Hmm... Tell me why the menu item to change the network identity of a computer is hidden under three different places in Win 98, W2K and Win XP.
Tell me why one of my W2K take half an hour to get the computer list from the master browser, while the *exact* image of the system (except for computer name) take less than 2 minutes.
Also, tell me how Window Explorer suddenly stopped working on one of my W2K box and I had to reinstall the whole system.
Windows is easy to use when nothing goes wrong. But after NT, the system has become so complicated and powerful (which is not necessarily a bad thing) that saying it can be easy to use is totally misleading.
But if you got a good thermo or hot-water bottle, you can simply boil the bean and put the hot water and bean in a thermo overnight. You should be able to get some nicely done bean the next morning. Basically, it's the same as boiling it in a crock pot overnight but you save some electricity (for the money or for the environment, depending on your circumstance:).
Those thermos I referred to exist but are not very commonly used in the US. In the place where I came from, we used to have bottles with silver-coated interior that can keep water hot for more than a few hours. Those are what you need. If your city have one, check in your local China Town.
Assuming that you're really a newbie. Security is a process, not a product.
Linux is more secure, at least on my hand, because I know what I'm doing on Linux. The openness, modularity and availability of *free* documentation made it easy for me to train myself on it. I believe it'll be much harder and more expensive to bring myself up to the same level of experetise on the various Windows versionS.
If you're serious on learning, give yourself half a year and spend time reading various online documentation. After learning enough, you will probably be like me - don't want to or dare to touching a Windows machine again for fear of what you might have accidentally messed up.
I guess so:). Actually, the whole phenomenon of bullying in high-school was quite a shock to me when I heard about it during the Colombine things.
Nerds/Geeks are kings of the school in my country, (Hong Kong). Jealous:)? But I went to high school in the the eighties, so it was ten to twenty years ago. Things could have changed slightly since then.
Being brainy was praised upon. I was top in the class. Though shy and introvert, I've never been picked on. Well, who dare touch me:) - I was one of the teachers' favorites. And even if I wasn't, the school usually kept a firm grasp of discipline inside. Violent behaviors were not tolerated.
Doing well in school and having leadership-types personality (more than just being popular) will make you stars of the school - like headboy or headgirl, did you watch the Harry Potter movies:)? Doing well in school while being shy is fine. People, at worst, will keep you at a respectful distance. I don't know how it feels being poor in at schoolwork while being unsociable. The time might be harder since it makes you unpopular to both teachers and classmates.
> To insist that ALL scientists are somehow inherently ehtical is a bit short sighted
To insist that ALL scientist are somehow inherently ethical is reasonable because most of the scientists are NOT powerful (economically, politically and otherwise) enough to get away with violating legal and ethical rules.
Some Dr. Evil who has a lot of money (and his own island) could - but show me one scientist who is that wealthy (and still actively engaging scientific research).
Well, personally I found the populist, humble look of a "nasty" beige box more down-to-earh and sentimentally appealing than the yuppie, fancy neon color of Macs.
He did a good job debunking the myth. The meaning of "Ji" in "WeiJi" is closer to possibility/chance than opportunity. So, "Wei-Ji" actually means "possibility of danger". Any commonly used combination of danger is "Wei-Xian" - straight forward, both of the characters mean danger.
One mistake in the article is: though I have no solid proof on hand, "wei ji" is probably a modern word/combination, i.e., invented or being commonly used since the start of the 20th century. So, you don't need to ask our 3th ancestor for the real meaning of the words. Chinese language has gone throough so much changes that always sticking to 3th interpretion is impractical.
I think, we normally use the word "wei ji" as a Chinese equivalent of the English word "crisis". So, if wei-ji/crisis meaned both danger and opportunity, we got it from the Westerners:).
William Safire is usually regarded as a conservative on the NY Times. So, it's not really an attack on the so-call "conservatives". It's against a bill which has crossed the line of infringing personal freedom by the government.
Freedom from the "big" government is something that any real conservatives cherish. Right?
Yes. The human race is screwed. I won't be too surprise to see WWIII within one or two decades.
All we need is a common foreign enemy, e.g. an invader from outer space or an autonomous AI. Well, then we, the whole human race would be united together...
Yes. I agree that there were wars and one side(s) lost. But the so-call wars are more like conquest with one technologically superior side slaughtering numerous small, divided tribes. Mexican empire, unlike the native, was a conqueror and they were perceived to have some ability to defend themselves.
This is a normal thing in history. But the thing you accused as PC is nothing more than judging that period of history from a modern moral perspective. That's nothing contradict about that.
We believe that slavery was wrong. By following your logic, can we also claim that it's just the measure to "recruit" low-cost, high-quality labor - a normal tendency of a capitalistic economy?
I really wish that the scenario in the post is true - at least, the transaction will be fair and legally protected.
However, I wonder how many universities legally recognize graduate students as employees. The one I went didn't; the one that I am working in does. As employees, graduate students will have the right to organize unions. The university I went fight hard just to prevent it - it's far better to keep everything the students do (e.g. teaching, researching, sweeping the hallway:) as a part of their education so that the school can easily kick them out if they dare to ask for a contract or dream of a strike.
> Do the same to any Chinese military crafts near the US air border.
The problem is: not that many Chinese - probably none - military crafts spying near the US air border. That's why the Chinese people are pissed off. Spying in such a way is not really a very friendly gesture. The many other postures of this administration doesn't really help, e.g., openly downgrading Sino-American relation to "strategic competition".
And that's also why whether the spy plane was in the internation space doesn't really matter that much. Yeah - (hypothethically speaking) say it's ten feet away from Chinese airspace. So? It legal for me to do anything just outside of your doorstep but it doesn't make it a nice thing to do, especially when an accident happens and take away the life of your son...
Nothing:). Unless you believe that America had the copyright/trademark/patent of "Freedom".
Seriously, I believe that it's better to put the whole thing in context. Allchin invoked the word "unamerican". To American audience, especially those in the Congress, it is the code-word for the ultimate evil, such as communism (to most Americans, communism == extreme_bad:P), Nazism, treasonous activities or even Anti-Christ... To fight soundbites with soundbites, using the Founding Fathers (of the US of A, of course:) or silly phrase like the "American Way" can't be more appropriate.
If you're suggesting that it indicates the political-correctness paranoid of the authority - you're wrong. Miss Thielen was NOT saying anything bad about black so that her exhibition got pulled out.
No, she did an experiment which suggested some bias attitudes among the children. The results may not even be accurate as the experimental method was probably too crude or unscientific. But the school authority got so scared of any slight hints of such attitudes that they had to pull it out. If you are trying the play-the-victim game and pretend being suppressed by the so call "political correctness", this is NOT really one of those situations.
But of course, it is possible that you are simply stating an estimation of the situation. I can imagine that if Miss Thielen is black, the school probably can't pull out the exhibition without causing an uproar from the minority community.
I may be too naive but somehow I feel that Gore is fighting more than the presidency.
Unless his ambition has clouded his judgement, which is QUITE possible for people like Gore, a normal person should have realized that this presidency would be a tough, if not broken, one due to the split Congress, popular and electoral votes and everything else. To benefit one's own personal political career, it is actually better to concede like that Nixon and wait for another election.
In some sense, the only reason to go through all these legal hassles and the risk of personal political future for Gore (and Bush too) is the responsibility to the voters behind him. Afterall, election is not a football game. It's a demonstration of the will of the people - to paraphase the rheterics, should be fair and accurate.
Yeah. And unfortunately, they both have exactly half the population behind them. That's why we're in this mess:).
Hey! According to your logic, Nader got about two percents of the votes and the other 50% of the population wouldn't have cared. 52% of the population. Not bad for a Nader presidency?!!
It's supposed to be a joke but seriously, two points:
1) You don't really need a God to have a religion. Examples include Buddhism, Taoism and probably a lot others that I don't know. Yes, you can define religions as an organized belief system that must involve a God or Gods. But that will come to the following:
2) Organized religions are better protected than Atheism. For example, you will have a chance to exempt from military service if your 'religion' prohibited violence. Similar benefit is not enjoyed by a pacifist atheist, no matter how strong his belief is.
I'm not trying to troll but you've probably missed another important possibility:
3) The United States is a huge, diversified country with a large standing army (to be politically incorrect, an imperialistic power). To maintain internal cohersion and have a rationale of such a large military spending, nothing is better than a scary, unhuman enemy...
In the past half century, we had the good old Soviet - to be fair, they're probably also using the "evil imperial capitalistic" US as the same tool. Now, we're forced to turn to some faceless, evil terrorists or some wimpy rogue nations. Sadly, they aren't really that up to the roles. Tomorrow, we may need to good back to the "communist" China or the reborn "corrupted, mafia-controlled" Russia for some new arch-enemies. Afterall, as long as we're not really nuking one another, big military spending is good for economy, right?:)
I checked and found out that I for my income bracket, I actually should get more from Gore. Unless you earned more than 130,000 and have no kid or going to have inheritance more than several millions, you probably will get similar tax-break from both of them. Check out Citizens for Tax Justice. It's a liberal leaning group. So, if you're in the higher income brackets, they'll only exagerrate your tax-break from Bush plan:).
Of course, if you're ideologically pro-tax break, Bush is still your man. But to me, it's reckless to spend over the estimated-surplus, which nobody knows whether it'll actually be there, for a large tax-break, expanded military, etc. Gore spends quite a portions, something like 1.9 out of 2.2 trillions but at least his book so far is balance. There is a large part of Bush's budget expenditures which hasn't been accounted for yet...
You may be missing the economics behind his argument. I agree with the principle that people should be responsible for their own lives but that's not what I get from his post.
I thought over for an hour and have come to the following example. Say, there are 50 thirty-years old working today and 1 baby. Let's assume that all of the workers save half of their income. Thirty years later, they will all retired and one person will have to support all of the retirees (unless he killed them all;). Then, it doesn't matter how much *currency* that the retirees have saved - all it will lead to is a massive inflation since a whole bunch of paper money will be now competing for a meagering amount of goods. But of course, saving will still make you better of than those retirees who haven't not.
What it means is: social security is, in term of macroeconomics, more than a matter of personal "saving" and "investment". It's a matter of - I hate to repeat his word:) - "transgeneration transfer" of productivity. And the whole issue of social security is, unluckily, more than just personal responsbility - it's a matter of the population structure of the world.
Personally, I find the whole thing very depressing. Since my simple example seem to show that unless there are adequate increase of productivity (luckily there should be), my saving will mean little. I'll just have more *paper* money to compete less *real* goods...
The only personal solution (without social intervention from the big scary government) will be to find an investment that will maintain its real value while I retire (30+ years later) - a bunker of canned food sounds will be nice. Boy, I need a Master degree in Economics and a crystal ball.
Now, I need to think very carefully about my retirement. Have a nice day!!;)
Which states are you in? AFAIK, in some states, the votes of independents and (god forbidden) democrats are not binding to the result of Republican primary.
And for your reasons:
1) He is probabbly not conservative for the Republicans... Or his campaign finance reform has touched some party nerves.
2) I don't vote people for how they look, do you?
Still, if you're following the discussion of this thread, the original point stands. That is, if we're using the fraction in-fighting of the Republican and Democratic parties as a way of building compromised, coalition governments. It's a lousy way - it's close, undemocratic and subject to small-circle politcal exchange.
I think that you have hit the jackpot - both the Democratic and Republican Parties are similar to the coalition governments of the other countries.
The problem is....
None of these internal fighting and bargaining is open to the *people*.
Take John McCain as an example, I personally will NOT forgive what the Republican Party did in their primary. Reject a candidate which is so well-received by the general public and promote a person favored by the party establishment?!! Republican party deserves to lose their election just because of this violation of the will of the people. Where is my voice in the selection of candidates in the Democratic and Republican party?
In case that you didn't know, there are many different fractions inside the Communist Party of China too. And they do have election - there is usually one candidate for one position.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... Tell me why the menu item to change the network identity of a computer is hidden under three different places in Win 98, W2K and Win XP.
Tell me why one of my W2K take half an hour to get the computer list from the master browser, while the *exact* image of the system (except for computer name) take less than 2 minutes.
Also, tell me how Window Explorer suddenly stopped working on one of my W2K box and I had to reinstall the whole system.
Windows is easy to use when nothing goes wrong. But after NT, the system has become so complicated and powerful (which is not necessarily a bad thing) that saying it can be easy to use is totally misleading.
Pressure cooker will work, or course.
:).
But if you got a good thermo or hot-water bottle, you can simply boil the bean and put the hot water and bean in a thermo overnight. You should be able to get some nicely done bean the next morning. Basically, it's the same as boiling it in a crock pot overnight but you save some electricity (for the money or for the environment, depending on your circumstance
Those thermos I referred to exist but are not very commonly used in the US. In the place where I came from, we used to have bottles with silver-coated interior that can keep water hot for more than a few hours. Those are what you need. If your city have one, check in your local China Town.
Assuming that you're really a newbie. Security is a process, not a product.
Linux is more secure, at least on my hand, because I know what I'm doing on Linux. The openness, modularity and availability of *free* documentation made it easy for me to train myself on it. I believe it'll be much harder and more expensive to bring myself up to the same level of experetise on the various Windows versionS.
If you're serious on learning, give yourself half a year and spend time reading various online documentation. After learning enough, you will probably be like me - don't want to or dare to touching a Windows machine again for fear of what you might have accidentally messed up.
I guess so
Nerds/Geeks are kings of the school in my country, (Hong Kong). Jealous
Being brainy was praised upon. I was top in the class. Though shy and introvert, I've never been picked on. Well, who dare touch me
Doing well in school and having leadership-types personality (more than just being popular) will make you stars of the school - like headboy or headgirl, did you watch the Harry Potter movies
> To insist that ALL scientists are somehow inherently ehtical is a bit short sighted
To insist that ALL scientist are somehow inherently ethical is reasonable because most of the scientists are NOT powerful (economically, politically and otherwise) enough to get away with violating legal and ethical rules.
Some Dr. Evil who has a lot of money (and his own island) could - but show me one scientist who is that wealthy (and still actively engaging scientific research).
Because you can
Well, personally I found the populist, humble look of a "nasty" beige box more down-to-earh and sentimentally appealing than the yuppie, fancy neon color of Macs.
He did a good job debunking the myth. The meaning of "Ji" in "WeiJi" is closer to possibility/chance than opportunity. So, "Wei-Ji" actually means "possibility of danger". Any commonly used combination of danger is "Wei-Xian" - straight forward, both of the characters mean danger.
:).
One mistake in the article is: though I have no solid proof on hand, "wei ji" is probably a modern word/combination, i.e., invented or being commonly used since the start of the 20th century. So, you don't need to ask our 3th ancestor for the real meaning of the words. Chinese language has gone throough so much changes that always sticking to 3th interpretion is impractical.
I think, we normally use the word "wei ji" as a Chinese equivalent of the English word "crisis". So, if wei-ji/crisis meaned both danger and opportunity, we got it from the Westerners
>> William Safire is usually regarded as a conservative
>> on the NY Times
>Yeah, I'd say that President's Nixon's former speechwriter qualifiies as a conservative.
Thanks for the information.
>Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
I didn't. It's the parent who made some excuses for the bill and characterized it as an attack on the "conservative right".
William Safire is usually regarded as a conservative on the NY Times. So, it's not really an attack on the so-call "conservatives". It's against a bill which has crossed the line of infringing personal freedom by the government.
Freedom from the "big" government is something that any real conservatives cherish. Right?
[Ironically, when the DOI web site was heavily attacked by the Chinese after we accidentally blew up their embassy in *Bosnia* ]
It was not Bosnia. It was Yugoslavia. You can't remember that where it was. Do you also forget that three people were killed?
Yes. The human race is screwed. I won't be too surprise to see WWIII within one or two decades.
All we need is a common foreign enemy, e.g. an invader from outer space or an autonomous AI. Well, then we, the whole human race would be united together...
I know it's silly. I can dream, right?
Don't be so defensive.
He meaned here in the America continents.
Not trying to be a flamebait.
Yes. I agree that there were wars and one side(s) lost. But the so-call wars are more like conquest with one technologically superior side slaughtering numerous small, divided tribes. Mexican empire, unlike the native, was a conqueror and they were perceived to have some ability to defend themselves.
This is a normal thing in history. But the thing you accused as PC is nothing more than judging that period of history from a modern moral perspective. That's nothing contradict about that.
We believe that slavery was wrong. By following your logic, can we also claim that it's just the measure to "recruit" low-cost, high-quality labor - a normal tendency of a capitalistic economy?
I really wish that the scenario in the post is true - at least, the transaction will be fair and legally protected.
However, I wonder how many universities legally recognize graduate students as employees. The one I went didn't; the one that I am working in does. As employees, graduate students will have the right to organize unions. The university I went fight hard just to prevent it - it's far better to keep everything the students do (e.g. teaching, researching, sweeping the hallway
> Do the same to any Chinese military crafts near the US air border.
The problem is: not that many Chinese - probably none - military crafts spying near the US air border. That's why the Chinese people are pissed off. Spying in such a way is not really a very friendly gesture. The many other postures of this administration doesn't really help, e.g., openly downgrading Sino-American relation to "strategic competition".
And that's also why whether the spy plane was in the internation space doesn't really matter that much. Yeah - (hypothethically speaking) say it's ten feet away from Chinese airspace. So? It legal for me to do anything just outside of your doorstep but it doesn't make it a nice thing to do, especially when an accident happens and take away the life of your son...
Nothing :). Unless you believe that America had the copyright/trademark/patent of "Freedom".
:P), Nazism, treasonous activities or even Anti-Christ... To fight soundbites with soundbites, using the Founding Fathers (of the US of A, of course :) or silly phrase like the "American Way" can't be more appropriate.
Seriously, I believe that it's better to put the whole thing in context. Allchin invoked the word "unamerican". To American audience, especially those in the Congress, it is the code-word for the ultimate evil, such as communism (to most Americans, communism == extreme_bad
I'm not sure what you're trying to say...
If you're suggesting that it indicates the political-correctness paranoid of the authority - you're wrong. Miss Thielen was NOT saying anything bad about black so that her exhibition got pulled out.
No, she did an experiment which suggested some bias attitudes among the children. The results may not even be accurate as the experimental method was probably too crude or unscientific. But the school authority got so scared of any slight hints of such attitudes that they had to pull it out. If you are trying the play-the-victim game and pretend being suppressed by the so call "political correctness", this is NOT really one of those situations.
But of course, it is possible that you are simply stating an estimation of the situation. I can imagine that if Miss Thielen is black, the school probably can't pull out the exhibition without causing an uproar from the minority community.
I may be too naive but somehow I feel that Gore is fighting more than the presidency.
:).
Unless his ambition has clouded his judgement, which is QUITE possible for people like Gore, a normal person should have realized that this presidency would be a tough, if not broken, one due to the split Congress, popular and electoral votes and everything else. To benefit one's own personal political career, it is actually better to concede like that Nixon and wait for another election.
In some sense, the only reason to go through all these legal hassles and the risk of personal political future for Gore (and Bush too) is the responsibility to the voters behind him. Afterall, election is not a football game. It's a demonstration of the will of the people - to paraphase the rheterics, should be fair and accurate.
Yeah. And unfortunately, they both have exactly half the population behind them. That's why we're in this mess
Hey! According to your logic, Nader got about two percents of the votes and the other 50% of the population wouldn't have cared. 52% of the population. Not bad for a Nader presidency?!!
It's supposed to be a joke but seriously, two points:
1) You don't really need a God to have a religion. Examples include Buddhism, Taoism and probably a lot others that I don't know. Yes, you can define religions as an organized belief system that must involve a God or Gods. But that will come to the following:
2) Organized religions are better protected than Atheism. For example, you will have a chance to exempt from military service if your 'religion' prohibited violence. Similar benefit is not enjoyed by a pacifist atheist, no matter how strong his belief is.
I'm not trying to troll but you've probably missed another important possibility:
:)
3) The United States is a huge, diversified country with a large standing army (to be politically incorrect, an imperialistic power). To maintain internal cohersion and have a rationale of such a large military spending, nothing is better than a scary, unhuman enemy...
In the past half century, we had the good old Soviet - to be fair, they're probably also using the "evil imperial capitalistic" US as the same tool. Now, we're forced to turn to some faceless, evil terrorists or some wimpy rogue nations. Sadly, they aren't really that up to the roles. Tomorrow, we may need to good back to the "communist" China or the reborn "corrupted, mafia-controlled" Russia for some new arch-enemies. Afterall, as long as we're not really nuking one another, big military spending is good for economy, right?
I checked and found out that I for my income bracket, I actually should get more from Gore. Unless you earned more than 130,000 and have no kid or going to have inheritance more than several millions, you probably will get similar tax-break from both of them. Check out Citizens for Tax Justice. It's a liberal leaning group. So, if you're in the higher income brackets, they'll only exagerrate your tax-break from Bush plan :).
Of course, if you're ideologically pro-tax break, Bush is still your man. But to me, it's reckless to spend over the estimated-surplus, which nobody knows whether it'll actually be there, for a large tax-break, expanded military, etc. Gore spends quite a portions, something like 1.9 out of 2.2 trillions but at least his book so far is balance. There is a large part of Bush's budget expenditures which hasn't been accounted for yet...
You may be missing the economics behind his argument. I agree with the principle that people should be responsible for their own lives but that's not what I get from his post.
;). Then, it doesn't matter how much *currency* that the retirees have saved - all it will lead to is a massive inflation since a whole bunch of paper money will be now competing for a meagering amount of goods. But of course, saving will still make you better of than those retirees who haven't not.
:) - "transgeneration transfer" of productivity. And the whole issue of social security is, unluckily, more than just personal responsbility - it's a matter of the population structure of the world.
;)
I thought over for an hour and have come to the following example. Say, there are 50 thirty-years old working today and 1 baby. Let's assume that all of the workers save half of their income. Thirty years later, they will all retired and one person will have to support all of the retirees (unless he killed them all
What it means is: social security is, in term of macroeconomics, more than a matter of personal "saving" and "investment". It's a matter of - I hate to repeat his word
Personally, I find the whole thing very depressing. Since my simple example seem to show that unless there are adequate increase of productivity (luckily there should be), my saving will mean little. I'll just have more *paper* money to compete less *real* goods...
The only personal solution (without social intervention from the big scary government) will be to find an investment that will maintain its real value while I retire (30+ years later) - a bunker of canned food sounds will be nice. Boy, I need a Master degree in Economics and a crystal ball.
Now, I need to think very carefully about my retirement. Have a nice day!!
Which states are you in? AFAIK, in some states, the votes of independents and (god forbidden) democrats are not binding to the result of Republican primary.
And for your reasons:
1) He is probabbly not conservative for the Republicans... Or his campaign finance reform has touched some party nerves.
2) I don't vote people for how they look, do you?
Still, if you're following the discussion of this thread, the original point stands. That is, if we're using the fraction in-fighting of the Republican and Democratic parties as a way of building compromised, coalition governments. It's a lousy way - it's close, undemocratic and subject to small-circle politcal exchange.
I think that you have hit the jackpot - both the Democratic and Republican Parties are similar to the coalition governments of the other countries.
The problem is....
None of these internal fighting and bargaining is open to the *people*.
Take John McCain as an example, I personally will NOT forgive what the Republican Party did in their primary. Reject a candidate which is so well-received by the general public and promote a person favored by the party establishment?!! Republican party deserves to lose their election just because of this violation of the will of the people. Where is my voice in the selection of candidates in the Democratic and Republican party?
In case that you didn't know, there are many different fractions inside the Communist Party of China too. And they do have election - there is usually one candidate for one position.
You call this democracy?