Oddly enough it won't. It will only affect web developers who code to non-standards. Most of us code to a set of standards so that all our code can work well in ALL browsers not just IE. Those who focus on IE only and use IE specific tags and ActiveX usually put themselves out of a job by neglecting a large percentage of the market
You've obviously never coded a page that had to display correctly on IE.
That was the whole point, preventing people from stepping on each others frequencies. The stuff having to do with foul language and whatnot was a nice side benefit- after all you can't let people curse on the airwaves if they are public, can you? So you get rid of foul language without specifically curbing speech and it's a nice middle ground as long as you have to impose a broadcast licensing system anyway.
But we have gotten used to the side benefit and lost track of the original purpose for the licensing infrastructure, which is almost gone. The only reason to have broadcast licenses anymore is to control what people are allowed to say and which words are to be included in the infamous unutterable seven, and to collect the fines levied on people who say the wrong thing.
Are you seriously naïve enough to believe that the previous deal in any way stopped them from working on it?
Yes, it gave nuclear inspectors free reign to visit any facility in the country, and required the North Koreans to continually produce spent nuclear fuel as deliverables.
Much more effective than what Bush replaced it with: NOTHING. He calls the situation "unacceptable" in his speeches, and that's what qualifies as a "hard line approach" from Bush. I may be "seriously naïve" but I don't see how the blustering of a narcisstic sociopath is as effective as sending inspectors to North Korea and taking their nuclear fuel away.
Yeah, plutonium is SO much more dangerous than uranium.
It's easier to refine it and make a bomb out of it. The periodic table is showing its political bias against you.
So if say NK spent years developing technology and manufacting equipment using resources given to them by Clinton then it's fair to blame the Bush who shows up after the fact simply because the material's "born on" date is post 2001?
Learn the difference between uranium and plutonium.
Clinton struck a deal to keep plutonium away from the North Koreans, in return for help in building light water reactors which aren't useful in weapons programs. The North Koreans agreed and consequently started a clandestine uranium enrichment program that progressed much more slowly than their earlier efforts with plutonium. It wouldn't have produced anything for many years.
As far as plutonium was concerned, the deal was a success. It worked for the last six years of Clinton's term and the first two years of Bush.
Bush learned about the piddly uranium program and pulled out of the deal, allowing the North Koreans to start making plutonium again. Four years later a plutonium bomb explodes.
Why is the British system so wrong ? It means that people shouldn't publish anything potentially libellous about anyone else unless they can back up what they say. Many would argue this is not a bad thing.
That's rather naively assuming the purpose of the suit is to actually redress a case of libel, and not to suppress public criticism of any fruity little club that can afford good lawyers.
But even if all British libel suits had merit, this would also mean that in Britain, whenever anyone says anything unflattering and false about you, their statements will bear more credibility because of the libel laws. If the public knows that your critic can be sued for not telling the truth, then any false attacks on you that he makes will carry more weight than they would in a country with free speech. (Otherwise you'd be suing him, right?) This is a bad thing.
And in England you don't need to prove malice, hence that cryptic comment by Tom Cruise in that South Park episode about Scientology, "I'll sue you! I'll sue you in ENGLAND!"
And in England, if you get sued for libel, the burden of proof isn't on the plaintiff, it's on YOU. People who file libel suits often engage in forum shopping and file them in British courts. The British system is so broken that it has a chilling effect on free speech even outside the UK.
Compressed gas is fundamentally an impractical way to store energy. In theory you could get 100% efficiency by reversible adiabatic compression of the air into a compressed cylinder, followed by a reversible decompression, where all your energy comes back out.
The problem comes from the irreversible process in between. When you compress air it gets hot. As the hot air sitting in the cylinder slowly cools, energy is lost to heat the surroundings. When you come back to draw on that power you will find that the pressure has dropped significantly. When you buy compressed CO2 cartridges for example, you are getting much less energy out of them than was put into them at the time of manufacture.
This could be mitigated by wrapping lots of insulation around the gas to keep it warm but you see what the fundamental problem is.
If you have to tell your 16 year old boy that it's legally and morally wrong to exchange graphic sexual emails and IM's with a middle aged politician no amount of monitoring will help because you've already failed as a parent.
If you have to tell your middle aged politician that it's legally and morally wrong to exchange graphic sexual emails and IM's with a 16 year old boy, you've already failed as a voter.
NO was under sea level and surrounded by water, including a nearby lake that had artificial walls holding it up. I don't care what your economic place in this world is, you're a moron to live there and I feel no pain for people who's houses were washed away and didn't have insurance to cover the damages.
"They bought the tickets, they knew what they were getting into! I say, let 'em crash!"
You're making the assumption that what you feel needs to be taken care of is *really really important*, and that flag burning/gay marriage isn't as important to some people.
I was in a music store last week looking at some CDs. What happened? They used to just have the record label and the "compact DISC" logo on them. Now they have all this compatibility information about what version of Windows/OSX you need and how much RAM.
When a compassionate conservative serves up the latest flagburning/gay marriage amendment in the midst of a sermon about our national religious heritage, she is relying on warm fuzzy emotions to win people over, rather than an analysis of the rights of the involved parties. When a compassionate liberal accuses Bush & FEMA of racism in their mishandling of Hurricane Katrina recovery, she is injecting a highly-charged and divisive element into what should be an analysis of problems and solutions.
In other words, because people on both sides make ridiculous arguments, we should disregard reasonable arguments made by either side.
There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make against the way the Hurricane Katrina recovery is going. My personal opinion is that racism is one of them, but you don't have to agree with me on that. There are plenty of other reasonable arguments (such as simple incompetence) that can be made unequivocally without "injecting a highly-charged and divisive element into what should be an analysis of problems and solutions". An analysis, I might add, that no one in charge of the hurricane recovery is apparently concerned with carrying out.
As for reasonable arguments to make against a flag burning amendment or a gay marriage amendment, I challenge you to come up with any that don't involve "injecting a highly-charged and divisive element into what should be an analysis of problems and solutions". For one thing, neither flag burning nor gay marriage is a problem that needs solving in the first place.
Many on the Democratic side of the aisle are firmly founded in liberal and/or greenie belief - two beliefs hardly more conducive to science than Christian beliefs. (That is, if you want to base your ideas mostly on biases and stereotypes.)
...or if you want to base your ideas mostly on the intellectual basis of the Enlightenment, from which liberalism is nominally derived.
As far as Christian beliefs are concerned, there is no need to resort to "biases and stereotypes" when history will do just fine.
Consider -I see dems using class & race resentment to rile people up as often as the pubs use 'faith & morals' -Conservative fiscal policy -- generally speaking -- has some economic basis, while social-program expansion is generally based on sob stories. I don't think the idea that one party is more scientific in their approach is *at *all tenable.
I see neither as being relevant to the discussion ("class & race resentment" versus "faith and morals"), please explain why either one is "scientific" or "nonscientific" at all. The economic basis of current conservative fiscal policy seems to be looting of the public sector by a privileged set of private interests.
Conservative fiscal policy -- generally speaking -- has some economic basis, while social-program expansion is generally based on sob stories.
The "sob stories" I hear nowadays are on behalf of large telecommunications companies who have to maintain their "tubes", and dead billionaires whose inheritors have to pay their taxes. Nobody is even talking about social program expansion anymore. With habeus corpus about to be legislated out of existence we have more pressing issues to worry about.
The liberal bias comes in when ALL of the facts aren't presented; picking and choosing facts to make your point while ignoring the facts that don't is the hallmark of liberal argument. That, and instantly blaming conspiracies and calling your opponent names. Thanks for trying though.:-)
There is no substance to this argument since one could just as easily state the converse:
"The conservative bias comes in when ALL of the facts aren't presented; picking and choosing facts to make your point while ignoring the facts that don't is the hallmark of conservative argument. That, and instantly blaming conspiracies and calling your opponent names."
To anyone who has been paying attention to the political debate in this country, this statement rings much truer than the one you made. You cite no facts or evidence to support your baseless assertion, you have really added nothing to the conversation, and on top of that, you post as an anonymous coward even as you sarcastically thank someone smarter and funnier than you for "trying". I've never seen a post ending with "thanks for trying though" where the poster had a f8cking clue.
You write "int STM x=5;" and then one thread can do "atomic {x+=1;}" and another does "atomic {...;x-=1;...}" and the runtime+compiler magically make the atomic blocks execute atomically. This is different from Java synchronization blocks because these can be executed optimistically in parallel and because they never result in deadlock.
Why would you want to use two threads for something trivial like that?
How about a nice middle ground solution. We should look for ways to cut all programs, including programs that Bush likes, and including programs that Bush does NOT like. Whether they are his favorites or not should neither be here nor there.
Of course the original poster is right; via clever use of the classification process, this site will make no mention of Halliburton and the bridge to nowhere and will become a tool for the president to club unclassified Democratic initiatives.
And what's really amazing is when a Democrat gets elected as the US President, immediately afterward, we never see homeless people in the news. We never hear about global warming on the front page of the news. It's amazing how by a political change in office, all the problems are just suddenly swept away.
WTF are you talking about?
I agree that we never hear anything "on the front page of the news" because paper doesn't talk. But I saw plenty of homeless people in the news all through the nineties. I can only assume you're talking out of your ass.
This is really funny the more I think about it. So you're saying that as soon as a Democrat is elected, global warming isn't mentioned anymore, because why? A conspiracy to make Clinton look good?
Yeah as soon as he got elected the weather got nice and cool.
No, I'm just so disillusioned by society that I don't think anything is done honestly anymore.
People like you are the reason everything sucks. "Both sides are corrupt" and "your vote makes no difference" are messages that are drilled into our heads relentlessly in this society and as more people fall for this garbage, democracy slowly dies.
Honesty is something you need to expect from the institutions in your culture. If you don't get it, you don't lower your expectations, you get mad.
Slashdot Mirror
That was the whole point, preventing people from stepping on each others frequencies. The stuff having to do with foul language and whatnot was a nice side benefit- after all you can't let people curse on the airwaves if they are public, can you? So you get rid of foul language without specifically curbing speech and it's a nice middle ground as long as you have to impose a broadcast licensing system anyway.
But we have gotten used to the side benefit and lost track of the original purpose for the licensing infrastructure, which is almost gone. The only reason to have broadcast licenses anymore is to control what people are allowed to say and which words are to be included in the infamous unutterable seven, and to collect the fines levied on people who say the wrong thing.
Ummm... how much do you weigh?
Much more effective than what Bush replaced it with: NOTHING. He calls the situation "unacceptable" in his speeches, and that's what qualifies as a "hard line approach" from Bush. I may be "seriously naïve" but I don't see how the blustering of a narcisstic sociopath is as effective as sending inspectors to North Korea and taking their nuclear fuel away.
It's easier to refine it and make a bomb out of it. The periodic table is showing its political bias against you.
Clinton struck a deal to keep plutonium away from the North Koreans, in return for help in building light water reactors which aren't useful in weapons programs. The North Koreans agreed and consequently started a clandestine uranium enrichment program that progressed much more slowly than their earlier efforts with plutonium. It wouldn't have produced anything for many years.
As far as plutonium was concerned, the deal was a success. It worked for the last six years of Clinton's term and the first two years of Bush.
Bush learned about the piddly uranium program and pulled out of the deal, allowing the North Koreans to start making plutonium again. Four years later a plutonium bomb explodes.
Yeah, Clinton's fault.
But even if all British libel suits had merit, this would also mean that in Britain, whenever anyone says anything unflattering and false about you, their statements will bear more credibility because of the libel laws. If the public knows that your critic can be sued for not telling the truth, then any false attacks on you that he makes will carry more weight than they would in a country with free speech. (Otherwise you'd be suing him, right?) This is a bad thing.
Compressed gas is fundamentally an impractical way to store energy. In theory you could get 100% efficiency by reversible adiabatic compression of the air into a compressed cylinder, followed by a reversible decompression, where all your energy comes back out.
The problem comes from the irreversible process in between. When you compress air it gets hot. As the hot air sitting in the cylinder slowly cools, energy is lost to heat the surroundings. When you come back to draw on that power you will find that the pressure has dropped significantly. When you buy compressed CO2 cartridges for example, you are getting much less energy out of them than was put into them at the time of manufacture.
This could be mitigated by wrapping lots of insulation around the gas to keep it warm but you see what the fundamental problem is.
If you have to tell your 16 year old boy that it's legally and morally wrong to exchange graphic sexual emails and IM's with a middle aged politician no amount of monitoring will help because you've already failed as a parent.
If you have to tell your middle aged politician that it's legally and morally wrong to exchange graphic sexual emails and IM's with a 16 year old boy, you've already failed as a voter.
NO was under sea level and surrounded by water, including a nearby lake that had artificial walls holding it up. I don't care what your economic place in this world is, you're a moron to live there and I feel no pain for people who's houses were washed away and didn't have insurance to cover the damages.
"They bought the tickets, they knew what they were getting into! I say, let 'em crash!"
You're making the assumption that what you feel needs to be taken care of is *really really important*, and that flag burning/gay marriage isn't as important to some people.
Yeah but then those people would be idiots.
I was in a music store last week looking at some CDs. What happened? They used to just have the record label and the "compact DISC" logo on them. Now they have all this compatibility information about what version of Windows/OSX you need and how much RAM.
You somehow misunderstood my whole position. I agree with you completely on this point.
Yes, I realized I messed that one up after clicking.
When a compassionate conservative serves up the latest flagburning/gay marriage amendment in the midst of a sermon about our national religious heritage, she is relying on warm fuzzy emotions to win people over, rather than an analysis of the rights of the involved parties.
When a compassionate liberal accuses Bush & FEMA of racism in their mishandling of Hurricane Katrina recovery, she is injecting a highly-charged and divisive element into what should be an analysis of problems and solutions.
In other words, because people on both sides make ridiculous arguments, we should disregard reasonable arguments made by either side.
There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make against the way the Hurricane Katrina recovery is going. My personal opinion is that racism is one of them, but you don't have to agree with me on that. There are plenty of other reasonable arguments (such as simple incompetence) that can be made unequivocally without "injecting a highly-charged and divisive element into what should be an analysis of problems and solutions". An analysis, I might add, that no one in charge of the hurricane recovery is apparently concerned with carrying out.
As for reasonable arguments to make against a flag burning amendment or a gay marriage amendment, I challenge you to come up with any that don't involve "injecting a highly-charged and divisive element into what should be an analysis of problems and solutions". For one thing, neither flag burning nor gay marriage is a problem that needs solving in the first place.
f8cking isn't spelled with an 8
I spell it that way so little kids at school libraries can read my posts.
Many on the Democratic side of the aisle are firmly founded in liberal and/or greenie belief - two beliefs hardly more conducive to science than Christian beliefs. (That is, if you want to base your ideas mostly on biases and stereotypes.)
...or if you want to base your ideas mostly on the intellectual basis of the Enlightenment, from which liberalism is nominally derived.
As far as Christian beliefs are concerned, there is no need to resort to "biases and stereotypes" when history will do just fine.
Consider -I see dems using class & race resentment to rile people up as often as the pubs use 'faith & morals' -Conservative fiscal policy -- generally speaking -- has some economic basis, while social-program expansion is generally based on sob stories. I don't think the idea that one party is more scientific in their approach is *at *all tenable.
I see neither as being relevant to the discussion ("class & race resentment" versus "faith and morals"), please explain why either one is "scientific" or "nonscientific" at all. The economic basis of current conservative fiscal policy seems to be looting of the public sector by a privileged set of private interests.
Conservative fiscal policy -- generally speaking -- has some economic basis, while social-program expansion is generally based on sob stories.
The "sob stories" I hear nowadays are on behalf of large telecommunications companies who have to maintain their "tubes", and dead billionaires whose inheritors have to pay their taxes. Nobody is even talking about social program expansion anymore. With habeus corpus about to be legislated out of existence we have more pressing issues to worry about.
The liberal bias comes in when ALL of the facts aren't presented; picking and choosing facts to make your point while ignoring the facts that don't is the hallmark of liberal argument. That, and instantly blaming conspiracies and calling your opponent names. :-)
Thanks for trying though.
There is no substance to this argument since one could just as easily state the converse:
"The conservative bias comes in when ALL of the facts aren't presented; picking and choosing facts to make your point while ignoring the facts that don't is the hallmark of conservative argument. That, and instantly blaming conspiracies and calling your opponent names."
To anyone who has been paying attention to the political debate in this country, this statement rings much truer than the one you made. You cite no facts or evidence to support your baseless assertion, you have really added nothing to the conversation, and on top of that, you post as an anonymous coward even as you sarcastically thank someone smarter and funnier than you for "trying". I've never seen a post ending with "thanks for trying though" where the poster had a f8cking clue.
OK, that makes more sense. It sounded like very low level concurrency from the way you described it.
You write "int STM x=5;" and then one thread can do "atomic {x+=1;}" and another does "atomic {...;x-=1;...}" and the runtime+compiler magically make the atomic blocks execute atomically. This is different from Java synchronization blocks because these can be executed optimistically in parallel and because they never result in deadlock.
Why would you want to use two threads for something trivial like that?
I think you mean... the rest of the world "knows" it is a "fact."
Oooh, you sure "showed him" by adding quote characters, "genius".
>> there is no way this is ever going to be used as anything but propaganda to cut Bush's least favorite programs
> Ah - so he should only look for ways to cut his favorite programs?
In other words: One extreme must be OK because the other extreme is bad.
How about a nice middle ground solution. We should look for ways to cut all programs, including programs that Bush likes, and including programs that Bush does NOT like. Whether they are his favorites or not should neither be here nor there.
Of course the original poster is right; via clever use of the classification process, this site will make no mention of Halliburton and the bridge to nowhere and will become a tool for the president to club unclassified Democratic initiatives.
And what's really amazing is when a Democrat gets elected as the US President, immediately afterward, we never see homeless people in the news. We never hear about global warming on the front page of the news. It's amazing how by a political change in office, all the problems are just suddenly swept away.
WTF are you talking about?
I agree that we never hear anything "on the front page of the news" because paper doesn't talk. But I saw plenty of homeless people in the news all through the nineties. I can only assume you're talking out of your ass.
This is really funny the more I think about it. So you're saying that as soon as a Democrat is elected, global warming isn't mentioned anymore, because why? A conspiracy to make Clinton look good?
Yeah as soon as he got elected the weather got nice and cool.
You're thinking in terms of energy. He's saying it's a "closed system" because frogs aren't raining down from the sky.
No, I'm just so disillusioned by society that I don't think anything is done honestly anymore.
People like you are the reason everything sucks. "Both sides are corrupt" and "your vote makes no difference" are messages that are drilled into our heads relentlessly in this society and as more people fall for this garbage, democracy slowly dies.
Honesty is something you need to expect from the institutions in your culture. If you don't get it, you don't lower your expectations, you get mad.