You're not screwing valve. Obviously Valve thinks they can make money by selling this game for cheap (These are legitimate channels, right?). All it means is that valve is screwing *you* when you buy full price, since they are perfectly happy to sell hundreds of thousands of copies at a lower price.
What part of Schwartzkopf's story do you take issue with? If all you're saying is that I don't know the whole tale, well, there's not enough paint in the world for this particular turd.
Cheney is understood to be very knowledgeable about military matters. He also has enormous gravitas, and has perfected the art of looking like he knows what he is doing. That doesn't mean he's not an idiot.
His hands are also all over the worst debacles of the current administration: siding with Rumsfeld on troop levels, forcing Garner out in favor of Bremer and all the associated policy horrors that followed, Chalabi, Plame, detainee policy and so on.
"there's nothing anywhere suggesting that he's smarter than the average gangster."
That's pretty much it. Bush and Cheney, have a gangster's intelligence and not much else. A little bit of unexpected ruthlessness, and DC rolls right over, parts of it gladly.
Cheney, on the other hand, is widely well regarded as an evil mastermind.
A completely undeserved reputation. His big plan in '91, for example, was to parachute the 82nd Airborne behind Iraqi lines, capture an Iraqi city and hold for ransom. Schwartzkopf, sane human that he was, didn't think much of it and said so, but Cheney kept insisting on it for weeks.
Bush may be garden variety dumb, but Cheney is truly demented.
You couldn't be more wrong. I've never met a Buddhist, Hindu, or anyone who thought it horrible or ignorant or tragic to not believe what they did except for some Christians and some Muslims (though certainly not all, and not even a majority).
As the parent mentioned, the "Wisdom of Crowds" put Bush in power.
This is only a counter example if you think the country wants a good president and failed.
I would also add that the wisdom of the crowds decisively chose Al Gore over Bush, but the decision was deflected by institutions put in place hundreds of years ago to do just that.
It's also painfully obvious that the election system we have now hardly takes advantage of the selection processes described in the article, which is why elections always seem to come out worse than the some of their parts and not better.
I've had a ton of operations fail silently in Vista. What's going on here? Isn't that the first commandment of coding "Thou shalt deal with error conditions and thy user shall be informed of them"?
Is it amateur hour at Microsoft or am I missing something?
"Also not sure why you're a Bush hater. the man is obviously a useful idiot, "All religions pray to the same God." I mean honestly, even a grade school child is not going to swallow that one. Either he thinks all Americans are idiots, or he's an idiot. I believe it is the latter. An idiot with powerful friends, perhaps. I think you should be far more concerned with the people who pushed him to the top of the ticket at the Republican Primaries."
Agreed. Idiot or not, he's definitely just a symptom of the disease.
I guess my argument was a little bit circular since in retrospect I took "Republican Base" to mean the 30% who still think Bush is an awesome president.
Of course, the entire party apparatus is still behind the man for some reason.
Find some problems that you think are interesting,
Do the problems you don't find interesting, too.
1. If you don't know the Math, you're not a good judge of what's really interesting.
2. Most people underestimate how much practice they need to learn a particular topic. There's always a gap between when someone thinks they've got it, and when they really got it. Force yourself to do some of the work you'd like to skip over.
Bush is the ultimate Republican. He's the first president to reflect their base. Loves big-business, giveaways to military contractors, no understanding or compassion for the problems of the working class, thinks foreign policy is a dick sizing contest and anyone who doesn't act from the gut is a wuss.
As to move on and Google, I'm against censorship, period. We have an equivalent problem on the other side with the large companies who own almost every TV network refusing to air Move On ads for what appear to be contrived reasons. One possibility is to require media companies to accept any ad at a set rate in exchange for immunity from liability for the ad (ad buyers are still liable).
I was ignorant of the SC decision, but it was public knowledge. Why would Qwest's lawyers believe the plan to be illegal? What caused the FISA court to balk?
You are correct. I find that decision disheartening:
"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."
That is IMHO an incorrect reading of American's expectations, and the foundation of the quote is dangerous: In the age of digital transmission, the entire phone conversation is turned over to the phone company.
No, they don't. If what they're doing isn't illegal, then they don't need immunity for it. Or to put it another way, giving someone immunity for something that is legal won't do anything to stop frivolous law suits.
BTW, what makes you think that call patterns don't fall under a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? I'm guessing you and those like you who love to give the government the benefit of the doubt are in a distinct minority.
Because spying on foreigners without a warrant is not illegal, and these guys were doing something illegal (hence the desire by the telecoms to get their actions retroactively legalized, without first telling us what they are)
It's amazing what can happen in a country after they attack us, we beat them into submission costing tens of thousands of our people and millions of theirs, then they formally surrender under threat of nuclear annihilation and/or soviet invasion followed by a well-run occupation sufficiently manned.
I think it's heartening that history is showing a trend that the aggressor in a war takes more and more blame for it and suffers accordingly in the long term. It's not 100% true, but it's more true than it used to be, and it shows that we humans may be growing a bit wiser.
Slashdot Mirror
The number is somewhat smaller. Being against Bush is the unbiased position.
You're not screwing valve. Obviously Valve thinks they can make money by selling this game for cheap (These are legitimate channels, right?). All it means is that valve is screwing *you* when you buy full price, since they are perfectly happy to sell hundreds of thousands of copies at a lower price.
Why should we subsidize game prices in Thailand and Russia? Free market good for thee but not for me?
They should just change the name to Grand Snatch Scratchy and be done with it.
What part of Schwartzkopf's story do you take issue with? If all you're saying is that I don't know the whole tale, well, there's not enough paint in the world for this particular turd.
Cheney is understood to be very knowledgeable about military matters. He also has enormous gravitas, and has perfected the art of looking like he knows what he is doing. That doesn't mean he's not an idiot.
His hands are also all over the worst debacles of the current administration: siding with Rumsfeld on troop levels, forcing Garner out in favor of Bremer and all the associated policy horrors that followed, Chalabi, Plame, detainee policy and so on.
Close Combat
"there's nothing anywhere suggesting that he's smarter than the average gangster."
That's pretty much it. Bush and Cheney, have a gangster's intelligence and not much else. A little bit of unexpected ruthlessness, and DC rolls right over, parts of it gladly.
Cheney, on the other hand, is widely well regarded as an evil mastermind.
A completely undeserved reputation. His big plan in '91, for example, was to parachute the 82nd Airborne behind Iraqi lines, capture an Iraqi city and hold for ransom. Schwartzkopf, sane human that he was, didn't think much of it and said so, but Cheney kept insisting on it for weeks.
Bush may be garden variety dumb, but Cheney is truly demented.
I'm not offering Pascal's stupid wager, but the wager doesn't even exist for the teapot.
You couldn't be more wrong. I've never met a Buddhist, Hindu, or anyone who thought it horrible or ignorant or tragic to not believe what they did except for some Christians and some Muslims (though certainly not all, and not even a majority).
As the parent mentioned, the "Wisdom of Crowds" put Bush in power.
This is only a counter example if you think the country wants a good president and failed.
I would also add that the wisdom of the crowds decisively chose Al Gore over Bush, but the decision was deflected by institutions put in place hundreds of years ago to do just that.
It's also painfully obvious that the election system we have now hardly takes advantage of the selection processes described in the article, which is why elections always seem to come out worse than the some of their parts and not better.
Except teapots don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they're disbelieved.
I've never met anyone who went crazy from lack of suffering.
The gameplay itself is, in a word, weird.
That one word description is, in a word, non-descriptive.
I've had a ton of operations fail silently in Vista. What's going on here? Isn't that the first commandment of coding "Thou shalt deal with error conditions and thy user shall be informed of them"?
Is it amateur hour at Microsoft or am I missing something?
"Also not sure why you're a Bush hater. the man is obviously a useful idiot, "All religions pray to the same God." I mean honestly, even a grade school child is not going to swallow that one. Either he thinks all Americans are idiots, or he's an idiot. I believe it is the latter. An idiot with powerful friends, perhaps. I think you should be far more concerned with the people who pushed him to the top of the ticket at the Republican Primaries."
Agreed. Idiot or not, he's definitely just a symptom of the disease.
I guess my argument was a little bit circular since in retrospect I took "Republican Base" to mean the 30% who still think Bush is an awesome president.
Of course, the entire party apparatus is still behind the man for some reason.
Find some problems that you think are interesting,
Do the problems you don't find interesting, too.
1. If you don't know the Math, you're not a good judge of what's really interesting.
2. Most people underestimate how much practice they need to learn a particular topic. There's always a gap between when someone thinks they've got it, and when they really got it. Force yourself to do some of the work you'd like to skip over.
Why do you want to Balkanize the Saturnians when they've so recently united?
Bush is the ultimate Republican. He's the first president to reflect their base. Loves big-business, giveaways to military contractors, no understanding or compassion for the problems of the working class, thinks foreign policy is a dick sizing contest and anyone who doesn't act from the gut is a wuss.
As to move on and Google, I'm against censorship, period. We have an equivalent problem on the other side with the large companies who own almost every TV network refusing to air Move On ads for what appear to be contrived reasons. One possibility is to require media companies to accept any ad at a set rate in exchange for immunity from liability for the ad (ad buyers are still liable).
You're right! Everyone with a pre-existing condition is rich! I never thought of that before, now I'll have to change my position on health care.
If you spend some time without insurance, BTW, you'll find you don't have to be that poor for a medical calamity to wreck your family.
I was ignorant of the SC decision, but it was public knowledge. Why would Qwest's lawyers believe the plan to be illegal? What caused the FISA court to balk?
You are correct. I find that decision disheartening:
"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."
That is IMHO an incorrect reading of American's expectations, and the foundation of the quote is dangerous: In the age of digital transmission, the entire phone conversation is turned over to the phone company.
No, they don't. If what they're doing isn't illegal, then they don't need immunity for it. Or to put it another way, giving someone immunity for something that is legal won't do anything to stop frivolous law suits.
BTW, what makes you think that call patterns don't fall under a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? I'm guessing you and those like you who love to give the government the benefit of the doubt are in a distinct minority.
Because spying on foreigners without a warrant is not illegal, and these guys were doing something illegal (hence the desire by the telecoms to get their actions retroactively legalized, without first telling us what they are)
It's amazing what can happen in a country after they attack us, we beat them into submission costing tens of thousands of our people and millions of theirs, then they formally surrender under threat of nuclear annihilation and/or soviet invasion followed by a well-run occupation sufficiently manned.
I think it's heartening that history is showing a trend that the aggressor in a war takes more and more blame for it and suffers accordingly in the long term. It's not 100% true, but it's more true than it used to be, and it shows that we humans may be growing a bit wiser.