeat the terrorist mindset. Apparently Bush doesn't agree, though, since, prior to the war, most people had all of those things (yes, including safety... your average Iraqi was pretty safe, over all), and now they have none of them.
That way we don't have to go hang out there anymore.
HAH! If you think the US will just vacate the area after an "approved" government is installed, you're even more deluded than I thought.
Gingersnaps... I'd never thought of that one. Where did I put my cookie cutters...
Riight, 'cuz that's worked *so* well for the War on Drugs (well, it has, if you mean it's lined the pockets of the corps that run the US prison system).
Sounds great, except, of course, for the rather interesting fact that executions cost more than a life term in prison.
I assume then that no threat to anyone included the population of the country
No, actually I wasn't including that. I was referring to the fact that Iraq was absolutely no threat to any of it's neighbours (as opposed to, say, Germany) and as such, it is in no way similar to Germany. But, thanks for, yet again, demonstrating how to efficiently create a strawman argument.
Moreover, if you really want to use that argument, one could ask why the US hasn't stepped into a host of other countries who are committing as bad, if not worse atrocities (you've heard of the Rwandan genocide, right?), and have done so more recently than the 80's.
So, no, as much as you'd like to believe it, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with such noble aspirations as freeing the Iraqi people. It was a great way to post-justify the invasion, though.
she was agast at the anti-soldier sentiment here.
And I'm agast that people don't understand the difference between being anti-war and anti-soldier. Why is it that protesting a war, which is a result of the actions of a government, is equivalent to protesting soldiers, which are merely instruments of said government? Oh, wait, I remember, it's because 1) people are *idiots*, and 2) the US government, in it's attempt to garner support for said war, makes this connection, and the aforementioned idiots believe it.
I think you have confused the terms "deposting" and "democratically elected".
And I think you're confusing the term "depositing" with "deposing", which would involve the US removing democratically elected representatives like, say, the Prime Minister of Iran.
When you say don't turn yourselves into a religeous state, you really mean "turn secular".
And watch, everyone, as he quickly sets up his straw man... very deft!
Yeah...like France...and Saddam's Iraq. Great.
And look! Look how he knocks it down! Excellent form!
Nice work putting words in the mouth of the grandparent. Did he say "secular state"? No. He only said the US is, in effect, becoming a theocracy, and in this, I'm not sure I disagree. The government is working very hard to insinuate Christian values into it's workings, from it's policies on abortion and stem cell research (even to the point of releasing disinformation), "faith based initiatives" in place of proper social services, supporting the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, attempting to codify that marriage is between a man and a woman *in the constitution*... I could go on.
The separation of church and state is paramount. As you say, this means the goverment should be completely indifferent on the topic. And in case you didn't realize it, things like "under God" being in the pledge of allegiance fly straight in the face of this doctrine.
The U.N. has proven itself pointless.
Only because the US (and other major powers on the security council) veto anything useful.
We are alot like the America who went after the Nazi's actually. That was unpopular in alot of areas too...for awhile.
Holy shit! This is simply outrageous! Revisionist history, anyone? The US went into WWII only AFTER Hitler started driving his war machine across Europe. This is in absolutely NO WAY at all similar to the US's approach to Iraq, which involved attacking, unilaterally, a country which posed absolutely no threat to anyone!
Sure...Florida sucked last time around, but you people overseas need to understand that you really don't get to decide what happens in someone else's democracy.
Unless, of course, you're the US, in which case you can stomp around the world installing dictators and deposing democratically elected leaders all you like.
Now, on to proving black is white... just watch out for those Zebra crossings!
I'm sure you're right in some caes. Heck, I'm a Canadian, and I'm constantly amazed that 1) they elected Bush, and 2) they'll likely re-elect Bush. Moreover, I have yet to meet someone who feels differently. However, with a site like that, there will be a self-selection bias, period. So, I wouldn't be so sure that the voters aren't just a vocal minority. For some nations, the poll might be representative, but I wouldn't assume that.
I believe you are referring to the concept of a vocal minority, or, in this case, the combination of a vocal minority which results in a self-selection bias in the study sample.
To you and the grandparent, a huge thanks! I wasn't aware of these tools, but now I have SMART monitoring enabled for the two drives which comprise my primary RAID. Thanks!
That depends... are you asking me, or my wife? ;)
So actually - they do. When scientists talk about large celestial objects though, they don't mean there is a total absense of something - they mean that it is below a certain level. Thus, the moon is considered to have a very very weak magnetic field that probably would not affect any passing object and that its gravitational field is probably stronger than its magnetic field by some order of magnitude. Thus, to simplify (or dumb it down to the level the masses so they will understand), they just say - it has no magnetic field. Or no magnetic field to speak of. (to use bad english and all ending with a prep. phrase)
However, in the context of this particular discussion, when examining the various forces which act to mold a planet or moon (like, say, Titan) and it's atmosphere, there's little difference between an incredibly weak magnetic field and no field at all. Thus, from a practical standpoint, these planets have essentially no magnetic field. Much like I have essentially no gravitational field.
All planets (and moons) have magnetic fields.
Actually, that's not true at all. Among the objects that don't generate a real, structured magnetic field, we have Venus, The Moon , Io, Europa, and Mars. Of course, *why* some planets have fields and some don't is still up in the air (rotation of the Earth's core generates our magnetic field, or so it is assumed, and yet Mercury, which almost certainly has a solid core, possesses a planetary magnetosphere).
If you wrote this in C (which normally does not support inline functions), you would have to change every occurence of setting BIT_A and BIT_B
Umm, huh?
inline void enableFeatureX(SOMEREG_ptr* pRegs) {
*pRegs = BIT_A | BIT_B;
}
Or, alternatively (and probaby more portable across compilers):
#define ENABLE_FEATURE_X(regs) *(regs) = BIT_A | BIT_B;
Perhaps you should have picked a better example.
The problem with this, of course, is that in nations where control of the media is in the hands of a precious few (like, say, the US, where most of the media outlets are owned by a handful of companies), it is exceedingly difficult for a dissident voice to be heard. Of course, things like the Internet have made things easier, but it's still not nearly so simple as you make it seem.
This is unlike Objective C and Smalltalk, which "get it wrong" big time by calling derived class (subclass) versions in base class (superclass) construction code, breaking the already-debugged code.
:= [MySubClass newWithValue: 5]
:= [self new].
I'm kind of curious what you mean by this. First off, there there no constructors in Objective-C and Smalltalk. In both languages, you have "init" functions which serve to initialize an allocated object, but these are no different from any other message. They just happen to set fields and do other initialization tasks. So, in Smalltalk, I do something like this:
obj
Where newWithValue is defined in MyClass. Now, if I understand you correctly, your problem is that, if newWithValue: is defined as:
newWithValue: aValue
obj
[obj setField: aValue].
^ obj.
and MySubClass overrides setField:, then the subclass' version is called, rather than the superclass. Correct?
Now, my response to this is: newWithValue is *nothing special*. It has no special semantics that make it different from other messages. As such, the message setField: called inside newWithValue: is no different than an external entity calling setField: directly. And in the latter case, you expect the subclass implementation to be called, and as such, you should expect the same from the "constructor".
So, what I'm wondering is, what's "wrong" about this? To me, it seems like the height of consistency, especially when you understand that newWithValue: is just like any other message. As such, it's simply up to the programmer to avoid doing something stupid.
It doesn't add C++ support to the kernel, you blithering slashbots.
Really... well, to quote the article:
In particular our run-time support enables the full use of C++ exceptions in the Linux kernel
Programmers that have used C++ in Linux kernel modules
Exceptional Kernel: Using C++ exceptions in the Linux kernel
So, you were saying?