And another thing..you make it sound as though the human race is all benevolent and kind and wants everyone to be happy and prosper. I don't think that this is a bad thing, but it is far from real. We, as humans (myself included), are greedy, needy, hateful, and self-absorbed..we will always look out for Number One and, as long as we do that, the technology that we develop will always favor our darker nature than any good that is in us. It's great that we can farm efficiently and feed the hungry in a few countries, but while we can save a few thousand lives over a week or two, we can just as easily destroy them all with a nuclear weapon in a matter of seconds.
if a huge metereor heads towards the earth, we'll go all DIG and divert the meteror. Do me a favor...explain to me what the hell this statement means! What are you, like 12?
If the Earth somehow becomes unhabitable, we'll just find a way to go to another planet. Because it is JUST THAT EASY...on Monday we discover that the Earth will not be able to sustain life throughout the rest of the week so, on Tuesday, all 20 Billion of us (because, according to you, we have just yet begun to tap the potential amount of life that the Earth can hold) packup and leave for Planet X. Do we have a settlement there? Nah, we'll just build it when we get there. It doesn't take that long to develop technology anyways, right? It only took 20 years to get from Caveman to Home PC, according to you..
How long did it take to create the current PC? 20 some years.
You are a moron. Just because the technology directly related to the PC started seriously being developed for a home application 30 years ago, you CANNOT discount all the technological advances which made the concept of a home computer possible in the first place. Everything is a process.
Homosexuality has always existed. Its just that throughout history, society has been more and less tolerant. During Reinessance Italy, just about ebveryone was gay. During the days of the Wild West, there were just as many, its just society didn't take too kindly to them types, so it was kept behind closed doors.
Yeah, everyone was gay in the renaissance. Documentation? As far as the "Wild West" goes (and, by the way, I personally knock you down a few points for referring to that period as such), it really sounds as though you are talking out of your ass.
How is this a bad thing? More people means we are worse off? You are probably basing this off doomsday therists who say the earth can only hold so many people and by the year XXXX we won't have enough to live. These people never account for the exponential growth in technology that allows for us to make more efficient use of our resourced. This goes back to the starvation thing. Also, more people also means there will be more people to work on furthering our achievements.
Ok, let's take this back to some very basic concepts. If Johnny and Jimmy live in a empty room with 2 apples, how many can each of them have (assuming equal portions)? One..now, before you say "well, Jimmy could invent some technology that could grow apples faster and bigger!", let me cut you off - matter cannot be created from nothing. We have FINITE materials on earth.
This is true of every species inclusing humans. With regard to animal specefic disease, the number stays about the same. As we cure human diseases, new ones crop up, causing the total number to stay about the same. Nothing changes. I don't see how this is a sign that we are doomed as a species... Has any other species been wiped out due to disease? Especially since we have 100s of years of medical science behind us, I don't suspect this will ever end mankind.
I would encourage you to look at this and then rethink your statement. Note that the Black Plague killed about 1/3 of Europe's population. Nothing changes you say?? As far as what you said about having 100s of years of medical science behind us, you make it sound as though a couple hundred years ago, people thought, "Hey, maybe we should start looking into why people get stiff, lifeless, and start to stink after they get old or fall off of a cliff or get mauled by a bear." Medicine has been around for a LONG time but nature shows us that it will adhere to an equilibrium. The more technology that we develop to fight diseases and conquer old age, the more advanced the diseases get (this includes man-developed diseases as well - if you think that mankind can be classified apart from nature, you are a fool).
This is only a problem in africa and other third world places. Is this a problem here? No. At least not widespread. Starvation is mostly an economic effect rather than a worldwide flaw in the way humans use the earth's resources. Technology has increased to allow us to produce more food by the achre than ever before.
This statement is partially true..starvation is sometimes an economic effect but, again, I'm going to refer to what I said before. Mankind cannot be categorized separately from nature and her equilibrium. People starve every day...why the starvation exists matters not to nature.
The big advantage of a nuclear rocket is that instead of a big burst of power then a long coast, it will just be a steady output of power running for extremely long periods of time. This could mean instead of a six to nine month trip each direction between Earth and Mars we're talking six to seven weeks transit time!:-) Reducing the travel time to six-seven weeks has one huge advantage, namely that the amount of space needed for consumables for the astronauts will be drastically reduced, saving considerable weight on the spaceship itself.
IANARS nor an expert on interplanetary travel, but I am not sure that this is going to be as streamlined or as efficient as you boast.
For one, if the nuclear reaction provides a steady output the entire time (in turn, providing constant acceleration, one would infer from your post) then only one half of the trip could be spent accelerating - the other half would be spent decelerating. I would imagine that this would still be a bit faster than one thrust, but it does raise some questions.
Is it more efficient to have one big thrust at the beginning? Is it more efficient to have one big decelerating thrust at the end? If you're constantly accelerating at a pretty good rate for 2-3 months, it's going to take a tremendous amount of energy to bring you to a halt. This is just an assumption..as I mentioned before, IANARS.
you are obviously an idiot with no idea of what the word "context" means..probably "couth", either..
there's a big difference between making that symbol available in a list of commonly referred to symbols and specifically putting it in a game as a highly visible sculpture (refer to grandparent post)..
But I guess everybody here already thinks Microsoft are stupid...
Microsoft are stupid? OMFG! That is teh shizit!
I guess the non-sheep can tell that Microsoft Bash-Happy clones have no concept of the english language...
I'm sure that you probably know this, but the Nazis were not the first to use the swastika symbol. It's actually an ancient Indian/Buddhist symbol of peace (or the sun). There's a lot of other historical references to it, anywhere from the egyptians to the teutonic knights. Now whether or not it was a smart idea to put the symbol in the game, I won't comment to how stupid someone can be...oops, I guess I just did.
Republicans of course are going to spin it (and I saw many times where Kerry had a slight misstatement that they're going to jump all over)
You act as though this is a trait that is only intrinsic in Republicans..Democrats do it too..that's the result of the bi-partisan bullshit "democracy" that we abide in..
Due to the latency with which the images are updated, this can pose some awkward situations. Imagine a geek looking at their neighborhood, noticing a beautiful nude sunbather next door. Geek runs outside to peek through a knot-hole in the fence to discover that the sunbather has aged 50 years since the last time that the picture was updated...ewww.
This is not addressed to the parent, but is for everyone who responded to the parent -
I'm throwing stones, now - especially after reading this incredibly long and geeky thread about shutting down your OS variants. God bless you for having multiple ways of shutting down/halting/suspending/restarting your computer in user/superuser/megauser/whosyourdaddyuser modes, but shame on you for being a stickler on MS's decision to place a Shutdown option on the "Start" menu when you can't even agree on how to shut your own damned computers down!
It's hypocritical, pharisitical, and parasitical (I like alliterations, even when they're not in context...makes me feel like Don King) to bring up such an argument as "Please press the Start button to shut down (stop) the computer". I'm not saying that "Start" is the most incredible choice for a button, but it makes sense. If you are shutting down your computer, you START THE SHUTDOWN PROCESS.
I am in no way condoning violence as a means to get what you want - either in 'terrorism', 'police actions', or WAR. THESE ARE ATROCITIES OF HUMANITY! They have always happened and they WILL always happen. It is a sad, horrible thing that thousands of people lost their lives on 9/11. It is also a horrible thing that children are being killed in Iraq by American bombs. It is a horrible thing that there is family strife, divorce, child abuse, bankruptcy, debt, taxes, death, pain, famine, disease, etc.. We live in an imperfect world. So please, don't think that I'm saying that using violence to get what you want is a good thing. There is precious little good in the world and killing people for any reason is certainly not one of them.
Secondly, don't think that I want the US to fall or that I'm ungrateful. I do like it here and, while I haven't been to every place on the globe, I don't imagine there are very many other countries where I would choose to take up residence. There is always room for improvement, however.
One of the cliches that I hear/see that absolutely makes my blood boil is "America: Love it or Leave It". I always see this bumper sticker on the back of some chevy suburban right next to the sticker of Calvin peeing on a Dallas Cowboy's helmet or something, but I digress - anyhow, it should be AMERICA LOVE IT OR CHANGE IT!
Well it certainly seems like you are getting your definition of terrorism from either Fox News or President Bush. As mentioned in a previous reply to my original post, not all terrorism is specifically flying a plane into a building, exploding a bomb in a truck, or high-jacking a bus full of kids - not to say that these aren't acts of terrorism, but that's not what its limited to. Terrorism is a buzz-word and people are throwing it around without any regard nowadays.
What-the-fuck-ever. If that's what you want to believe, that's your perogative.
That's right, it is my perogative, but you are fooling yourself if you think that the United States is going to stand till the end of time. WE ARE F*CKING INFANTS compared to other countries around and we have the ability to lose our supremecy JUST as fast as we got it.
The problem is that YOU see EVERYTHING that happens as being the result of "terrorism".
Where did I say anything remotely close to that? What I was saying was that terrorism is one way for people to try to get what they want..especially when someone is REALLY desparate for it. The bottom line is that things are BOUND to change and there will be many reasons for it in this country; terrorism, whether you like it or not, has affected us and has altered the decisions to be made...
For example, say that because of the Patriot Act, formed ever so intrepidly by our fearless leaders, gets out of control in the future and becomes more and more invasive. So invasive, in fact, that it causes a complete civil war or public uprising. If it weren't for even the existence of terrorism, there wouldn't have been need for the Patriot Act in the first place, so it indirectly caused the regime change! Now, I'm not saying that this is going to happen, this is purely hypothetical.
That said..people like you piss me off. You think that you live in a bubble and that as long as you salute the bald eagle, vote republican/democrate, pay your taxes, and watch Sunday football that life is always going to be hunky dorey. Do you realize how long our country has had these luxuries for? Not that damned long...so why do you think it's going to keep on being this way?
You really need to get a clue..
Osama will never take D.C. nor will he ever be elected President of the USofA. He and all the other terrorists will NEVER overthrow the USofA.
Who says that Osama wants to take over the USA or be elected??? He just doesn't want us to be in power or, more specifically, for us to be mucking around his homeland. I don't blame him for the latter.
Only we can do that.
You're right, only the USofA can overthrow the USofA...? Do you even know what you just wrote? Ironically, you are correct - the positive kind of change will come from within...but it doesn't seem like Americans are very interested in that right now.
Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances will we overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy.
It's this kind of thinking that really pisses me off - remnants of Manifest Destiny. Why the hell do we, as residents of the United States of America, think that we are invincible? This is what happens when you don't pay attention in your history classes, boys and girls! Let's take a look at the Persians, the Greeks, the Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, and, hell, even the USSR. These were mighty, mighty nations with incredible power, control, and influence and they all fell out of power. The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'.
Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Yeah, wouldn't you consider the American Revolution against the British an act of Terrorism? What is defined as terrorism is actually capable of bringing about positive change.
As residents of humanity, we need to recognize that all Nations created (in past or in the future) are corrupt and either have failed or are doomed to fail. Now, perhaps I'm just a doomsayer, but my feelings are that the unrest of many combined with the apathy and ignorance of many more are telling evidence of a major paradigm shift in American culture. I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to some change. Especially if it means taking the two-party system to the scrap pile.
Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA". Even the terrorist act on 9/11 is stirring the pot and, if you can't see that, well..I don't know..I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Seems like most people don't anyhow..
You're absolutely right...the war in Iraq was not about Weapons of Mass Destruction - it was entirely about getting GWB re-elected. After 9/11, the Bush administration realized that they had a golden opportunity to ensure their jobs for an additional 4 years. All that they had to do was catch the organization responsible for the attacks.
So, almost immediately the campaign in Afghanistan was launched, unsuccessfully. When I say unsuccessfully I mean that they did not find Osama bin Laden. They pressed on but the Bush Administration probably realized that they were never going to find bin Laden, meaning that their chances for re-election would be slimmer. They could not turn around and not present the American people with nothing, so they decided to go after an easy target. With the relative ease that we dominated Iraq back in the early 90's, it was a no-brainer to make Saddam the scape goat!
I think George must have been up late one night during the Afghanistan Campaign, watched the movie "Wag the Dog" and thought, "Hey that's a great idea! Let's create a war!"
I know that this is entirely my opinion and I have no facts to back it up, so don't even ask. Oh yeah, while we're on the subject of my opinion, I'll bet you a million dollars that a month (or even a couple weeks) before the election, the price of oil is going to drop drastically and the Bush campaign is going to use that as fuel (haha) for the final push.
Re:If you are a programmer, the problems are obvio
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 1
ok, you challenged for a conversation, so here it is. i'll start off by telling you that while i do develop software, i'm not an expert and you probably know more than me. however, upon reading the article i think that the author blew the issue (not about adodb stream) way out of proportion and i can absolutely see why that would not be a high priority fix. if it was transversed and Explorer was allowing unsecure applications to run as secure because at some point in time the same name/signature was cached for a secure program, then yes, they should fix that, but that's not what the article said. now, granted that i really don't know a whole lot about the specifics of Explorer's operation, i'm completely willing to concede that this is an a=b therefore b=a situation, but the article did not mention that. the focus was on secure programs running as unsecure due to caching. does this make any sense? probably not, but oh well..i'm still learning.
don't forget about professors who just don't care. the community college that i went to was a joke. on the first day of my discrete math class, the professor walked in and said "this is my last semester here, so i really don't feel like teaching. come if you want, i'll give you all the answers to the tests."
and let's not forget about my engineering physics professor who actually marked me down on my final because i formulated a better method for solving the equation than the one that she used in class. she claimed that it was not fair for her to have to check my formula to make sure that it was ok..which of course it was.
The other side to the coin is those who take it way too far. I was in the library the other day and I saw the sign very clearly informing me that this was a "No Cell Phone Zone". I whip out my cell phone and set it to vibrate, so that in the event that I get an important call, I can step out of the library and take it. No sooner do I have the phone out of my pocket when I am attacked by a cell phone nazi (CPN)...a conversation ensues:
CPN: [gruffly] You're not supposed to have those on here!
Me: [matter of factly] I know, I'm turning it off right now..
CPN: [frustrated] No, you don't understand..you can't have that on in here!!
Me: [strained] Yes, I know..I saw the sign, and I'm turning it off right now. I had forgotten..
CPN: [proudly] I turn my phone off before I even walk in..
Me: [beginning of an indignancy] Good for you! I forgot..haven't been to the library for a little while. My bad..
CPN: [angrily] YOU CANT HAVE THAT ON IN HERE!
Me: [dumbfounded] Uh...
CPN: You know, you can't even have them on at a gas station anymore!
You mean like Reddy-Kilowatt, Mr. Zip-code, The Exxon Tiger, Ronald McDonald, the AOL man, the GOP elephant, the Demorcatic donkey, the Maytag repairman, Ask Jeeves, or any other persona or charicature?
I guess you don't quite understand what it means to market a product. For each of the examples, aside from the political parties, they are trying to market to end users, consumers. I can just see a multi-million dollar company signing up with AOL to be their sole provider of internet access and email. And I can absolutely envision that same company taking out their most important client for McDonalds. Don't forget about gassing up their LearJet at the local Exxon station. The subject of debate (the only one that it could be) is how to market to business professionals. Because it costs considerably more money to set up an office with the latest computer hardware/software than it does to by some freakin' batteries, the major decision makers want to know that they are dealing with a serious company. They do this because not only are their jobs at stake, but potentially the jobs of everyone else at the company, not to mention the money of their investors. It's called professionalism and I think that we all learned a little bit of it back in the dot com crash..at least, I'd like to think we did.
wasn't it a really big thing to attach magnets all over your body to make you feel better? technically isn't that a low-level magnetic wave? it was supposed to heal your arthritis and all sorts of stuff like that..if nothing else, it was supposed to project the resonant image of your digital self..oh wait, that's something else..
Slashdot Mirror
And another thing..you make it sound as though the human race is all benevolent and kind and wants everyone to be happy and prosper. I don't think that this is a bad thing, but it is far from real. We, as humans (myself included), are greedy, needy, hateful, and self-absorbed..we will always look out for Number One and, as long as we do that, the technology that we develop will always favor our darker nature than any good that is in us. It's great that we can farm efficiently and feed the hungry in a few countries, but while we can save a few thousand lives over a week or two, we can just as easily destroy them all with a nuclear weapon in a matter of seconds.
if a huge metereor heads towards the earth, we'll go all DIG and divert the meteror. Do me a favor...explain to me what the hell this statement means! What are you, like 12?
If the Earth somehow becomes unhabitable, we'll just find a way to go to another planet. Because it is JUST THAT EASY...on Monday we discover that the Earth will not be able to sustain life throughout the rest of the week so, on Tuesday, all 20 Billion of us (because, according to you, we have just yet begun to tap the potential amount of life that the Earth can hold) packup and leave for Planet X. Do we have a settlement there? Nah, we'll just build it when we get there. It doesn't take that long to develop technology anyways, right? It only took 20 years to get from Caveman to Home PC, according to you..
How long did it take to create the current PC? 20 some years.
You are a moron. Just because the technology directly related to the PC started seriously being developed for a home application 30 years ago, you CANNOT discount all the technological advances which made the concept of a home computer possible in the first place. Everything is a process.
Homosexuality has always existed. Its just that throughout history, society has been more and less tolerant. During Reinessance Italy, just about ebveryone was gay. During the days of the Wild West, there were just as many, its just society didn't take too kindly to them types, so it was kept behind closed doors.
Yeah, everyone was gay in the renaissance. Documentation? As far as the "Wild West" goes (and, by the way, I personally knock you down a few points for referring to that period as such), it really sounds as though you are talking out of your ass.
How is this a bad thing? More people means we are worse off? You are probably basing this off doomsday therists who say the earth can only hold so many people and by the year XXXX we won't have enough to live. These people never account for the exponential growth in technology that allows for us to make more efficient use of our resourced. This goes back to the starvation thing. Also, more people also means there will be more people to work on furthering our achievements.
Ok, let's take this back to some very basic concepts. If Johnny and Jimmy live in a empty room with 2 apples, how many can each of them have (assuming equal portions)? One..now, before you say "well, Jimmy could invent some technology that could grow apples faster and bigger!", let me cut you off - matter cannot be created from nothing. We have FINITE materials on earth.
This is true of every species inclusing humans. With regard to animal specefic disease, the number stays about the same. As we cure human diseases, new ones crop up, causing the total number to stay about the same. Nothing changes. I don't see how this is a sign that we are doomed as a species... Has any other species been wiped out due to disease? Especially since we have 100s of years of medical science behind us, I don't suspect this will ever end mankind.
I would encourage you to look at this and then rethink your statement. Note that the Black Plague killed about 1/3 of Europe's population. Nothing changes you say?? As far as what you said about having 100s of years of medical science behind us, you make it sound as though a couple hundred years ago, people thought, "Hey, maybe we should start looking into why people get stiff, lifeless, and start to stink after they get old or fall off of a cliff or get mauled by a bear." Medicine has been around for a LONG time but nature shows us that it will adhere to an equilibrium. The more technology that we develop to fight diseases and conquer old age, the more advanced the diseases get (this includes man-developed diseases as well - if you think that mankind can be classified apart from nature, you are a fool).
This is only a problem in africa and other third world places. Is this a problem here? No. At least not widespread. Starvation is mostly an economic effect rather than a worldwide flaw in the way humans use the earth's resources. Technology has increased to allow us to produce more food by the achre than ever before.
This statement is partially true..starvation is sometimes an economic effect but, again, I'm going to refer to what I said before. Mankind cannot be categorized separately from nature and her equilibrium. People starve every day...why the starvation exists matters not to nature.
I can tell you that their systems are crap..they're still using dumb terminal style programs and old clunky DOS style interfaces for everything..
So, yes, it does take a "tremendous amount of energy", but so does accelerating.
:)
that's exactly my point!
The big advantage of a nuclear rocket is that instead of a big burst of power then a long coast, it will just be a steady output of power running for extremely long periods of time. This could mean instead of a six to nine month trip each direction between Earth and Mars we're talking six to seven weeks transit time! :-) Reducing the travel time to six-seven weeks has one huge advantage, namely that the amount of space needed for consumables for the astronauts will be drastically reduced, saving considerable weight on the spaceship itself.
IANARS nor an expert on interplanetary travel, but I am not sure that this is going to be as streamlined or as efficient as you boast.
For one, if the nuclear reaction provides a steady output the entire time (in turn, providing constant acceleration, one would infer from your post) then only one half of the trip could be spent accelerating - the other half would be spent decelerating. I would imagine that this would still be a bit faster than one thrust, but it does raise some questions.
Is it more efficient to have one big thrust at the beginning? Is it more efficient to have one big decelerating thrust at the end? If you're constantly accelerating at a pretty good rate for 2-3 months, it's going to take a tremendous amount of energy to bring you to a halt. This is just an assumption..as I mentioned before, IANARS.
you are obviously an idiot with no idea of what the word "context" means..probably "couth", either..
there's a big difference between making that symbol available in a list of commonly referred to symbols and specifically putting it in a game as a highly visible sculpture (refer to grandparent post)..
But I guess everybody here already thinks Microsoft are stupid...
Microsoft are stupid? OMFG! That is teh shizit!
I guess the non-sheep can tell that Microsoft Bash-Happy clones have no concept of the english language...
I'm sure that you probably know this, but the Nazis were not the first to use the swastika symbol. It's actually an ancient Indian/Buddhist symbol of peace (or the sun). There's a lot of other historical references to it, anywhere from the egyptians to the teutonic knights. Now whether or not it was a smart idea to put the symbol in the game, I won't comment to how stupid someone can be...oops, I guess I just did.
what is ironic is a song titled "ironic" gives examples of what appears to be irony at first glance but really are just situations that suck..
did anyone else read that as Cosmetology at first glance? Here I was thinking that you were talking about antimatter eyeshadow or something..
Republicans of course are going to spin it (and I saw many times where Kerry had a slight misstatement that they're going to jump all over)
You act as though this is a trait that is only intrinsic in Republicans..Democrats do it too..that's the result of the bi-partisan bullshit "democracy" that we abide in..
Due to the latency with which the images are updated, this can pose some awkward situations. Imagine a geek looking at their neighborhood, noticing a beautiful nude sunbather next door. Geek runs outside to peek through a knot-hole in the fence to discover that the sunbather has aged 50 years since the last time that the picture was updated...ewww.
This is not addressed to the parent, but is for everyone who responded to the parent -
I'm throwing stones, now - especially after reading this incredibly long and geeky thread about shutting down your OS variants. God bless you for having multiple ways of shutting down/halting/suspending/restarting your computer in user/superuser/megauser/whosyourdaddyuser modes, but shame on you for being a stickler on MS's decision to place a Shutdown option on the "Start" menu when you can't even agree on how to shut your own damned computers down!
It's hypocritical, pharisitical, and parasitical (I like alliterations, even when they're not in context...makes me feel like Don King) to bring up such an argument as "Please press the Start button to shut down (stop) the computer". I'm not saying that "Start" is the most incredible choice for a button, but it makes sense. If you are shutting down your computer, you START THE SHUTDOWN PROCESS.
I am in no way condoning violence as a means to get what you want - either in 'terrorism', 'police actions', or WAR. THESE ARE ATROCITIES OF HUMANITY! They have always happened and they WILL always happen. It is a sad, horrible thing that thousands of people lost their lives on 9/11. It is also a horrible thing that children are being killed in Iraq by American bombs. It is a horrible thing that there is family strife, divorce, child abuse, bankruptcy, debt, taxes, death, pain, famine, disease, etc.. We live in an imperfect world. So please, don't think that I'm saying that using violence to get what you want is a good thing. There is precious little good in the world and killing people for any reason is certainly not one of them.
Secondly, don't think that I want the US to fall or that I'm ungrateful. I do like it here and, while I haven't been to every place on the globe, I don't imagine there are very many other countries where I would choose to take up residence. There is always room for improvement, however.
One of the cliches that I hear/see that absolutely makes my blood boil is "America: Love it or Leave It". I always see this bumper sticker on the back of some chevy suburban right next to the sticker of Calvin peeing on a Dallas Cowboy's helmet or something, but I digress - anyhow, it should be AMERICA LOVE IT OR CHANGE IT!
ok, my rant is over..
Well it certainly seems like you are getting your definition of terrorism from either Fox News or President Bush. As mentioned in a previous reply to my original post, not all terrorism is specifically flying a plane into a building, exploding a bomb in a truck, or high-jacking a bus full of kids - not to say that these aren't acts of terrorism, but that's not what its limited to. Terrorism is a buzz-word and people are throwing it around without any regard nowadays.
What-the-fuck-ever. If that's what you want to believe, that's your perogative.
That's right, it is my perogative, but you are fooling yourself if you think that the United States is going to stand till the end of time. WE ARE F*CKING INFANTS compared to other countries around and we have the ability to lose our supremecy JUST as fast as we got it.
The problem is that YOU see EVERYTHING that happens as being the result of "terrorism".
Where did I say anything remotely close to that? What I was saying was that terrorism is one way for people to try to get what they want..especially when someone is REALLY desparate for it. The bottom line is that things are BOUND to change and there will be many reasons for it in this country; terrorism, whether you like it or not, has affected us and has altered the decisions to be made...
For example, say that because of the Patriot Act, formed ever so intrepidly by our fearless leaders, gets out of control in the future and becomes more and more invasive. So invasive, in fact, that it causes a complete civil war or public uprising. If it weren't for even the existence of terrorism, there wouldn't have been need for the Patriot Act in the first place, so it indirectly caused the regime change! Now, I'm not saying that this is going to happen, this is purely hypothetical.
That said..people like you piss me off. You think that you live in a bubble and that as long as you salute the bald eagle, vote republican/democrate, pay your taxes, and watch Sunday football that life is always going to be hunky dorey. Do you realize how long our country has had these luxuries for? Not that damned long...so why do you think it's going to keep on being this way?
You really need to get a clue..
Osama will never take D.C. nor will he ever be elected President of the USofA. He and all the other terrorists will NEVER overthrow the USofA.
Who says that Osama wants to take over the USA or be elected??? He just doesn't want us to be in power or, more specifically, for us to be mucking around his homeland. I don't blame him for the latter.
Only we can do that.
You're right, only the USofA can overthrow the USofA...? Do you even know what you just wrote? Ironically, you are correct - the positive kind of change will come from within...but it doesn't seem like Americans are very interested in that right now.
Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances will we overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy.
It's this kind of thinking that really pisses me off - remnants of Manifest Destiny. Why the hell do we, as residents of the United States of America, think that we are invincible? This is what happens when you don't pay attention in your history classes, boys and girls! Let's take a look at the Persians, the Greeks, the Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, and, hell, even the USSR. These were mighty, mighty nations with incredible power, control, and influence and they all fell out of power. The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'.
Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Yeah, wouldn't you consider the American Revolution against the British an act of Terrorism? What is defined as terrorism is actually capable of bringing about positive change.
As residents of humanity, we need to recognize that all Nations created (in past or in the future) are corrupt and either have failed or are doomed to fail. Now, perhaps I'm just a doomsayer, but my feelings are that the unrest of many combined with the apathy and ignorance of many more are telling evidence of a major paradigm shift in American culture. I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to some change. Especially if it means taking the two-party system to the scrap pile.
Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA". Even the terrorist act on 9/11 is stirring the pot and, if you can't see that, well..I don't know..I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Seems like most people don't anyhow..
Anyhow, my two cents..
I heard it was 72%! Anyhow, I just did a quick study and came to the conclusion that it was only 19% - quite shocking!
You're absolutely right...the war in Iraq was not about Weapons of Mass Destruction - it was entirely about getting GWB re-elected. After 9/11, the Bush administration realized that they had a golden opportunity to ensure their jobs for an additional 4 years. All that they had to do was catch the organization responsible for the attacks.
So, almost immediately the campaign in Afghanistan was launched, unsuccessfully. When I say unsuccessfully I mean that they did not find Osama bin Laden. They pressed on but the Bush Administration probably realized that they were never going to find bin Laden, meaning that their chances for re-election would be slimmer. They could not turn around and not present the American people with nothing, so they decided to go after an easy target. With the relative ease that we dominated Iraq back in the early 90's, it was a no-brainer to make Saddam the scape goat!
I think George must have been up late one night during the Afghanistan Campaign, watched the movie "Wag the Dog" and thought, "Hey that's a great idea! Let's create a war!"
I know that this is entirely my opinion and I have no facts to back it up, so don't even ask. Oh yeah, while we're on the subject of my opinion, I'll bet you a million dollars that a month (or even a couple weeks) before the election, the price of oil is going to drop drastically and the Bush campaign is going to use that as fuel (haha) for the final push.
ok, you challenged for a conversation, so here it is. i'll start off by telling you that while i do develop software, i'm not an expert and you probably know more than me. however, upon reading the article i think that the author blew the issue (not about adodb stream) way out of proportion and i can absolutely see why that would not be a high priority fix. if it was transversed and Explorer was allowing unsecure applications to run as secure because at some point in time the same name/signature was cached for a secure program, then yes, they should fix that, but that's not what the article said. now, granted that i really don't know a whole lot about the specifics of Explorer's operation, i'm completely willing to concede that this is an a=b therefore b=a situation, but the article did not mention that. the focus was on secure programs running as unsecure due to caching. does this make any sense? probably not, but oh well..i'm still learning.
don't forget about professors who just don't care. the community college that i went to was a joke. on the first day of my discrete math class, the professor walked in and said "this is my last semester here, so i really don't feel like teaching. come if you want, i'll give you all the answers to the tests."
and let's not forget about my engineering physics professor who actually marked me down on my final because i formulated a better method for solving the equation than the one that she used in class. she claimed that it was not fair for her to have to check my formula to make sure that it was ok..which of course it was.
The other side to the coin is those who take it way too far. I was in the library the other day and I saw the sign very clearly informing me that this was a "No Cell Phone Zone". I whip out my cell phone and set it to vibrate, so that in the event that I get an important call, I can step out of the library and take it. No sooner do I have the phone out of my pocket when I am attacked by a cell phone nazi (CPN)...a conversation ensues:
CPN: [gruffly] You're not supposed to have those on here!
Me: [matter of factly] I know, I'm turning it off right now..
CPN: [frustrated] No, you don't understand..you can't have that on in here!!
Me: [strained] Yes, I know..I saw the sign, and I'm turning it off right now. I had forgotten..
CPN: [proudly] I turn my phone off before I even walk in..
Me: [beginning of an indignancy] Good for you! I forgot..haven't been to the library for a little while. My bad..
CPN: [angrily] YOU CANT HAVE THAT ON IN HERE!
Me: [dumbfounded] Uh...
CPN: You know, you can't even have them on at a gas station anymore!
Me: I have to go now..
Is that you? You're fired!
You mean like Reddy-Kilowatt, Mr. Zip-code, The Exxon Tiger, Ronald McDonald, the AOL man, the GOP elephant, the Demorcatic donkey, the Maytag repairman, Ask Jeeves, or any other persona or charicature?
I guess you don't quite understand what it means to market a product. For each of the examples, aside from the political parties, they are trying to market to end users, consumers. I can just see a multi-million dollar company signing up with AOL to be their sole provider of internet access and email. And I can absolutely envision that same company taking out their most important client for McDonalds. Don't forget about gassing up their LearJet at the local Exxon station. The subject of debate (the only one that it could be) is how to market to business professionals. Because it costs considerably more money to set up an office with the latest computer hardware/software than it does to by some freakin' batteries, the major decision makers want to know that they are dealing with a serious company. They do this because not only are their jobs at stake, but potentially the jobs of everyone else at the company, not to mention the money of their investors. It's called professionalism and I think that we all learned a little bit of it back in the dot com crash..at least, I'd like to think we did.
yeah, like MSN is advertising to business types..? get real, MSN is totally marketing to the home user
Linux home edition? Make sure you include coke-bottle glasses, a pocket protector, and an "i'm better than you" attitude!
wasn't it a really big thing to attach magnets all over your body to make you feel better? technically isn't that a low-level magnetic wave? it was supposed to heal your arthritis and all sorts of stuff like that..if nothing else, it was supposed to project the resonant image of your digital self..oh wait, that's something else..