I don't know why anyone is surprised by this. Lyrics are basically poems, and no one would argue that poetry isn't covered by copyright. If I wanted to put up a page of poetry, I would have to contact the individual copyright holders and get their permission.
In this case I think you're... um... partly wrong. Whether that's the same as being partly pregnant (ie impossible) I have yet to determine for myself.
I can't necessarily say it's not equally wrong to reproduce someone's song lyrics as it is to do the same with published poetry. HOWEVER, the REASON behind copyright is to protect someone's... source of income, no? For a poet, this is the published word. For a lyricist, however, it's the song that his word goes into. You cannot argue that an artist would lose any revenue from the lyrics of his / her song being printed. Obviously if the song was reproduced without permission, there's an argument.
So yes, it is equally illegal. But is it equally wrong?
Why is it people think music is somehow different from other forms of art and can be readily and freely stolen?
Downloading the music that you should be paying for == stealing. Even most people who do it will admit to that. I just can't convince myself that putting the lyrics up on a website as a reference is the same thing. Or even close.
From the article : The $1 and $2 notes will not change.
When's the last time they actually printed a $2 bill? ANyone? I think the only person who still thinks they're a viable monetary note is my grandfather, who still plays poker with fifty cent pieces.
On the one hand, you really can't FAULT the RIAA for trying to do something, but on the other hand the route they're taking amounts to essentially vigilante justice. Whether you think people SHOULD be allowed to share music or not, they AREN'T at the moment, so (technically) should be "punished." It is not up to the RIAA to dole out this punishment, however. What they're doing is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right (my mommy taught me that, happy mother's day to her).
Perhaps you took the quote to literaly? It's about wondering to trust something that affects/has control over you (the impression the image gives you). The point is. Should you saftly put you trust in the photo jounalism industry?
Perhaps. I think if this was the intent of the post than it should have been stated. To me it sounded like blame was being randomly placed on teh government for a doctored photo which in fact had nothing to DO with the government. It's these subtle nuances that sit in people's minds as "wow, the government is trying to screw us all over" even though they don't remember that it actually had NOTHING to do with the government. Listen for it more often. Major tactic of the liberal media. Juxtapose unrelated things which you want to seem related, and in people's minds they BECOME related.
to paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Mother, should I trust the government?
While I respect your taste in music -- HUH? The guy was an LA Times photographer. Nowhere does he state that he has any affiliation with the government. The modification in question does not actually change much in the photo (I do NOT deny that it is wrong, just stating that it is not in any way propoganda IN THIS CASE). Don't blame the government for EVERYTHING.
In other news, Kudos to the times for catching the guy, and also for admitting and publishing the "error."
You are right, its about the people of the world This is nitpicking to the point of asinine. You are merely trying to disagree with every single point of mine. I was replying to a direct question about the people of Europe, and therefore responded in kind. The mere statement above is simply argumentative and not at all helpful. Any other points you make are overshadowed by the fact tha tyou simply want to argue with me, no matter what I say.
It's about US national security. Which nobody belives. (Well you perhaps;)
None of the international community believes it. I think 60-some percent o the American population believes it. The only important thing to me is that the people who actually have facts about the threat believe it. I elect and pay for my government officials to be in office because I expect them to protect me. If they say that's what they are doing, do I have proof otherwise? No. Neither do you. Something I've said MANY TIMES that if this turns out to be for any reason OTHER than US national security, I am COMPLETELY against it. I don't like blindly trusting those in power, but that is what I am forced to do when it comes to matters of international intelligence that I do not have.
The US is using 25% of the worlds oil! When you get nervous you seem to build bigger and more slothfull cars (SUV anyone) - few believe that Oil doesn't play some a part of this. More than 40% of the US's oil comes from... THE US. Our fuel is cheap enough that it allows us to build large cars. While I don't agree at ALL with teh environmental impacts of such vehicles, I will not believe that a war has been waged to keep oil prices down. Because, basically, IT WON'T HELP. OPEC controls oil prices from teh Middle East. If the regime in Iraq is completely overthrown, and a new government is installed (which I hope is chosen by the Iraqi people, and has nothing to do with the US, honestly), oil prices aren't going to magically go down for Americans. I'm not an economics major, but this seems pretty simple. We're not occupying this country and shipping oil home. We are in no way interfering with OPECs ability to control oil.
Perhaps (or perhaps not) - but then you could say the same about Saddam. Saddam does not care about his NATIONAL security, as he has proven by bombing and killing and torturing thousands of his own people. He cares about himself. That's the problem.
And that is the dangerous mindset "all thse america-haters" - just nuke the lot, we'll be a lot safer then. I won't get into this one, but this is not "nuking the lot." This is specifically and deliberately taking a dangerous dictator out of power. As many civilian lives as possible are being spared, and I hope helped.
If everybody tells you you are nuts, perhaps you should start to listen to them instead of the voices in your head. Or the voices of an intelligence community of hundreds and thousands, your most trusted advisors? The people whose first priority is the safety of the country you are bound to protect, not the United Nations or their own nation? Yeah, I'd never listen to those people. Fools.
Except maybe the French:) Oh i don't know, they were threatend by a rogue nation with weapons of mass destruction, and they stuck to their guns - sounds rather brave to me. It was a joke. I know nothing of French history and dont' pretend to.
Except it's bullshit. People in Europe don't care what party Bush belongs to. It's the megalomanic they find disturbing.
This is not about the people in Europe. It's about US national security. I'm sure most Europeans see us all as a bunch of cowboy rednecks, showin our muscle and fighting Iraq for oil or some other ignorant claim. Honestly, it doesn't matter for shit. The United States governemtn is doing what they feel is in the best interest of their national security.
Yes, it would be nice if we had UN approval. Most nations, when faced with similar threats, also go to the UN. The difference is, in those cases, the UN granted permission for these nations to use force. And, despite what all these America-haters out there think, in a number of these cases the US government has sent troops to help (Kosovo? Kuwait?)
Regardless, the governing body of ANY sovereign nation is NOT the United Nations. It is that nation's government. If something is a threat to your nation, whether it's the USA or any other nation, the government and military of YOUR NATION is responsible for keeping the people of your nation safe. And I guarantee that no honest government is going to sit by and let their country be threatened, regardless of world opinion.
Hans Blix, head of the UN inspector team, said today that the use of Scud missiles was in fact a violation of the treaty signed by Iraq, and is in direct opposition to waht Iraq declared they had. Proof anyone?
Regardless, I do agree with you that not many "valid" nations agree with the United States. I have said many times (though not in this thread, or maybe not even on this site) that if it ever came to play that we do NOT have any information that Iraq is a threat, I wholeheartedly am against this war. I am for it ON THE CONDITION THAT it is for direct protection of US citezens. All bets are off otherwise. I know I am relatively naive in trusting what I am told by the government, BUT when it comes to public safety I tend to be a little more willing to believe waht I hear. It's a fault of mine I suppose, but like I alluded to, I have to believe those who have more information than me, of which I have none.
All presidents are liars, and if you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself. That job requires the ability to lie.
I'm in complete agreement. If it weren't for thousands of other people and dozens of other countries saying the same thing and backing this, I wouldn't believe Bush any more than any liberal or conservative or alien or anything else. Few can deny that the reasons we are going to war are true. Lots of people deny that they are valid reasons for war, which I can respect, if not agree with.
The reason people have a problem, amazing that you haven't deduced this yet, is that the US is acting without any agreement in the international community. The US is jumping the gun on inspections that should hae been finished. In short, the US is acting on its own accord, citing incredibly shaky terrorist evidence.
Really? 35+ other nations agree with us and vocally back the US. Again, not to repeat myself, but the UN agreed that Iraq is a threat that must be neutralized, by about three months ago. They feel that waiting will help, I and people who actually know things do NOT.
And exactly what inside information do YOU have that the intelligence community does not? I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was speaking to a top operative of the CIA, who actually knew the nature of the threat. No I am not comfortable blindly trusting the intelligence community when they say "there is a threat," but when it comes to the safety of me and the people I care for, I tend to air on the side of caution. Until someone can prove differently, I will continue to do so.
And don't resort to name-calling of "a lot of Americans." I can't write every single point in a short response. I'm sure I miss a lot of stuff. I write what comes to mind. YOu counter with counterpoints. It's the way back and forth works. You didn't mention every single fucking thing that happened in the history of the US, do I say "that's the thing about you guywhoiams, you are blah blah blah." Please. I mention what is pertinent to the point I'm making, and openly respect any thoughtful response, such as yours, and continue making my point until I feel that I've won or lost the argument, or we're at a stalemate. I may sound a little cocky when I say things like "that's the thing about the truth" but I don't bash your thought process or opinions.
I never claimed to know everything. I am always asking for other viewpoints, and quite often change my mind on issues. I openly admit that there is much I don't know. I certainly do NOT claim that only liberals are against the war. They are merely teh most vocal, AND the most annoying because they often don't give valid points behind their views, just "war is bad" without any thought. Doesn't fly with me, sorry.
Bush had a CONNECTION to Enron and a scandal. I am in no way defending Bush, I disagree with a lot of the things he does. I k now nothing about Bush's connection to Enron so I'm not going to weaken my argument by commenting on it.
However! Having a connection to a scandal and Clinton's debacle are NOT comparable. The man not only exploited a female worker (but that didn't "destroy anyone's life") but PERJURED himself to the highest court in the country, and to the American people. I could care less that he got a BJ and is just a generally terrible person. But we're supposed to trust the nation to a scumbag liar? No, I don't htink so.
As for protesting the Kuwait liberation, there are reasons there weren't as many protestors. The war had nothing to do with the US, first of all, and therefore was approved of. We were helping somoene else, so it's ok, the UN agreed, all good and fine. We try to protect ourselves, we get shit on by the UN. You feel this war is unjust? Why did the UN unanimously vote that Saddam was a threat, and must be disarmed? No, they don't want military action, but they'll sit there and let us be threatened? Until Americans die? How long should we wait exactly? I'd prefer my family be safe.
You said the answer to your question in your question. CLINTON bombed Kosovo. Clinton was a liberal. Liberals are protesting the war. THe only reason 99% of the protests are happening is because a Republican is in charge. Clinton had five separate military attacks without UN approval during his presidency. Not once did we hear anything like this in the media.
Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it, but the truth speaks for itself.
I'm sorry, I don't see this being worth it for ANYONE. No matter how fast your connection is, the transfer time to get something to your PC to be executed would well outweigh any gains you may get from it. Distributed nets are really only useful on extremely fast networks with dedicated CPUs, otherwise you're really just ADDING time to a problem rather than helping anything. Sorry.
I gott ask tho, at what point would it have made more sense just to buy a regular computer?
More importantly, when does it cease to be a mod and actually just become taking a piece of hardware from once place and 90% of your other hardware from elsewhere? Great, he has the XBOX CPU.... and that's it. New case, peripherals... if you've ever taken any courses in cognitive thinking, at some point this ceases to be an XBOX... I believe this passed that point.
What's the matter, you don't believe a complete stranger when he tells you something? C'mon, have some faith. I found the following, I'm sure there's more out there. In all honesty, I'm relaying what I've HEARD, not what I can prove, so given proof that I'm wrong I'd be more than willing ot take the opposite stance. However, I remember hearing many times that headphones are more damaging to your ears due to the proximity of the sound. I can see how a GOOD pair of headphones would cancel out any of the negative implications of headphones, IE toning down higher frequencies, etc. Any actual studies that show either side of the argument would be interesting and appreciated.
Taken from http://headwize.com/articles/hearing_art.htm
In loudspeaker reproduction, sounds must travel several feet before reaching the listener's ears. By the time they arrive, a portion of the high frequencies have been absorbed by the air. Low frequencies are not absorbed as much, but they are more felt through bone conduction than actually heard. With headphones, the ears hear all frequencies without any attenuation, because the transducers are literally pressed against them. Thus, when listening to headphones at the same effective volume level as loudspeakers, headphones may still transmit louder high frequencies that are more likely to cause hearing damage.
Another hearing phenomenon that seems to be more noticeable with headphones is a decreasing sensitivity to sound levels over time, as the ears adapt to loud sounds. The listener perceives a gradual drop in loudness even though the volume control setting hasn't changed. The acoustic isolation of headphones tends to highlight this dulling effect. It is all too easy for headphone listeners to turn up the volume to the point where hearing is at risk. Interestingly, most people find it difficult to distinguish between 85dB and 100dB SPLs, despite that the latter is more injurious to hearing. Therefore, it is important to avoid listening fatigue by resting the ears in silence after long sessions with headphones and to fight the temptation to turn up the volume.
At the risk of being downvoted, I don't like speakers at all. Headphones are the way to go.
Ya, if you don't mind your ears having permanent damage way too early in life. It has been well-proven that having an audio source directly shot into your ear at close range for any extended period of time is far more damaging than a roomfull of speakers at an equal decibel range. Much more strain on your ears. It's recommended you never listen to headphones at any volume for more than an hour at a time. If I ever had to shut off my music every hour I think I'd kill someone. Stick to a good set of speakers, you might actually be able to hear when you're old.
A couple of years ago they added this to the Boston area. I tend to think that the article is mistaken on one small point, and that is the leading one. The main reason for requiring 10-digit dialing, as I understand it, is so you DON'T have to dial the leading 1 when calling a local call -- IE to call a neighboring town (or even my next door neighbor) I would dial 10 digits, to call California I still have to dial 11, as always. I'm not sure what the technical reasons with switching and all are, but I would guess this is the case in NYC as well. And I'm very surprised that this has no been implemented there already--I would think they'd have much more of a phone overpopulation problem than Boston.
what type of applications would this be good for? Do we really need that much storage
Density is always important in certain applications, especially in government markets. The company I work for makes small multicomputer boards, 4 procesors in a 9U VME slot, but for actual storage, we can only reasonably fit 128MB of flash, due to size restrictions. So to have something this compact... it would help a lot of people.
OK, there has beena lot of comparison to motorcycle controls here with regards to the gas and brake being on the steering wheel. This same design idea does NOT work with a steering wheel!! The reason it works on a motorcycle is because your hands to not (often) move from their positions. You're holding onto handlebars, there's nowhere for your hands to go (except occasionally onto your knee when you're cruising and want to look cool). If you're holding a wheel, unless you're Miss Daisy, your hands could be anywhere on the wheel. Yes, some people drive at 10 and 2. I was taught to keep my hands at 9 and 3. OThers do different things. None of these are condusive to hand controls.
the school gave preference to "qualified male candidates on the margin," says Robert Massa, vice president for enrollment and student life. The idea gets mixed reviews among Dickinson's students. "It reeks of affirmative action," says physics major Michelle Edwards. But Massa emphasizes that "the men we admitted were as qualified as the women."
That last line is key. Remember the real definition of affirmative action :
The practice of the government of posting job listings in alternative news media in order to INFORM more minorities of job offerings.
Despite the fact that this has been bastardized to mean hiring / accepting based on things other than your ability, such as race, gender, or economic status, this is NOT affirmative action. It's discrimination.
More fun with definitions :
racism : Any policy or belief which is biased towards or against a specific race
sexism : Any policy or belief which is biased towards or against a specific gender
So just be aware, were they to give extra points to men (of which I am one, btw) trying to get into college, this would be sexism, NOT affirmative action. Keep this in mind next time you hear some crap like this.
Yes, Dark Angel was cancelled. And it was definitely about boobies. But some subplot not related to the aforementioned mammaries had the scenario mentioend in the parent post about an electromagnetic pulse wiping out all data on Earth.
plus with all this reliance on magnetic based media is just an accident waiting to happen, you do realise that if one EMR pulse from the sun (or even a EMP weapon) ever reaches Earth were back to square 1, sure us as humans can survive the magnetic dose of energy but all our data/research is gone forever all cos we chose to store our knowledge on a magnet.
Someone's been watching a bit too much Dark Angel, don't you think? For anyone (most of you most likely) who hasn't seen the show, the entire premise is based around the fact that someone in fact did this very thing and the world is now in disarray because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why anyone is surprised by this. Lyrics are basically poems, and no one would argue that poetry isn't covered by copyright. If I wanted to put up a page of poetry, I would have to contact the individual copyright holders and get their permission.
In this case I think you're... um... partly wrong. Whether that's the same as being partly pregnant (ie impossible) I have yet to determine for myself.
I can't necessarily say it's not equally wrong to reproduce someone's song lyrics as it is to do the same with published poetry. HOWEVER, the REASON behind copyright is to protect someone's... source of income, no? For a poet, this is the published word. For a lyricist, however, it's the song that his word goes into. You cannot argue that an artist would lose any revenue from the lyrics of his / her song being printed. Obviously if the song was reproduced without permission, there's an argument.
So yes, it is equally illegal. But is it equally wrong?
Why is it people think music is somehow different from other forms of art and can be readily and freely stolen?
Downloading the music that you should be paying for == stealing. Even most people who do it will admit to that. I just can't convince myself that putting the lyrics up on a website as a reference is the same thing. Or even close.
From the article : The $1 and $2 notes will not change.
When's the last time they actually printed a $2 bill? ANyone? I think the only person who still thinks they're a viable monetary note is my grandfather, who still plays poker with fifty cent pieces.
Seriously.
On the one hand, you really can't FAULT the RIAA for trying to do something, but on the other hand the route they're taking amounts to essentially vigilante justice. Whether you think people SHOULD be allowed to share music or not, they AREN'T at the moment, so (technically) should be "punished." It is not up to the RIAA to dole out this punishment, however. What they're doing is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right (my mommy taught me that, happy mother's day to her).
Perhaps you took the quote to literaly? It's about wondering to trust something that affects/has control over you (the impression the image gives you).
The point is. Should you saftly put you trust in the photo jounalism industry?
Perhaps. I think if this was the intent of the post than it should have been stated. To me it sounded like blame was being randomly placed on teh government for a doctored photo which in fact had nothing to DO with the government. It's these subtle nuances that sit in people's minds as "wow, the government is trying to screw us all over" even though they don't remember that it actually had NOTHING to do with the government. Listen for it more often. Major tactic of the liberal media. Juxtapose unrelated things which you want to seem related, and in people's minds they BECOME related.
This is our concern, dude.
to paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Mother, should I trust the government?
While I respect your taste in music -- HUH? The guy was an LA Times photographer. Nowhere does he state that he has any affiliation with the government. The modification in question does not actually change much in the photo (I do NOT deny that it is wrong, just stating that it is not in any way propoganda IN THIS CASE). Don't blame the government for EVERYTHING.
In other news, Kudos to the times for catching the guy, and also for admitting and publishing the "error."
You are right, its about the people of the world
;)
... THE US. Our fuel is cheap enough that it allows us to build large cars. While I don't agree at ALL with teh environmental impacts of such vehicles, I will not believe that a war has been waged to keep oil prices down. Because, basically, IT WON'T HELP. OPEC controls oil prices from teh Middle East. If the regime in Iraq is completely overthrown, and a new government is installed (which I hope is chosen by the Iraqi people, and has nothing to do with the US, honestly), oil prices aren't going to magically go down for Americans. I'm not an economics major, but this seems pretty simple. We're not occupying this country and shipping oil home. We are in no way interfering with OPECs ability to control oil.
:)
This is nitpicking to the point of asinine. You are merely trying to disagree with every single point of mine. I was replying to a direct question about the people of Europe, and therefore responded in kind. The mere statement above is simply argumentative and not at all helpful. Any other points you make are overshadowed by the fact tha tyou simply want to argue with me, no matter what I say.
It's about US national security.
Which nobody belives. (Well you perhaps
None of the international community believes it. I think 60-some percent o the American population believes it. The only important thing to me is that the people who actually have facts about the threat believe it. I elect and pay for my government officials to be in office because I expect them to protect me. If they say that's what they are doing, do I have proof otherwise? No. Neither do you. Something I've said MANY TIMES that if this turns out to be for any reason OTHER than US national security, I am COMPLETELY against it. I don't like blindly trusting those in power, but that is what I am forced to do when it comes to matters of international intelligence that I do not have.
The US is using 25% of the worlds oil! When you get nervous you seem to build bigger and more slothfull cars (SUV anyone) - few believe that Oil doesn't play some a part of this.
More than 40% of the US's oil comes from
Perhaps (or perhaps not) - but then you could say the same about Saddam.
Saddam does not care about his NATIONAL security, as he has proven by bombing and killing and torturing thousands of his own people. He cares about himself. That's the problem.
And that is the dangerous mindset "all thse america-haters" - just nuke the lot, we'll be a lot safer then.
I won't get into this one, but this is not "nuking the lot." This is specifically and deliberately taking a dangerous dictator out of power. As many civilian lives as possible are being spared, and I hope helped.
If everybody tells you you are nuts, perhaps you should start to listen to them instead of the voices in your head.
Or the voices of an intelligence community of hundreds and thousands, your most trusted advisors? The people whose first priority is the safety of the country you are bound to protect, not the United Nations or their own nation? Yeah, I'd never listen to those people. Fools.
Except maybe the French
Oh i don't know, they were threatend by a rogue nation with weapons of mass destruction, and they stuck to their guns - sounds rather brave to me.
It was a joke. I know nothing of French history and dont' pretend to.
Except it's bullshit. People in Europe don't care what party Bush belongs to. It's the megalomanic they find disturbing.
:)
This is not about the people in Europe. It's about US national security. I'm sure most Europeans see us all as a bunch of cowboy rednecks, showin our muscle and fighting Iraq for oil or some other ignorant claim. Honestly, it doesn't matter for shit. The United States governemtn is doing what they feel is in the best interest of their national security.
Yes, it would be nice if we had UN approval. Most nations, when faced with similar threats, also go to the UN. The difference is, in those cases, the UN granted permission for these nations to use force. And, despite what all these America-haters out there think, in a number of these cases the US government has sent troops to help (Kosovo? Kuwait?)
Regardless, the governing body of ANY sovereign nation is NOT the United Nations. It is that nation's government. If something is a threat to your nation, whether it's the USA or any other nation, the government and military of YOUR NATION is responsible for keeping the people of your nation safe. And I guarantee that no honest government is going to sit by and let their country be threatened, regardless of world opinion.
Except maybe the French
Hans Blix, head of the UN inspector team, said today that the use of Scud missiles was in fact a violation of the treaty signed by Iraq, and is in direct opposition to waht Iraq declared they had. Proof anyone?
Regardless, I do agree with you that not many "valid" nations agree with the United States. I have said many times (though not in this thread, or maybe not even on this site) that if it ever came to play that we do NOT have any information that Iraq is a threat, I wholeheartedly am against this war. I am for it ON THE CONDITION THAT it is for direct protection of US citezens. All bets are off otherwise. I know I am relatively naive in trusting what I am told by the government, BUT when it comes to public safety I tend to be a little more willing to believe waht I hear. It's a fault of mine I suppose, but like I alluded to, I have to believe those who have more information than me, of which I have none.
Thank you for the intelligent responses.
All presidents are liars, and if you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself. That job requires the ability to lie.
I'm in complete agreement. If it weren't for thousands of other people and dozens of other countries saying the same thing and backing this, I wouldn't believe Bush any more than any liberal or conservative or alien or anything else. Few can deny that the reasons we are going to war are true. Lots of people deny that they are valid reasons for war, which I can respect, if not agree with.
The reason people have a problem, amazing that you haven't deduced this yet, is that the US is acting without any agreement in the international community. The US is jumping the gun on inspections that should hae been finished. In short, the US is acting on its own accord, citing incredibly shaky terrorist evidence.
Really? 35+ other nations agree with us and vocally back the US. Again, not to repeat myself, but the UN agreed that Iraq is a threat that must be neutralized, by about three months ago. They feel that waiting will help, I and people who actually know things do NOT.
And exactly what inside information do YOU have that the intelligence community does not? I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was speaking to a top operative of the CIA, who actually knew the nature of the threat. No I am not comfortable blindly trusting the intelligence community when they say "there is a threat," but when it comes to the safety of me and the people I care for, I tend to air on the side of caution. Until someone can prove differently, I will continue to do so.
And don't resort to name-calling of "a lot of Americans." I can't write every single point in a short response. I'm sure I miss a lot of stuff. I write what comes to mind. YOu counter with counterpoints. It's the way back and forth works. You didn't mention every single fucking thing that happened in the history of the US, do I say "that's the thing about you guywhoiams, you are blah blah blah." Please. I mention what is pertinent to the point I'm making, and openly respect any thoughtful response, such as yours, and continue making my point until I feel that I've won or lost the argument, or we're at a stalemate. I may sound a little cocky when I say things like "that's the thing about the truth" but I don't bash your thought process or opinions.
I never claimed to know everything. I am always asking for other viewpoints, and quite often change my mind on issues. I openly admit that there is much I don't know. I certainly do NOT claim that only liberals are against the war. They are merely teh most vocal, AND the most annoying because they often don't give valid points behind their views, just "war is bad" without any thought. Doesn't fly with me, sorry.
Bush had a CONNECTION to Enron and a scandal. I am in no way defending Bush, I disagree with a lot of the things he does. I k now nothing about Bush's connection to Enron so I'm not going to weaken my argument by commenting on it.
However! Having a connection to a scandal and Clinton's debacle are NOT comparable. The man not only exploited a female worker (but that didn't "destroy anyone's life") but PERJURED himself to the highest court in the country, and to the American people. I could care less that he got a BJ and is just a generally terrible person. But we're supposed to trust the nation to a scumbag liar? No, I don't htink so.
As for protesting the Kuwait liberation, there are reasons there weren't as many protestors. The war had nothing to do with the US, first of all, and therefore was approved of. We were helping somoene else, so it's ok, the UN agreed, all good and fine. We try to protect ourselves, we get shit on by the UN. You feel this war is unjust? Why did the UN unanimously vote that Saddam was a threat, and must be disarmed? No, they don't want military action, but they'll sit there and let us be threatened? Until Americans die? How long should we wait exactly? I'd prefer my family be safe.
You said the answer to your question in your question. CLINTON bombed Kosovo. Clinton was a liberal. Liberals are protesting the war. THe only reason 99% of the protests are happening is because a Republican is in charge. Clinton had five separate military attacks without UN approval during his presidency. Not once did we hear anything like this in the media.
Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it, but the truth speaks for itself.
I'm sorry, I don't see this being worth it for ANYONE. No matter how fast your connection is, the transfer time to get something to your PC to be executed would well outweigh any gains you may get from it. Distributed nets are really only useful on extremely fast networks with dedicated CPUs, otherwise you're really just ADDING time to a problem rather than helping anything. Sorry.
We're supposed to PAY for that software? CRAP.
More importantly, when does it cease to be a mod and actually just become taking a piece of hardware from once place and 90% of your other hardware from elsewhere? Great, he has the XBOX CPU.... and that's it. New case, peripherals... if you've ever taken any courses in cognitive thinking, at some point this ceases to be an XBOX... I believe this passed that point.
References please?
What's the matter, you don't believe a complete stranger when he tells you something? C'mon, have some faith. I found the following, I'm sure there's more out there. In all honesty, I'm relaying what I've HEARD, not what I can prove, so given proof that I'm wrong I'd be more than willing ot take the opposite stance. However, I remember hearing many times that headphones are more damaging to your ears due to the proximity of the sound. I can see how a GOOD pair of headphones would cancel out any of the negative implications of headphones, IE toning down higher frequencies, etc. Any actual studies that show either side of the argument would be interesting and appreciated.
Taken from http://headwize.com/articles/hearing_art.htm
In loudspeaker reproduction, sounds must travel several feet before reaching the listener's ears. By the time they arrive, a portion of the high frequencies have been absorbed by the air. Low frequencies are not absorbed as much, but they are more felt through bone conduction than actually heard. With headphones, the ears hear all frequencies without any attenuation, because the transducers are literally pressed against them. Thus, when listening to headphones at the same effective volume level as loudspeakers, headphones may still transmit louder high frequencies that are more likely to cause hearing damage.
Another hearing phenomenon that seems to be more noticeable with headphones is a decreasing sensitivity to sound levels over time, as the ears adapt to loud sounds. The listener perceives a gradual drop in loudness even though the volume control setting hasn't changed. The acoustic isolation of headphones tends to highlight this dulling effect. It is all too easy for headphone listeners to turn up the volume to the point where hearing is at risk. Interestingly, most people find it difficult to distinguish between 85dB and 100dB SPLs, despite that the latter is more injurious to hearing. Therefore, it is important to avoid listening fatigue by resting the ears in silence after long sessions with headphones and to fight the temptation to turn up the volume.
Ya, if you don't mind your ears having permanent damage way too early in life. It has been well-proven that having an audio source directly shot into your ear at close range for any extended period of time is far more damaging than a roomfull of speakers at an equal decibel range. Much more strain on your ears. It's recommended you never listen to headphones at any volume for more than an hour at a time. If I ever had to shut off my music every hour I think I'd kill someone. Stick to a good set of speakers, you might actually be able to hear when you're old.
A couple of years ago they added this to the Boston area. I tend to think that the article is mistaken on one small point, and that is the leading one. The main reason for requiring 10-digit dialing, as I understand it, is so you DON'T have to dial the leading 1 when calling a local call -- IE to call a neighboring town (or even my next door neighbor) I would dial 10 digits, to call California I still have to dial 11, as always. I'm not sure what the technical reasons with switching and all are, but I would guess this is the case in NYC as well. And I'm very surprised that this has no been implemented there already--I would think they'd have much more of a phone overpopulation problem than Boston.
what type of applications would this be good for? Do we really need that much storage
Density is always important in certain applications, especially in government markets. The company I work for makes small multicomputer boards, 4 procesors in a 9U VME slot, but for actual storage, we can only reasonably fit 128MB of flash, due to size restrictions. So to have something this compact... it would help a lot of people.
OK, there has beena lot of comparison to motorcycle controls here with regards to the gas and brake being on the steering wheel. This same design idea does NOT work with a steering wheel!! The reason it works on a motorcycle is because your hands to not (often) move from their positions. You're holding onto handlebars, there's nowhere for your hands to go (except occasionally onto your knee when you're cruising and want to look cool). If you're holding a wheel, unless you're Miss Daisy, your hands could be anywhere on the wheel. Yes, some people drive at 10 and 2. I was taught to keep my hands at 9 and 3. OThers do different things. None of these are condusive to hand controls.
Just my 2 cents. Refute at will.
An important quote :
the school gave preference to "qualified male candidates on the margin," says Robert Massa, vice president for enrollment and student life. The idea gets mixed reviews among Dickinson's students. "It reeks of affirmative action," says physics major Michelle Edwards. But Massa emphasizes that "the men we admitted were as qualified as the women."
That last line is key. Remember the real definition of affirmative action :
The practice of the government of posting job listings in alternative news media in order to INFORM more minorities of job offerings.
Despite the fact that this has been bastardized to mean hiring / accepting based on things other than your ability, such as race, gender, or economic status, this is NOT affirmative action. It's discrimination.
More fun with definitions :
racism : Any policy or belief which is biased towards or against a specific race
sexism : Any policy or belief which is biased towards or against a specific gender
So just be aware, were they to give extra points to men (of which I am one, btw) trying to get into college, this would be sexism, NOT affirmative action. Keep this in mind next time you hear some crap like this.
Yes, Dark Angel was cancelled. And it was definitely about boobies. But some subplot not related to the aforementioned mammaries had the scenario mentioend in the parent post about an electromagnetic pulse wiping out all data on Earth.
plus with all this reliance on magnetic based media is just an accident waiting to happen, you do realise that if one EMR pulse from the sun (or even a EMP weapon) ever reaches Earth were back to square 1, sure us as humans can survive the magnetic dose of energy but all our data/research is gone forever all cos we chose to store our knowledge on a magnet.
Someone's been watching a bit too much Dark Angel, don't you think? For anyone (most of you most likely) who hasn't seen the show, the entire premise is based around the fact that someone in fact did this very thing and the world is now in disarray because of it.
Personally, Marshallow Peeps are delicious. They are a staple of every Easter morning. Unless of course you are a nasty heratic.
Or diabetic. Or, at least in my opinion, have any sense of taste whatsoever. I'd rather eat packing styrofoam.