Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.
Two wrongs don't make a right . . . but apparently "widespread" wrongs by "educated speakers" do . . . sadly.
When I loaded up the binary for ZFCEU on the Zaurus, as I recall the buttons were left-handed (A and B on the left, D-pad on the right), and not configurable. Is there some better configuration that I missed?
OK, I pretty much agree with everything you just said. I thought you were initially saying that ethics as a concept don't really exist . . . in the minds of many executives, no, but in reality, yes.
Regarding a new Teddy Roosevelt: it's too bad that American pathological greed extends all the way down to the taxpayers . . . votes are only $300 in tax-reduction apiece.
That's a big-sounding number, but most of this is not going to be useful or stored long term. Examples:
Many large companies are building VERY large data warehouses, to capture and analyze every iota of information about every transaction. In a year or two, much of today's data will be largely irrelevant, and will likely be summarized and deleted.
People send a lot of email, and post a lot of messages, about day-to-day stuff that has no long-term value.
Surveillance video is used more than ever. This is not going to be stored long-term, except perhaps in the most security-sensitive areas.
Either way, I highly commend the article's author for using both "Libraries of Congress" and "feet of books" as measurement units.
The original poster just used the wrong term . . . IQ is actually standardized to a median of 100. Which means 1/2 are below (exluding those who are at 100, of course).
The two parties do have significantly different agendas. Neither are as extreme as your run-of-the-mill third party candidate, because pleasing all of the people some of the time (which is, essentially, what democracy is supposed to do) requires fairly centrist politics. A candidate with an extreme left or right tilt would disenfranchise far too many voters.
"Loosing" the election is different from being prevented from taking power through the corrupt use of nepotism and a politically-biased judicial system.
The point is, you can't compare the stability of a complex system (Windows kernel + GUI) to the stability of a relatively simpler system (Linux kernel only).
Windows automatically reboots itself now. Explorer crashes, then restarts itself.
If you're going to get to that level of detail, shall we discuss the (in)stability of Gnome/KDE? It seems all to convenient that when Slashdotters define "Windows crashing", it includes any operational glitch at all, but "Linux crashing" seems to be confined to kernel panic only.
That raises the question: if it's that easy, will it encourage people who have absolutely NO knowledge of the issues or candidates to vote anyway? Isn't that more dangerous to democracy than not voting at all?
Slashdot Mirror
Two wrongs don't make a right . . . but apparently "widespread" wrongs by "educated speakers" do . . . sadly.
When I loaded up the binary for ZFCEU on the Zaurus, as I recall the buttons were left-handed (A and B on the left, D-pad on the right), and not configurable. Is there some better configuration that I missed?
Regarding a new Teddy Roosevelt: it's too bad that American pathological greed extends all the way down to the taxpayers . . . votes are only $300 in tax-reduction apiece.
- Many large companies are building VERY large data warehouses, to capture and analyze every iota of information about every transaction. In a year or two, much of today's data will be largely irrelevant, and will likely be summarized and deleted.
- People send a lot of email, and post a lot of messages, about day-to-day stuff that has no long-term value.
- Surveillance video is used more than ever. This is not going to be stored long-term, except perhaps in the most security-sensitive areas.
Either way, I highly commend the article's author for using both "Libraries of Congress" and "feet of books" as measurement units.Please stay out of commercial ventures, for everyone's sake. We don't need any more people peeing in the pool.
These days, business ethics = "what you can get away with", or "what you're willing to pay the fine for if you get caught". Sad.
To contact your critter, go here and search on your zip code.
Because without the have-nots, you can't have any haves. And some people just gotta be haves.
Either way, it sounds dumb and useless.
The original poster just used the wrong term . . . IQ is actually standardized to a median of 100. Which means 1/2 are below (exluding those who are at 100, of course).
If only the Cubs had known about this trick in time.
Great. You lose.
The two parties do have significantly different agendas. Neither are as extreme as your run-of-the-mill third party candidate, because pleasing all of the people some of the time (which is, essentially, what democracy is supposed to do) requires fairly centrist politics. A candidate with an extreme left or right tilt would disenfranchise far too many voters.
Then they can just run it in emulation! Sure it's a billion times slower, but it's 0p3n s0uRc3, d00d!
Dreams which, when it's discovered are almost impossible to accomplish due to rampant corruption and nepotism, turn to depression and/or anger.
Um, no. Just because some people got screwed more, that doesn't mean this guy didn't get screwed.
Oh God, I hope you're kidding. Please be kidding?
Wasn't this pretty much settled when Kasparov got his ass kicked by Deep Blue in '96, then again in '97?
Once again, the English system proves superior. 560 square feet sounds way more impressive than a mere 52 square meters.
"Loosing" the election is different from being prevented from taking power through the corrupt use of nepotism and a politically-biased judicial system.
I believe you just did.
The point is, you can't compare the stability of a complex system (Windows kernel + GUI) to the stability of a relatively simpler system (Linux kernel only).
If you're going to get to that level of detail, shall we discuss the (in)stability of Gnome/KDE? It seems all to convenient that when Slashdotters define "Windows crashing", it includes any operational glitch at all, but "Linux crashing" seems to be confined to kernel panic only.
That raises the question: if it's that easy, will it encourage people who have absolutely NO knowledge of the issues or candidates to vote anyway? Isn't that more dangerous to democracy than not voting at all?
NPR did a story last week on closed voting systems, and specifically mentioned Diebold and the "no-printers" argument. It's a start.