Adherents to movements like the BJP may not be too thrilled about it, but there are plenty of Indians who don't think cows sacred. Indians aren't all Hindus.
So what you're saying is, sacred cows aren't always a sacred cow?
I recall a news story recently about a South African who had immigrated to America, and was almost kicked out of school for campaigning for himself as "African-American of the year", or some such. The school claimed he couldn't compete because he was white, even though he had been born in Africa and was now an American.
I haven't found any good drop-in PGP (or gpg) plugin for Outlook Express
That's odd, since according to this page, PGP Personal "includes the personal versions of PGP Mail and PGP Disk, which integrate with mainstream email applications (Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora, Entourage, and Apple Mail)...."
It would seem your search is at an end, grasshopper.
Well, it is obvious that I won't be watching it tonight. A new episode of Scrubs is on at the same time that deals with causality and the chaos theory. A subject much more interesting to me.
Scrubs has plots? I thought it was just a vehicle for watching Sarah Chalke occasionally flash her bra. At least, that's why I watch it.
Re:Why are highly rated comments always sarcastic?
on
Junkie Loves His Spam
·
· Score: 1
That said, my first reaction, is one I always have: why when an interesting topic comes up: why do I find only sarcastic/hopefully humorous comments get through my level 4 filter? Still waiting for an answer on that.
You can always edit your preferences so that "Funny" mods get a negative mod to them. A -2 would keep any and all of them from reaching 4, as far as you're concerned.
The most recent OED newsletter covers the progress of the project, which has its own site hosted on a FreeBSD box running a MySQL database engine.
Ah yes, it's not enough to simply point to an "interesting" story (whether this one qualifies or not is debatable). You have to mentioned that the potential Slashdot victim is running some sort of OSS.
Seriously, is it newsworthy that these guys are running their little show on FreeBSD and MySQL? Besides which, I couldn't find anything on their site which actually says "we're running FreeBSD and MySQL." So not only is it immaterial, it's also possibly wrong.
Does anyone else find it ironic that a review of a book regarding software security, which should include such topics as how to check for proper input, did not have a closing italics tag? Not that anyone's gonna hijack a site that doesn't have proper text formatting, but I think it's a glaring example that programmers are human, and human error is the root of all security breaches.
Yeah, but you're only talking about people not being able to watch a movie. Annoying, yes. But locking out independent mechanics actually hits people where it hurts: their wallets. And if they can't earn a living, they can't pay taxes, or donate to political campaigns.
Check out the homepage for the Automotive Service Councils of CA. Under 'Legislation', they explain what bills they're lobbying for or against. So the real answer, if you want to protect something you think is important, hire a bunch of lawyers to take politicians out to lunch once a week. Otherwise, you ain't got no hope.
So what if artists don't get paid? Who the hell promised that they WOULD get paid forever? Will people will stop making music just because they can't sell 10 million CD:s? No. Can I get a job as a professional scribe, doing nothing but copying bibles by hand? No. Can I make a living building sextants? No.
Beautifully stated. I wish my friends in the movie and music industries would all listen when I try to tell them the same thing. But they won't, so they're doomed to follow the buggy whip manufacturers to death and obscurity.
Besides, artists will always be able to earn a living. Britney and Beyonce may not make millions of dollars a year anymore (actually, those are bad examples, since Pepsi will probably keep paying them both for a while, especially if they do a commercial where they kiss each other, but I digress), but they'll still do better than Joe Sixpack ever will. It's the industry executives, with nothing really to fall back on, who are really and truly screwed.
I suspect many of them would like to see people like you wiped out on the spot for suppressing their religion, intimidating and screwing with their country and economy, etc.
Yes, let's all play nice-nice with the murderous fanatics. Then they'll be nice to us (BTW, why is it that good, hard working Americans, who want nothing more than to live in peace, are seen as evil scumbags, while murderous scumbags are just "misunderstood"?)
By the way, the reasons they want people like the grandparent dead (and you, by the way) isn't anything so noble as he hurt their feelings. It's because he, and you, are not Muslim. That's it, that's their reason. Want to talk about "oppressing someone's religion"? Then talk about how Christians and Jews were stoned to death by the Taliban on a daily basis.
9/11 al Queda members didn't wake up one day and decide, for no reason at all, to spend their own lives to try to hurt people they saw as oppressors. There was a reason that they feel the way they do, and I doubt that trying to use force and intimidation is going to work all that well.
Ya know what? I don't give a fuck what their reasons are. They want us all dead. Yes, you, too, Mr. Liberal. They don't think we're "oppressing" them, they won't be nice to us if we all sit around a campfire and sing Kumbaya, and they will not stop until we all either dead or Muslim. That's what they want, and we've done nothing to bring this on ourselves. We are the victims, they are the perpetrators, and stop making excuses for them!
When Kerry gets elected this kind of crap will be put to an end. Stop exporting American jobs to India!!! Vote Kerry and get Bush the hell out of office!
Riiiight. Because no H1B's were ever issued when Clinton was in office.
You said it did nothing but kill off some existing programs. I repeat, you're wrong: it did more than kill off existing programs. For one thing, it stated publicly what NASA's focus will be going forward.
Kennedy's "moon or bust" speech was given before a joint session of Congress. Bush's was just in front of some NASA people. Kennedy's speech was about a direction for the nation. Bush's was about a direction for one government agency. Comparing the two is pretty far fetched, I think.
That speech did nothing except sound the death-knell for the STS, ISS and Hubble.
Wrong. It spelled out the important goals for NASA. The most important of which is, build a permanent settlement on the moon. Which was the crux of the whole speech. None of the new goals are acheivable using the shuttle, the ISS, or even Hubble. So, they've got to go to make room for the vehicles and systems which will carry man forward. Or are you one of those people who believes we should keep doing things the same old way, when the same old way won't get us where we need to go? Bet you were real upset for all those buggy whip manufacturers at the turn of the last century.
You people are all freaking out because you think Bush wants man on Mars by the end of the decade. Go read his speech again (which can be found here), and tell me, where in it did he say such a thing?
The focus of the speech was on expanding our exploration of space, and eventually sending humans to Mars and the other planets. But no time frame was stated. And the immediate goal is to establish a permanent base on the moon.
For me, though, the most important part of the speech was the closing paragraph:
"Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit. So let us continue the journey."
I think he's right. I think we need to explore other planets because it's our nature to do so. And I think we should start as soon as possible, and not let petty politics get in the way of a noble endeavor.
6'2" 200 lbs isn't skinny. I'll grant you it's not fat. I should have said "stupid fuck", since you've gone on to prove that one right.
You obviously have no idea what a "war crime" is. Kerry, by his own admissions to Congress, actively hunted down civilians. This was not a common occurrence on the part of US soldiers in Vietnam, or any war the US has participated in since the dawn of the 20th century. Collateral damage (a term referring not just to killing of innocents, but also damaging their property), on the other hand, is an accident which professionals try to avoid. In case you hadn't noticed, the level of collateral damage in Iraqi Freedom was extremely low compared to past wars. And this was with the enemy parking tanks and anti-air platforms next to schools and mosques.
Oh, and listening to stories at your daddy's knee doesn't make you an expert on anything (though I gotta wonder how your dad would react if he knew you were calling him a war criminal and murderer...most of the guys I know who have killed civilians are pretty touch about that kind of thing). I, on the other hand, followed in my dad's footsteps, and have now served in two wars, along with my brother and brother-in-law. And while we have all (with the exception of the brother-in-law, who's a doctor in the Navy) either directly or indirectly killed other humans, and quite possibly injured or killed civilians, I wouldn't say any of us are war criminals. Like I said, there's a difference between accidentally hurting someone, and actively hunting them for sport. Which is what Kerry claims to have done.
Bush got popped for drinking and driving. He didn't actually kill anyone, and if you honestly think a misdemeanor is as bad as a felony, you're a complete nutjob. It's like arguing "people are killed by guns, so if you use a gun to target practice, you're a murderer." Hyperbole like that makes you look infantile and/or insane. Which is it with you?
I don't think Bush is a pussy. He volunteered to fight in Vietnam, repeatedly (as did most of the other flyers in his reserve squadron). They were all turned down because they weren't needed. It's no fault of his he didn't get to make any good communists.
Actually, if we take out Nixon and Reagan, then Republicans took the state half the time, not a third (Ford and Bush Sr. vs Johnson, Clinton x2, and Gore). So the state might be as likely to vote Republican over Democrat, but it's not beyond imagination that it might.
And the correlation you're talking about is called the "native son" or "favored son" advantage (I've heard it called either). It's one of the reasons most of the Presidents over the last century have come from places like New York, Texas, or California, and not Wyoming or Alaska. Though it doesn't always work. Gore, for instance, failed to carry Tennessee in 2000, which cost him the election.
Actually, Kerry's preferred weapon of choice (and the picture you included is of) an.50 cal Browning Machinegun (BMG). Also called the M-2, or "Ma-deuce", it's the weapon which was fitted on the prow of the swift boat he skippered, and the weapon he used when he routinely killed innocent men, women, and children, in Vietnam.
Yes, that's right, don't forget that Kerry confessed to war crimes in 1971 in front of Congress. Personnally, I'd like to see him arrested and charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), since there is statute of limitations on murder. So when you go cast your vote for him in November, remember, you're voting for a confessed war criminal.
Take a look at the elections for the past several years. California is nearly always caried by Democratic candidates, even with the democratic candidate isn't all that popular nationwide.
Year Candidate who got CA electors 2000 Al Gore (D) 1996 Bill Clinton (D) 1992 Bill Clinton (D) 1988 George Bush, Sr (R) 1984 Ronald Reagan (R) 1980 Ronald Reagan (R) 1976 Gerald Ford (R) 1972 Richard Nixon (R) 1968 Richard Nixon (R) 1964 Lyndon Johnson (D)
I think 40 years is far enough for now. Anyone who's interested go back further on their own.
Now, what do we learn from this, kids? That California is just as likely to vote for a Republican as a Democrat. To state otherwise is foolish.
All we need is one serious fuck-up, like California (the most liberal state around) being won by Bush, and you'll see voter riots.
Um, except that the people most likely to not want Bush elected aren't quite capable throwing a riot. Remember, one of the requirements to having an armed rebellion, is an armed populace. Who do you think is more, or less, likely to have assault rifles in the home: Bush backers, or Kerry backers?
Slashdot Mirror
Adherents to movements like the BJP may not be too thrilled about it, but there are plenty of Indians who don't think cows sacred. Indians aren't all Hindus.
So what you're saying is, sacred cows aren't always a sacred cow?
I recall a news story recently about a South African who had immigrated to America, and was almost kicked out of school for campaigning for himself as "African-American of the year", or some such. The school claimed he couldn't compete because he was white, even though he had been born in Africa and was now an American.
Hmm, posting about wanting online soap operas, on Slashdot. You're being ironic, aren't you?
No no no, you'd have to call it the Floating Head of Death (with props to Gary Larson).
I haven't found any good drop-in PGP (or gpg) plugin for Outlook Express
That's odd, since according to this page, PGP Personal "includes the personal versions of PGP Mail and PGP Disk, which integrate with mainstream email applications (Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora, Entourage, and Apple Mail)...."
It would seem your search is at an end, grasshopper.
Well, it is obvious that I won't be watching it tonight. A new episode of Scrubs is on at the same time that deals with causality and the chaos theory. A subject much more interesting to me.
Scrubs has plots? I thought it was just a vehicle for watching Sarah Chalke occasionally flash her bra. At least, that's why I watch it.
That said, my first reaction, is one I always have: why when an interesting topic comes up: why do I find only sarcastic/hopefully humorous comments get through my level 4 filter? Still waiting for an answer on that.
You can always edit your preferences so that "Funny" mods get a negative mod to them. A -2 would keep any and all of them from reaching 4, as far as you're concerned.
The most recent OED newsletter covers the progress of the project, which has its own site hosted on a FreeBSD box running a MySQL database engine.
Ah yes, it's not enough to simply point to an "interesting" story (whether this one qualifies or not is debatable). You have to mentioned that the potential Slashdot victim is running some sort of OSS.
Seriously, is it newsworthy that these guys are running their little show on FreeBSD and MySQL? Besides which, I couldn't find anything on their site which actually says "we're running FreeBSD and MySQL." So not only is it immaterial, it's also possibly wrong.
Does anyone else find it ironic that a review of a book regarding software security, which should include such topics as how to check for proper input, did not have a closing italics tag? Not that anyone's gonna hijack a site that doesn't have proper text formatting, but I think it's a glaring example that programmers are human, and human error is the root of all security breaches.
Yeah, but you're only talking about people not being able to watch a movie. Annoying, yes. But locking out independent mechanics actually hits people where it hurts: their wallets. And if they can't earn a living, they can't pay taxes, or donate to political campaigns.
Check out the homepage for the Automotive Service Councils of CA. Under 'Legislation', they explain what bills they're lobbying for or against. So the real answer, if you want to protect something you think is important, hire a bunch of lawyers to take politicians out to lunch once a week. Otherwise, you ain't got no hope.
So what if artists don't get paid? Who the hell promised that they WOULD get paid forever? Will people will stop making music just because they can't sell 10 million CD:s? No. Can I get a job as a professional scribe, doing nothing but copying bibles by hand? No. Can I make a living building sextants? No.
Beautifully stated. I wish my friends in the movie and music industries would all listen when I try to tell them the same thing. But they won't, so they're doomed to follow the buggy whip manufacturers to death and obscurity.
Besides, artists will always be able to earn a living. Britney and Beyonce may not make millions of dollars a year anymore (actually, those are bad examples, since Pepsi will probably keep paying them both for a while, especially if they do a commercial where they kiss each other, but I digress), but they'll still do better than Joe Sixpack ever will. It's the industry executives, with nothing really to fall back on, who are really and truly screwed.
Volo => to fly or move rapidly
Mortis => death
"Winged Death" seems to work. Though "thief of life" might be the transliteration.
I suspect many of them would like to see people like you wiped out on the spot for suppressing their religion, intimidating and screwing with their country and economy, etc.
Yes, let's all play nice-nice with the murderous fanatics. Then they'll be nice to us (BTW, why is it that good, hard working Americans, who want nothing more than to live in peace, are seen as evil scumbags, while murderous scumbags are just "misunderstood"?)
By the way, the reasons they want people like the grandparent dead (and you, by the way) isn't anything so noble as he hurt their feelings. It's because he, and you, are not Muslim. That's it, that's their reason. Want to talk about "oppressing someone's religion"? Then talk about how Christians and Jews were stoned to death by the Taliban on a daily basis.
9/11 al Queda members didn't wake up one day and decide, for no reason at all, to spend their own lives to try to hurt people they saw as oppressors. There was a reason that they feel the way they do, and I doubt that trying to use force and intimidation is going to work all that well.
Ya know what? I don't give a fuck what their reasons are. They want us all dead. Yes, you, too, Mr. Liberal. They don't think we're "oppressing" them, they won't be nice to us if we all sit around a campfire and sing Kumbaya, and they will not stop until we all either dead or Muslim. That's what they want, and we've done nothing to bring this on ourselves. We are the victims, they are the perpetrators, and stop making excuses for them!
When Kerry gets elected this kind of crap will be put to an end. Stop exporting American jobs to India!!! Vote Kerry and get Bush the hell out of office!
Riiiight. Because no H1B's were ever issued when Clinton was in office.
You said it did nothing but kill off some existing programs. I repeat, you're wrong: it did more than kill off existing programs. For one thing, it stated publicly what NASA's focus will be going forward.
Kennedy's "moon or bust" speech was given before a joint session of Congress. Bush's was just in front of some NASA people. Kennedy's speech was about a direction for the nation. Bush's was about a direction for one government agency. Comparing the two is pretty far fetched, I think.
That speech did nothing except sound the death-knell for the STS, ISS and Hubble.
Wrong. It spelled out the important goals for NASA. The most important of which is, build a permanent settlement on the moon. Which was the crux of the whole speech. None of the new goals are acheivable using the shuttle, the ISS, or even Hubble. So, they've got to go to make room for the vehicles and systems which will carry man forward. Or are you one of those people who believes we should keep doing things the same old way, when the same old way won't get us where we need to go? Bet you were real upset for all those buggy whip manufacturers at the turn of the last century.
You people are all freaking out because you think Bush wants man on Mars by the end of the decade. Go read his speech again (which can be found here), and tell me, where in it did he say such a thing?
The focus of the speech was on expanding our exploration of space, and eventually sending humans to Mars and the other planets. But no time frame was stated. And the immediate goal is to establish a permanent base on the moon.
For me, though, the most important part of the speech was the closing paragraph:
"Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit. So let us continue the journey."
I think he's right. I think we need to explore other planets because it's our nature to do so. And I think we should start as soon as possible, and not let petty politics get in the way of a noble endeavor.
6'2" 200 lbs isn't skinny. I'll grant you it's not fat. I should have said "stupid fuck", since you've gone on to prove that one right.
You obviously have no idea what a "war crime" is. Kerry, by his own admissions to Congress, actively hunted down civilians. This was not a common occurrence on the part of US soldiers in Vietnam, or any war the US has participated in since the dawn of the 20th century. Collateral damage (a term referring not just to killing of innocents, but also damaging their property), on the other hand, is an accident which professionals try to avoid. In case you hadn't noticed, the level of collateral damage in Iraqi Freedom was extremely low compared to past wars. And this was with the enemy parking tanks and anti-air platforms next to schools and mosques.
Oh, and listening to stories at your daddy's knee doesn't make you an expert on anything (though I gotta wonder how your dad would react if he knew you were calling him a war criminal and murderer...most of the guys I know who have killed civilians are pretty touch about that kind of thing). I, on the other hand, followed in my dad's footsteps, and have now served in two wars, along with my brother and brother-in-law. And while we have all (with the exception of the brother-in-law, who's a doctor in the Navy) either directly or indirectly killed other humans, and quite possibly injured or killed civilians, I wouldn't say any of us are war criminals. Like I said, there's a difference between accidentally hurting someone, and actively hunting them for sport. Which is what Kerry claims to have done.
Bush got popped for drinking and driving. He didn't actually kill anyone, and if you honestly think a misdemeanor is as bad as a felony, you're a complete nutjob. It's like arguing "people are killed by guns, so if you use a gun to target practice, you're a murderer." Hyperbole like that makes you look infantile and/or insane. Which is it with you?
I don't think Bush is a pussy. He volunteered to fight in Vietnam, repeatedly (as did most of the other flyers in his reserve squadron). They were all turned down because they weren't needed. It's no fault of his he didn't get to make any good communists.
You name me ONE person who was in active COMBAT in Vietnam who didn't commit a "War crime".
OK, my father, you fat prick.
So an apology for murder is just dandy for you? What are you, insane?
Actually, if we take out Nixon and Reagan, then Republicans took the state half the time, not a third (Ford and Bush Sr. vs Johnson, Clinton x2, and Gore). So the state might be as likely to vote Republican over Democrat, but it's not beyond imagination that it might.
And the correlation you're talking about is called the "native son" or "favored son" advantage (I've heard it called either). It's one of the reasons most of the Presidents over the last century have come from places like New York, Texas, or California, and not Wyoming or Alaska. Though it doesn't always work. Gore, for instance, failed to carry Tennessee in 2000, which cost him the election.
Actually, Kerry's preferred weapon of choice (and the picture you included is of) an .50 cal Browning Machinegun (BMG). Also called the M-2, or "Ma-deuce", it's the weapon which was fitted on the prow of the swift boat he skippered, and the weapon he used when he routinely killed innocent men, women, and children, in Vietnam.
Yes, that's right, don't forget that Kerry confessed to war crimes in 1971 in front of Congress. Personnally, I'd like to see him arrested and charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), since there is statute of limitations on murder. So when you go cast your vote for him in November, remember, you're voting for a confessed war criminal.
Hmm, hadn't thought of the criminal element. That's a good point.
Well, I didn't say it would be a successful rebellion, just that it would be an armed one.
Besides, the last time the Democrats tried to use armed rebellion to "protest" a President they didn't like, Sherman burnt down Atlanta.
Take a look at the elections for the past several years. California is nearly always caried by Democratic candidates, even with the democratic candidate isn't all that popular nationwide.
OK, let's look:
(source: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections
Year Candidate who got CA electors
2000 Al Gore (D)
1996 Bill Clinton (D)
1992 Bill Clinton (D)
1988 George Bush, Sr (R)
1984 Ronald Reagan (R)
1980 Ronald Reagan (R)
1976 Gerald Ford (R)
1972 Richard Nixon (R)
1968 Richard Nixon (R)
1964 Lyndon Johnson (D)
I think 40 years is far enough for now. Anyone who's interested go back further on their own.
Now, what do we learn from this, kids? That California is just as likely to vote for a Republican as a Democrat. To state otherwise is foolish.
All we need is one serious fuck-up, like California (the most liberal state around) being won by Bush, and you'll see voter riots.
Um, except that the people most likely to not want Bush elected aren't quite capable throwing a riot. Remember, one of the requirements to having an armed rebellion, is an armed populace. Who do you think is more, or less, likely to have assault rifles in the home: Bush backers, or Kerry backers?