I would hate to have any of my legal rights determined by a judge with an eye on the opinion polls, the lobbysists and the millions of dollars in the bank accounts of sleazy, smoke-filled backroom operators itching to replace them if they decide cases in a way of which they disapprove.
And I would hate to have the fate of my nation determined by an individual accountable to no one that has no fear of reprisal should he or she decide to push their own agenda upon the country. Kinda like the Federal Judiciary, for instance...
If you think war has prevented anything regarding space sciences development, then you're not living in reality. Practically every major development in space has come directly from military needs.
I believe that does my point much better justice than the dictionary definition. The point is one cannot be ineptandcompetent as the words mean completely opposite things. Now if your intention was to highlight the absurdity of Kerry's campaign (especially in his attempts to be everything and nothing at the same time) by a literary device such as using two adjectives with directly opposing meanings to describe him, then I apologize for the misunderstanding, as that would be completely appropriate.
Now, how about those "little things" like Bush lying to Congress about Iraq WMD, lying to Congress about Osama and Saddam, lying to Congress about whether a war was already underway, lying to Congress about whether $700M had already been spent on Iraq war, when it was appropriated for Afghanistan? How about all those criminal acts themselves, about which Bush was lying?
Apparently you don't understand the definitions of many words. We already know the meaning of 'inept' and 'competent' escape you, but also the meaning of the word 'lie'.
lie n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Saying someone has a weapon because the last time you checked they had a weapon and they haven't had a problem using it in the past isn't a lie. You could be faulted for not better checking up on whether they still had a weapon or not, but in a situation where the person had gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal such weapons and was considered a dangerous individual to be around, one can understand you playing things safe and just going on past experience.
You clowns think impeachment is a game.
No, we don't We don't live in a fantasy world where impeachment and judicial fiat are the solution to getting what we want when we can't win it at the ballot box. If your ideas are so much better, go convince people you have a better way of doing things.
You cackled with joy when Congress interfered with Clinton's attack on Osama in Afghanistan, by waving a blue dress, and insanely saying Clinton was distracting America from important blowjob recriminations with his attempt on Osama.
No, we scratched out heads as to why he'd blow up an Aspirin factory in Sudan. His "attempt on Osama" in Afghanistan was to blow up a long-abandoned training camp. Clinton shot down any proposals to actually try to capture the bum because he was too scared of US casualties and what they'd do to his legacy.
I'm sure you were dancing the Republican victory dance when Bush was ignoring the proof that Osama blew up the USS Cole,
You realize that Clinton was President when the Cole was attacked, right?
when Bush ignored the PDB saying Osama was determined to strike the US.
Have you even read that briefing? I don't think you have, otherwise you wouldn't bring it up as something important. It would have been the equivalent of getting a memo in 1964 that said "Russia Determined to Nuke the US".
And now you're happily snarky about Bush's impeachment blocked by a Senate in his pocket,
1. Not apt or fitting; inappropriate.
2.
1. Displaying a lack of judgment, sense, or reason; foolish: an inept remark.
2. Bungling or clumsy; incompetent: inept handling of the account.
And it's little things like this that make me just roll my eyes at Kerry supporters and say "Run along, children. The Adults have work to do."
And here's a hint: You have to have comitted an impeachable offense to be impeached. And then you have to convince the Senate to convict. Neither of which are going to happen anytime soon. Thanks for playing.
Oh of course since I question the knowledge of an idiot AC, and therefore have somehow impugned the Holy Cell, I'm obviously a Microsoft plant...
Did you even read the article you linked? Did you notice it offers practically no details? Other than enough to let you know that the chip is going to be an absolute PITA to develop for unless Sony delivers some incredible compilers for it... Which, based on past experience, they won't...
Entirely possible, and no shame in admitting it. Living in the UK all I know of the US wifi networks is what I read on slashdot. And there I was complaining about people applying binary thinking to analogue problems, only to go and assume that corporate wifi rollout was either everywhere or nowhere. I don't know...
There are a few companies that specialize in wifi access in metropolitan areas (not counting wifi enabled cafes, libraries, airports, malls, etc.) But they're not in the majority of cities. Funnily enough, even my relatively small city, Lafayette, Louisiana has a couple providers...
I wonder how the value for money compares for the average citizen. I imagine municipal wifi comes off worst in all but the most computer literate of areas, since those without wifi enabled computers (or without computers at all) will see no benefit.
*shrug* There was a big deal about (I believe) Boston rolling out free-wifi in their harbour area a few years back... The problem being about half a dozen providers already existed in the area. Not exactly fair competition to the private sector, considering the government can just force citizens to pay for a service they don't use. That left a bad taste in my mouth. The primary utility company in my city is publicly owned, making it "sort of" part of the local government. They're working on rolling out fiber-optic connections and possibly WiMax across the entire parish (despite the lawsuits from BellSouth and Cox Communications), but they're going to be forced to compete with the existing players--not prop it up with tax revenues. Seems a much fairer solution. Those who don't have PCs or don't want to use it won't have to pay for it.
On the other hand, that value will rise over time as more people take advantage of the resource. And if the city does it, they may well do the job properly. A patchy and overpriced corporate rollout could kill a city wifi project just as dead as flat out refusal to implement anything.
And a completely borked government project could leave the taxpayers holding the bag...:) If a corporation screws up no one's hurt but their shareholders--if the government screws up, we all pay.
I must confess to being a little torn on this one. If there's one lesson that's been taught to us in the UK over the last two decades, it's that national and regional infrastructure are not always best left to the private sector. We used to have a nationalised rail service that everyone complained about, but really all you could say was that it was a little unimaginative. These days we have several privatised rail companies who have been very imaginative, but only when it comes to extracting more money from a captive userbase in exchange for fewer and/or worse services.
And everyone still complains.
Well, in the US, our 'nationalized' rail service, Amtrak, is a miserable failure. So are our subsidized airlines. The only successful transportation companies (SouthWest, Greyhound, etc.) are the ones with the least government intervention... Heck, in SouthWest's case, they actually have Federal laws specifically limiting where they can do business to try and protect the bigger airlines.
*shrug* In the end, especially as a government employee, I just have a problem with the idea that things done by a corporation are automatically bad and things done by the government are automatically good. Neither is true in most cases, but neither is false in all cases... And anything that gets rid of fair competition (whether due to corporate or government action) is automatically a Bad Thing(tm).;)
mmm... But as I understand it, none of the private corporations have been setting up the service at all.
Then your understanding is in error.:) Yes, there are plenty of companies all over the US setting up WiFi and/or WiMax connections. That's why I specifically said "As long as they're not muscling out local competition", because in many places such competition does exist.
So you let 100 peers decide--with a government sanction--who's allowed to compete with them? And once they've denied the patent, they turn around and implement the now non-patentable idea with a larger budget?
I think you need to look at the history of the Jeep.
Well considering I'm working for a local government who's in the middle of a lawsuit battle with BellSouth and Cox because the local utility wants to setup fiber service to the home... I'm a little biased in favor of municipalities offering some kind of service... But I'm picky about the situtation. The local government shouldn't be allowed to muscle out *local* competition by giving away free service, for instance... They should have to compete on the same playing field as everyone else. In the case of my city, the utility company isn't exactly part of the government, and the government doesn't give the utility one cent, so they have to actually compete on their own...
So I guess this is the modern answer to carpet bagging? How about this: You worry about defeating the representatives in YOUR district that you disagree with and let others decide who they want representing them. Believe me, you wouldn't be happy if I started trying to get people elected where you live...
And in that respect, you're correct... But we're not trying to get the government to adopt IPv6, we're trying to get the rest of the world to do it, correct? How many non-DoD systems make any use of ADA?;)
OSI networking was very much about the hardware...And the DoD demanded all new hardware be run on ADA... But you are correct, they weren't industry driven... Much like IPv6...;)
I just don't see IPv6 going anywhere in the US until there's an actual benefit to it--no matter what the government does.:)
Well from a business perspective IPv6 is pointless and useless. There's no financial benefit from going to it nor is there any need for the vast majority of users. Give it twenty years and that will probably change--but until there's some real monetary benefit to switching, it's just not gonna happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I would hate to have any of my legal rights determined by a judge with an eye on the opinion polls, the lobbysists and the millions of dollars in the bank accounts of sleazy, smoke-filled backroom operators itching to replace them if they decide cases in a way of which they disapprove.
And I would hate to have the fate of my nation determined by an individual accountable to no one that has no fear of reprisal should he or she decide to push their own agenda upon the country. Kinda like the Federal Judiciary, for instance...
If you think war has prevented anything regarding space sciences development, then you're not living in reality. Practically every major development in space has come directly from military needs.
You don't know how to use a dictionary. Perhaps if "incompetent" was the primary definition, you might have more weight to your argument.
You're correct, what I should have used was a thesaurus and not a dictionary. Let me remedy that.
Main Entry: inept
Part of Speech: adjective 1
Definition: clumsy
Synonyms: all thumbs, artless, awkward, bumbling, bungling, butterfingers, gauche, halting, ham-handed, inadept, incapable, incompetent, inefficient, inexpert, loser, maladroit, real loser, unapt, undexterous, unfacile, ungraceful, unhandy, unproficient, unskilled, unskillful, wooden
Antonyms: competent
Source: Roget's New Millennium(TM) Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
I believe that does my point much better justice than the dictionary definition. The point is one cannot be inept and competent as the words mean completely opposite things. Now if your intention was to highlight the absurdity of Kerry's campaign (especially in his attempts to be everything and nothing at the same time) by a literary device such as using two adjectives with directly opposing meanings to describe him, then I apologize for the misunderstanding, as that would be completely appropriate.
Now, how about those "little things" like Bush lying to Congress about Iraq WMD, lying to Congress about Osama and Saddam, lying to Congress about whether a war was already underway, lying to Congress about whether $700M had already been spent on Iraq war, when it was appropriated for Afghanistan? How about all those criminal acts themselves, about which Bush was lying?
Apparently you don't understand the definitions of many words. We already know the meaning of 'inept' and 'competent' escape you, but also the meaning of the word 'lie'.
lie n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Saying someone has a weapon because the last time you checked they had a weapon and they haven't had a problem using it in the past isn't a lie. You could be faulted for not better checking up on whether they still had a weapon or not, but in a situation where the person had gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal such weapons and was considered a dangerous individual to be around, one can understand you playing things safe and just going on past experience.
You clowns think impeachment is a game.
No, we don't We don't live in a fantasy world where impeachment and judicial fiat are the solution to getting what we want when we can't win it at the ballot box. If your ideas are so much better, go convince people you have a better way of doing things.
You cackled with joy when Congress interfered with Clinton's attack on Osama in Afghanistan, by waving a blue dress, and insanely saying Clinton was distracting America from important blowjob recriminations with his attempt on Osama.
No, we scratched out heads as to why he'd blow up an Aspirin factory in Sudan. His "attempt on Osama" in Afghanistan was to blow up a long-abandoned training camp. Clinton shot down any proposals to actually try to capture the bum because he was too scared of US casualties and what they'd do to his legacy.
I'm sure you were dancing the Republican victory dance when Bush was ignoring the proof that Osama blew up the USS Cole,
You realize that Clinton was President when the Cole was attacked, right?
when Bush ignored the PDB saying Osama was determined to strike the US.
Have you even read that briefing? I don't think you have, otherwise you wouldn't bring it up as something important. It would have been the equivalent of getting a memo in 1964 that said "Russia Determined to Nuke the US".
And now you're happily snarky about Bush's impeachment blocked by a Senate in his pocket,
Kerry was inept, but competent.
inept
adj.
1. Not apt or fitting; inappropriate.
2.
1. Displaying a lack of judgment, sense, or reason; foolish: an inept remark.
2. Bungling or clumsy; incompetent: inept handling of the account.
And it's little things like this that make me just roll my eyes at Kerry supporters and say "Run along, children. The Adults have work to do."
And here's a hint: You have to have comitted an impeachable offense to be impeached. And then you have to convince the Senate to convict. Neither of which are going to happen anytime soon. Thanks for playing.
And see, the worst I ever did was leave Japanese comments and debug messages in one of my freshman assignments...
...
if (argc < 2)
//Baka no gaijin!
...
while (int i = 0; i < MAX_ROW; i++) {
cout << endl << "Nani? " << i << endl;
while (int j = 0; j < MAX_COL; j++) {
cout << " ITAI! " << j << endl;
}
}
etc...
Needless to say my Indian grader was a little confused... ^_^
It's not like the customer will ever see the code
Famous last words?
I'm suddenly reminded of !seineew era sreenigne epacsten!
So, what's your saying is: you smoke an awful lot of crack on the weekends?
At least someone else sees the irony...
Skank, I'll give you one guess what platform I am developing on right now...
Give it a rest you stupid little cunt.
Hmm I'd have to guess your Mom's Packard Bell, 'cause I sure the hell can't see anyone in their right mind hiring you to do any real development work.
Oh of course since I question the knowledge of an idiot AC, and therefore have somehow impugned the Holy Cell, I'm obviously a Microsoft plant...
Did you even read the article you linked? Did you notice it offers practically no details? Other than enough to let you know that the chip is going to be an absolute PITA to develop for unless Sony delivers some incredible compilers for it... Which, based on past experience, they won't...
Astroturf much? Do you even understand the Cell's design enough to realize what a PITA it's going to be to develop for?
Entirely possible, and no shame in admitting it. Living in the UK all I know of the US wifi networks is what I read on slashdot. And there I was complaining about people applying binary thinking to analogue problems, only to go and assume that corporate wifi rollout was either everywhere or nowhere. I don't know...
:) If a corporation screws up no one's hurt but their shareholders--if the government screws up, we all pay.
;)
There are a few companies that specialize in wifi access in metropolitan areas (not counting wifi enabled cafes, libraries, airports, malls, etc.) But they're not in the majority of cities. Funnily enough, even my relatively small city, Lafayette, Louisiana has a couple providers...
I wonder how the value for money compares for the average citizen. I imagine municipal wifi comes off worst in all but the most computer literate of areas, since those without wifi enabled computers (or without computers at all) will see no benefit.
*shrug* There was a big deal about (I believe) Boston rolling out free-wifi in their harbour area a few years back... The problem being about half a dozen providers already existed in the area. Not exactly fair competition to the private sector, considering the government can just force citizens to pay for a service they don't use. That left a bad taste in my mouth. The primary utility company in my city is publicly owned, making it "sort of" part of the local government. They're working on rolling out fiber-optic connections and possibly WiMax across the entire parish (despite the lawsuits from BellSouth and Cox Communications), but they're going to be forced to compete with the existing players--not prop it up with tax revenues. Seems a much fairer solution. Those who don't have PCs or don't want to use it won't have to pay for it.
On the other hand, that value will rise over time as more people take advantage of the resource. And if the city does it, they may well do the job properly. A patchy and overpriced corporate rollout could kill a city wifi project just as dead as flat out refusal to implement anything.
And a completely borked government project could leave the taxpayers holding the bag...
I must confess to being a little torn on this one. If there's one lesson that's been taught to us in the UK over the last two decades, it's that national and regional infrastructure are not always best left to the private sector. We used to have a nationalised rail service that everyone complained about, but really all you could say was that it was a little unimaginative. These days we have several privatised rail companies who have been very imaginative, but only when it comes to extracting more money from a captive userbase in exchange for fewer and/or worse services.
And everyone still complains.
Well, in the US, our 'nationalized' rail service, Amtrak, is a miserable failure. So are our subsidized airlines. The only successful transportation companies (SouthWest, Greyhound, etc.) are the ones with the least government intervention... Heck, in SouthWest's case, they actually have Federal laws specifically limiting where they can do business to try and protect the bigger airlines.
*shrug* In the end, especially as a government employee, I just have a problem with the idea that things done by a corporation are automatically bad and things done by the government are automatically good. Neither is true in most cases, but neither is false in all cases... And anything that gets rid of fair competition (whether due to corporate or government action) is automatically a Bad Thing(tm).
mmm... But as I understand it, none of the private corporations have been setting up the service at all.
:) Yes, there are plenty of companies all over the US setting up WiFi and/or WiMax connections. That's why I specifically said "As long as they're not muscling out local competition", because in many places such competition does exist.
Then your understanding is in error.
So you let 100 peers decide--with a government sanction--who's allowed to compete with them? And once they've denied the patent, they turn around and implement the now non-patentable idea with a larger budget?
I think you need to look at the history of the Jeep.
Well considering I'm working for a local government who's in the middle of a lawsuit battle with BellSouth and Cox because the local utility wants to setup fiber service to the home... I'm a little biased in favor of municipalities offering some kind of service... But I'm picky about the situtation. The local government shouldn't be allowed to muscle out *local* competition by giving away free service, for instance... They should have to compete on the same playing field as everyone else. In the case of my city, the utility company isn't exactly part of the government, and the government doesn't give the utility one cent, so they have to actually compete on their own...
I didn't say it was automatically a bad thing. I said it's not automatically a good thing.
So I guess this is the modern answer to carpet bagging? How about this: You worry about defeating the representatives in YOUR district that you disagree with and let others decide who they want representing them. Believe me, you wouldn't be happy if I started trying to get people elected where you live...
And in that respect, you're correct... But we're not trying to get the government to adopt IPv6, we're trying to get the rest of the world to do it, correct? How many non-DoD systems make any use of ADA? ;)
Nor should the government's capacity for graft and bungling be forgotten. Municipal wireless isn't automatically a Good Thing(tm).
OSI networking was very much about the hardware...And the DoD demanded all new hardware be run on ADA... But you are correct, they weren't industry driven... Much like IPv6... ;)
:)
I just don't see IPv6 going anywhere in the US until there's an actual benefit to it--no matter what the government does.
Funny, that didn't work that well with ADA, strict OSI implementations, etc, etc, etc...
Well from a business perspective IPv6 is pointless and useless. There's no financial benefit from going to it nor is there any need for the vast majority of users. Give it twenty years and that will probably change--but until there's some real monetary benefit to switching, it's just not gonna happen.
Then they'll just rob blocks from people like MIT who have way too many and NAT the rest...
i have yet to play a good game by Factor 5.
So, you mean you've never played ANY game by Factor Five, right?
And regardless, the GBA is eating both their lunches still. :P