But she did, in fact, preside over awful standards of care, people were denied access to medical treatment, and suffering was not alleviated, because it was considered "spiritually noble".
I have previously looked into those allegations. While she may have believed "suffering is good for the soul," it wasn't so much a denial of pain medication as a lack of access to them. Many of these clinics that were setup were in places where access to any medical care was absent.
Considering that pharmaceutical companies were lining up in droves to ship her free medications, and she refused, saying her vow of poverty prevented her from accepting free stuff for her patients, this "but there was a lack of access" argument is flimsy at best. She also refused free diagnosis charts, which could have helped prevent her nuns from misdiagnosing malaria in a young boy as a chest cold, as Dr. Robin Fox noted in his article in The Lancet in 1991. Refusing free stuff isn't a lack of access to stuff, since the access to that stuff is readily available and no one was going to charge money for the stuff.. Refusing stuff means Mother Theresa and her nuns were actively denying care to their patients.
Backwards. The party with a vested interest in keeping people dependent on professionals who dole things out to them is the Democrats. That's the backbone of their entire constituency and the framework within which they describe everybody: needing a handout, or needing to be used to pay for handouts. Without playing middlemen to that one-way street, there would be almost not power in that camp. And so they seek to preserve it at every turn.
No, the guy to whom you replied got it right: Republicans are the most dependent on a culture of people dependent on professionals who dole things out to them. Red States are more dependent on the Government Dole than Blue States, because Red State policies create a constituency which needs a handout just to survive. Poverty-stricken, uneducated white people vote Republican more often than middle class educated people (who tend to vote Democrat), so Republicans seek to preserve a constituency trapped in poverty, voting Republican on social issues even as Republicans pull the economic rug out from under their collective feet.
Mother Theresa would have printed signs reading "Non-Christian Clergy Unwelcome Here" so her nuns wouldn't have to say that as often as they did. 99% Hindu in Calcutta, but not one of them were permitted to see Hindu clergy once they entered the house of the "Ghoul Of Calcutta" (as locals referred to Mother Theresa).
Then there's her refusal to use FREE diagnosis charts, so her nuns could commit act after act of medical malpractice, because she felt her vow of poverty should extend to her patients. There was her refusal to accept FREE drugs pressed on her by pharmaceutical companies, because she felt her vow of poverty should extend to her patients. And then there was her $10,000 in FREE medical care that she accepted from the Swiss for herself, because "what vow of poverty?" Maybe she thought of that medical care as her very own jar of oil, rubbed on her feet by her Swiss doctors and wiped with their hair.
Then there was her fundraising for natural disasters, then taking the money and giving it to the Vatican instead of to the refugees from the natural disasters. And her acceptance of huge donations from warlords, and her simple refusal to return the money stolen from the warlord's citizens.
The woman did enough hateful things all on her own, very little of it relating at all to her Church's dogma.
A credible threat of retaliatory violence is the single most effective deterrent to actual violence.
Guns are about stopping YOU from attacking ME. Having it can make that possible even if I never use it to kill anyone.
You are using logic. The Libtards really hate that because they cannot refute it. They have to mod you down (done), call you names, scream at you, defame and mischaracterize you, and then pat themselves on the back for championing their ideology and its favorite methods.
What they WILL NOT do is explain why mass shootings almost always happen in "gun free" zones where law-abiding citizens are unarmed, explain why conceal-carry permits decrease violent crime, explain why places like Chicago with terribly restrictive gun laws have such high murder rates, or explain how the "zero tolerance" schools they run benefit children in any way when they expel them for point a frenchfry at another child and saying "bang bang" like the cops-and-robbers games children have always played.
You see, it is not that they don't want to explain those things. They would love to. They simply cannot. They are not reasonable people. They are highly emotional and emotionally volatile. Your post was on-topic, was not trolling, etc. But they modded it down anyway. It went against their ideology, you see.
Oh we explain these things, because most of the NRA's claims about shooters and guns are flat out wrong. Folks such as yourself have to forget that we explain these things so that your internal narrative remains consistent. But of course, facts have a liberal bias.
They had to mod it down for the same reason the Catholic Church had to refuse to look through Galileo's telescope (and then punish him). Galileo did nothing wrong. You have done nothing wrong.
Then lets look through that telescope! After all, if the gun lobby is like Galileo, then the facts will support their narrative. And if the facts don't support their narrative, then they are like the Catholic Church: didn't bother to look at the facts, just jumped to the conclusion they liked.
The NRA Myth of Gun-Free Zones Data shows the gun lobby's chief argument for more firearms in schools, malls, and beyond is just plain wrong.
Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.
No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge.... [W]e find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile. Minor changes of specifications can generate wide shifts in the estimated effects of these laws, and some of the most persistent findings — such as the association of shall-issue laws with increases in (or no effect on) robbery and with substantial increases in various types of property crime — are not consistent with any plausible theory of deterrence.
Chicago's murder rate is largely the result of the lax gun regulations outside Chicago, not Chicago's gun control. If anything, Chicago is proof that we need more gun control, not less.
To be fair, I don't see many televisions in offices, restaurants, and/or lounges that are default set to Comedy Central all day long.
Comedy Central is a cable channel. FOX is a broadcast channel. If you want "free" TV in an office, restaurant, or lounge, you don't do a cable channel, you set your digital antenna to receive what is there. If you only have basic cable in your office, restaurant, or lounge, you do a broadcast channel retransmitted through the basic cable service, and don't get the extra cable channels with that basic cable service.
This is the primary reason most places usually have a broadcast channel publicly shown in their place of business, instead of a cable channel like Comedy Central or CNN.
Plus it is impractical in terms of "offering news service" to set a TV to Comedy Central all the time, since Comedy Central has less news programming than most broadcast or cable news channels. And the fact that what passes for "comedy" these days is generally offensive to a lot of potential customers to your place of business, and certainly unsuitable for viewing during meals.
"The clash happened shortly after the rally began, as a few hundred right wing activists moved over to a tent sponsored by MoveOn.org, a progressive PAC which is against right-to-work legislation. The tea party group chased the 20 or so progressive activists from the area, and quickly kicked the tent to the ground. Box cutters were used to slash the tent’s ropes, and to cut swatches as souvenirs, which were passed out to the angry mob.
As the tent was being kicked to the ground, several protesters confronted MSNBC contributor Steven Crowder, who was there filming interviews with the protestors. One right wing activist punched Crowder as he attempted to defend the tent from being destroyed. The man accused of the assault, Tony Fauxname, was identified 15 minutes after the attack by reporters from ABC, NBC, CBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, CurrentTV, Headline News, Entertainment Tonight, TMZ, HSN, ESPN, Food Network and Al Jazeera.
After the tent was destroyed and Crowder was assaulted, the angry right wing protestors(mostly white males) turned their attention to Lansing hot dog vendor Clint Tarver. Mr. Tarver, an African-American, was hired by MoveOn.org to provide lunch for their progressive activists. As they hurled racial slurs at Tarver, the Tea Party rioters destroyed his catering equipment. It is unclear at this point if any hate crime charges will be brought against the protesters, because Tarver was not physically assaulted.
Gosh. It sounds like you may be incorrect in your assessment of the Tea Party.
After all, if the Appalachian kids can't get access to the Internet that all of the good schools in America are getting, that can't possibly prevent them from competing on an equal level with all of the kids who went to good schools. Companies couldn't possibly discriminate on the basis of not having decent technological knowledge, right?
When I visited Texas I noticed that half the people were really cool guys and the other half were assholes. Of course most other places were like that but Texas took it to extremes.
Everywhere you go, half the people are cool and half are a-holes, and one or the other takes it to extremes. The cool places where they go to extremes to be cool are the places where the cool people are admired, and the a-hole places where they go to extremes to be a-holes are the places where the a-holes are admired. Thus the overall society defines the level of coolness or a-holery, even though the number of cool people is exactly equal to the number of a-holes.
This is why Texas has so many extreme a-holes, and why California has so many cool people, despite still having about the same number of cool people and a-holes.
As I just mentioned in a previous reply, the Vatican has no problem with Darwin as it pertains to non-human evolution. Human Evolution, however, directly contradicts the concept of Original Sin, which is necessary for the fundamental Christian concept of Redemption. So the Vatican has a problem with Darwin's concept of human evolution, and with the Modern Evolutionary Theory on human evolution, since it directly contradicts Original Sin. Adam and Eve did not evolve, they were formed and fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, and Cain somehow found a wife when the only woman in existence was his mother.
Actually, they technically do. Their doctrine is that the Bible is wholly and completely true AND that science is discovering God's work in creation, and if you think one contradicts the other, you're misinterpreting at least one and should reinterpret them as necessary until they agree.
This is not entirely true, as I understand it, and I'm lead to believe it was a subject of some debate at the second vatican council, which rather cautiously made the following statement: "the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." Which is to say that they acknowledge that the bible may be in error regarding issues which God did not wish to teach us for the sake of our salvation. See Brown et al, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary page 1169 for further discussion of this idea.
Of course, the concept of Original Sin and the Redemption is directly contradicted by the evolution of human beings from previous primates. This means that the RCC is perfectly willing to accept Evolution as it pertains to non-human development (because that is not necessary for Redemption), but utterly refuses to accept Evolution as it pertains to human development. To the RCC, everything evolved except humans, who all descended from one man and one woman in the Garden of Eden (and all the incestual ickiness that results from that perspective is blithely ignored).
With some content restricted, it will become easier to stop reading TvTropes.org after a piddling three or four days, instead of current week-long minimum.
So being sent to TvTropes is no longer something which might get you fired or make you use up all your sick days.
> Of course I won't. . . . I'm not going to > pay 8 bucks for a movie just because it's > called "Hitchhikers Guide". The reviewer > provides extensive examples to justify his > claim that the makers of the movie did not > understand what made Hithhikers worthwhile.
If you're desperate to see it without paying the big bucks, check with your local independent media papers and college campus papers.
The new movie "Sahara" is about as much like the Clive Cussler novel as the new Hitchhikers' is like the Douglas Adams' novels ("Sahara" author Clive Cussler, being currently alive, is currently suing the "Sahara" studio...I wonder if Douglas Adams' ghost could be persuaded to do something similar), and the Politically Correct way I went to see just how bad "Sahara" could be, is get a free "pre-screening" ticket from my local campus newspaper.
Get one for Hitchhikers' and thus skip paying any money whatsoever for your own chance at seeing the movie.
Do you know the difference between a sewer rat and a lawyer?
One is a dark creature that crawls in filthy dejects and spreads panic and pain wherever it shows. The other is a small rodent.
Do you know the difference between a guy who hires a lawyer for his defense and a guy who tries to defend himself without a lawyer?
The grease spot on the floor of the courtroom tried to defend himself.
Sure, its not as funny as the "lawyers are bad, m'kay" joke, but when it comes down to it, you'll beg for a lawyer if your ass is on the line, and you'll like it.
I was just in the shops today getting some CD-R's and I noticed that some were labeled AUDIO CD-R, while others were labeled DATA CD-R.
The only difference was the price.
DATA CD-R worked out about $0.80 per CD-R
AUDIO CD-R worked out about $1.30 per CD-R
Occasionally there is a difference in quality as well. I once bought a 10-pack of AUDIO CDRs that happened to be on sale. I burn CDs in Linux and cdrecord reported that the AUDIO CDRs were of "medium-range" quality, better than the bulk data CDRs I normally used which were "short-range" quality.
I don't know if the quality difference extends to all AUDIO CDRs, but there is a possibility that a better grade of CDR is being used by the manufacturers to justify the price hike for AUDIO CDRs.
I wonder how many people will get the audio cd-r's thinking that somehow the data cd-r's will not play audio?
I think thats a definite hope by the folks who make AUDIO CDRs, and also by the RIAA.
The problem with that hope is that most people who burn their own audio CDs do so from their home CD-R drives, and inevitably will accidentally pick up a data CDR and discover that data CDRs work just fine for making Audio CDs.
AUDIO CDRs are sold for use in those "make your own mix disks without a computer" Audio CD-Burners. They're an Audio CD Player combined with a CD Burner. Philips makes one (PDF file). If you stuck a data CD into it, it would report that whatever extra bit of stuff they put into an AUDIO CD isn't present, and refuse to work. People who haven't bothered with the computer, and instead have purchased one of the CD Player/Recorder options (like above) will keep buying AUDIO CDRs because they have to.
"Phoenix's Core System Software (CSS) is a next-generation BIOS with a more sophisticated integration of operating system and hardware, for example making it easier for system administrators to remotely monitor the hardware configurations of their systems."
As with all computer software, complexity increases the chance of bugs and often also security exploits. How can Microsoft and Phoenix assure these "enhancements" to the BIOS don't do this? They can't? Well, then we might have an interesting future with really messy exploits ahead (with potential for viruses to gain direct hardware access and control), and also BIOS crashes due to the added complexity.
I just had a crazy idea.
You know the old hacker urban legend, which made it into Superman III, about "write a program for a bank which takes all the leftover fractions of a cent and puts them into a bank account"?
What if some group of virus writers wrote such a program back in the late 1980s, made millions, and, now that they were a part of the lazy rich, looked around for a way to make virus writing easier.
And so they bought up a controlling share in Microsoft, or kidnapped Bill's pet dog, or in some way made it possible for them to dictate Microsoft policy. So much so that all of the security exploits in Microsoft products are there deliberately, and deliberately fixed slowly.
Anything created with the purpose of being listened to should qualify as "music" - yes I know that this also would include radio broadcasts of news and whatnot that's just ppl talking, but as far as it goes audio is audio.
Whats ironic is that I help process data packets for SETI@Home. Technically all the packets are is radio static, but the intent is to receive the "radio broadcasts" that may be emanating from other galaxies.
From a technical perspective there's not much difference between a SETI data packet and part of a recording off some Earth-based FM radio station. So are the files the SETI Project records considered data, or are they music as well?
One thing kept hitting me on the head like a ballpeen hammer while reading the article: he was discussing products which had been around for years, in terms of services and qualities which were not realized until some years after the original product was first introduced.
When the IBM PC was first introduced, it didn't have a huge software base, not many people owned one, and repair shops weren't well-trained in repairing one. So in terms of "the whole product", the IBM PC was WORSE than any other computer existing at the time.
Due to gradual changes over time, plus decisions such as allowing other motherboard manufacturers to make "clones" of the IBM PC, the IBM PC developed the additional qualities of "the whole product" that made it so much better than its competition. In other words, any newly introduced product is automatically WORSE than any competing product, if you are considering "the whole product". By definition, all competing products released before the new product have more of the qualities attributed to "the whole product" than the new product.
This leads me to what I think is the logical conclusion of "the whole product": "Our product, though technologically inferior to anything else anyone can come up with, is, by 'the whole product' standards, vastly superior to anything else on the market. Don't waste your time marketing anything other than our product, since anything else doesn't stack up to our product in terms of 'the whole product'."
Sounds like a Micro$oftism to me: anything to discourage competition, as long as it can't be directly traced back to us.
All I can think is that "the whole product" must be a relatively new marketing concept, since if we'd had it back in the days of the horse and buggy, the Model-T would only be available to "obsolete product collectors" on the telegraph version of E-Bay, and delivered by the Pony Express.
I'm looking at this discussion, and while in basic agreement that Yahoo is threatening our privacy, that this is a hole in the dike, the main point is that Yahoo has also provided the plug for the hole in the dike!
The people all yammering about how Yahoo gets to invade your privacy no matter what you do, have not read the Yahoo privacy policy and looked at the attached "opt-out" page. Yes, thats right, the OPT-OUT page.
I read the policy, I went straight from there to the opt-out page, and told Yahoo not to call me, write me, or otherwise spam me using the information on my account.
Yes, having to opt-out rather than being automagically opted-out is a pain in the ass. Yahoo shouldn't do it, but it ain't the "how much venture capital did I waste today?" 90's anymore, so they have to make money any way they can. If it means only giving privacy to those Yahoo users who give a damn about their privacy, so be it.
But don't forget that the users who want their privacy have the CHOICE to opt-out of the spam and keep their privacy.
I've noticed that when I'm surfing some sites on the fringe of "warez", such as Abandonware, I get pop-ups for Warez sites. Also, some sites are adding porn ads to their pop-ups, which in turn link to Warez pop-ups.
What does this have to do with FAST? Well, people have mentioned two categories of people who will use FAST: self-appointed vigilantes, and teenage boys.
I'd like to add a third category: people who are PISSED OFF WITH POP-UPS. Yes, those of us out there who are starting to dislike what the Internet is becoming may not have much recourse towards the regular pop-ups and the porn ads (other than the pop-up stopper apps), but boy-oh-boy, there's an F button in the corner of that pop-ad for those Warez people!
You can support 700 users on a decent dual desktop system with Linux, what's this guy thinking?
Maybe he's just got an extra mainframe laying around...? You've got to think the support/maintenance on a mainframe would be horrendous compared to buying a new desktop server for this?
Well, the standard line on getting people to try out Linux is "Linux can run on anything! Get that old computer out of your closet and turn it into a computing powerhouse with Linux!"
So he's just fulfilling the Linux promise that it will run on nearly anything and on the Linux promise that chances are that old machine you have will run Linux just fine. The fact that it is big iron is irrelevant.
And now it can encourage people to collect big iron! Now instead of having it sit around doing 50-year old software, you can run the latest and greatest software! Maybe Linux's power-saving features will mean your latest acquisition will only cause a brownout once or twice a month!
When you get the merging of the owners of the means of production and the political power you have in the US, the lines become blurrier. It's not communism, any more than the Soviet union was, but it has more in common with the soviet economy than with free market capitalism.
Capitalism requires private, not government, ownership of production. When the owners of the production have the means to get the political leaders elected or not, as well as an inordinate amount of political influence through lobbying, they cannot really be regarded as entirely separate from the government anymore.
There is a name for a government of the wealthy, or controlled nearly completely by the wealthy (other than the pejoratives uttered by the protestors at WTO events). This word is Plutocracy, often combined with or confused with Oligarchy, or rule by a small group of people (i.e., a small group of dictators).
Ironically, the Russian economy went from an Oligarchy (a small group of people owning the means of production) to a Plutocracy (close friends of the original government, "cronyism", owning most of the means of production). Since the two types of government are virtually identical, one could argue that the Russian economy didn't change much, other than the availability of imports, when it went from totalitarian Soviet to parliamentarian Russian.
In any case, if we are to take it as granted that democracies develop capitalism, free market capitalism develops into monopolies, and excessive amounts of wealth used to buy political power will continue to be defined as "exercising the freedom of speech which a corporation, as a legally defined person, has as a protected right", it can be stated that democracy will eventually develop into a Plutocracy/Oligarchy, if the capitalism is left unchecked as a free market capitalism. Obviously, government regulation to prevent excessive consolidation of market share is necessary to keep a democracy a democracy, regardless of what the pseudo-libertarians seem to think.
If spending money to buy governmental power continues to remain a "protected right", then the only way to limit the power of corporations to continue to push us towards a government controlled entirely by the wealthy, is in the form of government regulation of capitalism. Not necessarily the excessive regulation espoused by liberals (such as myself), but certainly the anti-monopoly laws and other regulations preventing any one corporation from having more than its fair share of "monetary freedom of speech".
It is, of course, very clear that individuals no longer have the same freedom of speech rights as those other constitutionally-protected "persons", corporations. The best that can be done is to try and keep the current "oligarchy" of corporations as fragmented as possible so as to still allow individuals some rights to determine the course of their own government.
While it still in some way resembles a government by the people, of the people, and for the people.
Sharp's global website is listed as http://sharp-world.com/index.html. Ironically, no email addresses listed for contacting them, but their Global website does list an 800#:
NORTH AMERICA - U.S.A. - SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
For the location of your nearest Sharp Authorized Service Station or for information about Sharp product,call toll-free 1-800-237-4277 / 1-800-BE SHARP (within U.S.A.) There is of course another sentence extolling the virtues of the aforementioned "Linux users need not come here" Sharp-USA website.
Well, looks like people interested in privacy will be picking their favorite *nix (mine's Linux, hence the subject).
However, there is one aspect of open source which worries me: the FBI developing a kernel with a built-in security backdoor, and dropping it onto a system.
I don't think there's time to crack a system for kernel replacement during a sneak-and-peek search warrant, but the idea of replacing kernel source in some manner doesn't seem too far-fetched.
One scenario that comes to mind is contacting an individual who bought a boxed set and isn't a programmer, and through subterfuge getting the source code on the system for a kernel recompile (which have gotten much easier in the past few years). A plausible excuse might be "you have just won" a proprietary device requiring a kernel recompile.
Yes, a programmer would catch the error pretty quick, but the targets here are non-programmers.
When I heard about this "punishment", "inflicted" on Microsoft by the DOJ, I wondered when the tobacco companies would call for an identical "punishment" for themselves: being required to provide free cigarettes to schools for the next five years.
Slashdot Mirror
But she did, in fact, preside over awful standards of care, people were denied access to medical treatment, and suffering was not alleviated, because it was considered "spiritually noble".
I have previously looked into those allegations. While she may have believed "suffering is good for the soul," it wasn't so much a denial of pain medication as a lack of access to them. Many of these clinics that were setup were in places where access to any medical care was absent.
Considering that pharmaceutical companies were lining up in droves to ship her free medications, and she refused, saying her vow of poverty prevented her from accepting free stuff for her patients, this "but there was a lack of access" argument is flimsy at best. She also refused free diagnosis charts, which could have helped prevent her nuns from misdiagnosing malaria in a young boy as a chest cold, as Dr. Robin Fox noted in his article in The Lancet in 1991. Refusing free stuff isn't a lack of access to stuff, since the access to that stuff is readily available and no one was going to charge money for the stuff.. Refusing stuff means Mother Theresa and her nuns were actively denying care to their patients.
So you're saying she was a Republican?
Backwards. The party with a vested interest in keeping people dependent on professionals who dole things out to them is the Democrats. That's the backbone of their entire constituency and the framework within which they describe everybody: needing a handout, or needing to be used to pay for handouts. Without playing middlemen to that one-way street, there would be almost not power in that camp. And so they seek to preserve it at every turn.
No, the guy to whom you replied got it right: Republicans are the most dependent on a culture of people dependent on professionals who dole things out to them. Red States are more dependent on the Government Dole than Blue States, because Red State policies create a constituency which needs a handout just to survive. Poverty-stricken, uneducated white people vote Republican more often than middle class educated people (who tend to vote Democrat), so Republicans seek to preserve a constituency trapped in poverty, voting Republican on social issues even as Republicans pull the economic rug out from under their collective feet.
Even more humorous is that the modern NRA is currently trying to overturn many of the gun control laws it helped write before 1977.
Mother Theresa would have printed signs reading "Non-Christian Clergy Unwelcome Here" so her nuns wouldn't have to say that as often as they did. 99% Hindu in Calcutta, but not one of them were permitted to see Hindu clergy once they entered the house of the "Ghoul Of Calcutta" (as locals referred to Mother Theresa).
Then there's her refusal to use FREE diagnosis charts, so her nuns could commit act after act of medical malpractice, because she felt her vow of poverty should extend to her patients. There was her refusal to accept FREE drugs pressed on her by pharmaceutical companies, because she felt her vow of poverty should extend to her patients. And then there was her $10,000 in FREE medical care that she accepted from the Swiss for herself, because "what vow of poverty?" Maybe she thought of that medical care as her very own jar of oil, rubbed on her feet by her Swiss doctors and wiped with their hair.
Then there was her fundraising for natural disasters, then taking the money and giving it to the Vatican instead of to the refugees from the natural disasters. And her acceptance of huge donations from warlords, and her simple refusal to return the money stolen from the warlord's citizens.
The woman did enough hateful things all on her own, very little of it relating at all to her Church's dogma.
Guns aren't about "killing one another."
A credible threat of retaliatory violence is the single most effective deterrent to actual violence.
Guns are about stopping YOU from attacking ME. Having it can make that possible even if I never use it to kill anyone.
You are using logic. The Libtards really hate that because they cannot refute it. They have to mod you down (done), call you names, scream at you, defame and mischaracterize you, and then pat themselves on the back for championing their ideology and its favorite methods. What they WILL NOT do is explain why mass shootings almost always happen in "gun free" zones where law-abiding citizens are unarmed, explain why conceal-carry permits decrease violent crime, explain why places like Chicago with terribly restrictive gun laws have such high murder rates, or explain how the "zero tolerance" schools they run benefit children in any way when they expel them for point a frenchfry at another child and saying "bang bang" like the cops-and-robbers games children have always played. You see, it is not that they don't want to explain those things. They would love to. They simply cannot. They are not reasonable people. They are highly emotional and emotionally volatile. Your post was on-topic, was not trolling, etc. But they modded it down anyway. It went against their ideology, you see.
Oh we explain these things, because most of the NRA's claims about shooters and guns are flat out wrong. Folks such as yourself have to forget that we explain these things so that your internal narrative remains consistent. But of course, facts have a liberal bias.
They had to mod it down for the same reason the Catholic Church had to refuse to look through Galileo's telescope (and then punish him). Galileo did nothing wrong. You have done nothing wrong.
Then lets look through that telescope! After all, if the gun lobby is like Galileo, then the facts will support their narrative. And if the facts don't support their narrative, then they are like the Catholic Church: didn't bother to look at the facts, just jumped to the conclusion they liked.
The NRA Myth of Gun-Free Zones Data shows the gun lobby's chief argument for more firearms in schools, malls, and beyond is just plain wrong.
Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.
Concealed carry permits have not been linked with a reduction in crime.
No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. ... [W]e find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile. Minor changes of specifications can generate wide shifts in the estimated effects of these laws, and some of the most persistent findings — such as the association of shall-issue laws with increases in (or no effect on) robbery and with substantial increases in various types of property crime — are not consistent with any plausible theory of deterrence.
Chicago's murder rate is largely the result of the lax gun regulations outside Chicago, not Chicago's gun control. If anything, Chicago is proof that we need more gun control, not less.
Most
To be fair, I don't see many televisions in offices, restaurants, and/or lounges that are default set to Comedy Central all day long.
Comedy Central is a cable channel. FOX is a broadcast channel. If you want "free" TV in an office, restaurant, or lounge, you don't do a cable channel, you set your digital antenna to receive what is there. If you only have basic cable in your office, restaurant, or lounge, you do a broadcast channel retransmitted through the basic cable service, and don't get the extra cable channels with that basic cable service.
This is the primary reason most places usually have a broadcast channel publicly shown in their place of business, instead of a cable channel like Comedy Central or CNN.
Plus it is impractical in terms of "offering news service" to set a TV to Comedy Central all the time, since Comedy Central has less news programming than most broadcast or cable news channels. And the fact that what passes for "comedy" these days is generally offensive to a lot of potential customers to your place of business, and certainly unsuitable for viewing during meals.
Reporter Injured as Tea Party Rally Turns Violent–with Racially Motivated Attack
Posted on: December 14th, 2012
"The clash happened shortly after the rally began, as a few hundred right wing activists moved over to a tent sponsored by MoveOn.org, a progressive PAC which is against right-to-work legislation. The tea party group chased the 20 or so progressive activists from the area, and quickly kicked the tent to the ground. Box cutters were used to slash the tent’s ropes, and to cut swatches as souvenirs, which were passed out to the angry mob.
As the tent was being kicked to the ground, several protesters confronted MSNBC contributor Steven Crowder, who was there filming interviews with the protestors. One right wing activist punched Crowder as he attempted to defend the tent from being destroyed. The man accused of the assault, Tony Fauxname, was identified 15 minutes after the attack by reporters from ABC, NBC, CBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, CurrentTV, Headline News, Entertainment Tonight, TMZ, HSN, ESPN, Food Network and Al Jazeera.
After the tent was destroyed and Crowder was assaulted, the angry right wing protestors(mostly white males) turned their attention to Lansing hot dog vendor Clint Tarver. Mr. Tarver, an African-American, was hired by MoveOn.org to provide lunch for their progressive activists. As they hurled racial slurs at Tarver, the Tea Party rioters destroyed his catering equipment. It is unclear at this point if any hate crime charges will be brought against the protesters, because Tarver was not physically assaulted.
Gosh. It sounds like you may be incorrect in your assessment of the Tea Party.
After all, if the Appalachian kids can't get access to the Internet that all of the good schools in America are getting, that can't possibly prevent them from competing on an equal level with all of the kids who went to good schools. Companies couldn't possibly discriminate on the basis of not having decent technological knowledge, right?
When I visited Texas I noticed that half the people were really cool guys and the other half were assholes. Of course most other places were like that but Texas took it to extremes.
Everywhere you go, half the people are cool and half are a-holes, and one or the other takes it to extremes. The cool places where they go to extremes to be cool are the places where the cool people are admired, and the a-hole places where they go to extremes to be a-holes are the places where the a-holes are admired. Thus the overall society defines the level of coolness or a-holery, even though the number of cool people is exactly equal to the number of a-holes.
This is why Texas has so many extreme a-holes, and why California has so many cool people, despite still having about the same number of cool people and a-holes.
As I just mentioned in a previous reply, the Vatican has no problem with Darwin as it pertains to non-human evolution. Human Evolution, however, directly contradicts the concept of Original Sin, which is necessary for the fundamental Christian concept of Redemption. So the Vatican has a problem with Darwin's concept of human evolution, and with the Modern Evolutionary Theory on human evolution, since it directly contradicts Original Sin. Adam and Eve did not evolve, they were formed and fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, and Cain somehow found a wife when the only woman in existence was his mother.
Actually, they technically do. Their doctrine is that the Bible is wholly and completely true AND that science is discovering God's work in creation, and if you think one contradicts the other, you're misinterpreting at least one and should reinterpret them as necessary until they agree.
This is not entirely true, as I understand it, and I'm lead to believe it was a subject of some debate at the second vatican council, which rather cautiously made the following statement: "the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." Which is to say that they acknowledge that the bible may be in error regarding issues which God did not wish to teach us for the sake of our salvation. See Brown et al, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary page 1169 for further discussion of this idea.
Of course, the concept of Original Sin and the Redemption is directly contradicted by the evolution of human beings from previous primates. This means that the RCC is perfectly willing to accept Evolution as it pertains to non-human development (because that is not necessary for Redemption), but utterly refuses to accept Evolution as it pertains to human development. To the RCC, everything evolved except humans, who all descended from one man and one woman in the Garden of Eden (and all the incestual ickiness that results from that perspective is blithely ignored).
With some content restricted, it will become easier to stop reading TvTropes.org after a piddling three or four days, instead of current week-long minimum.
So being sent to TvTropes is no longer something which might get you fired or make you use up all your sick days.
> Of course I won't. . . . I'm not going to
> pay 8 bucks for a movie just because it's
> called "Hitchhikers Guide". The reviewer
> provides extensive examples to justify his
> claim that the makers of the movie did not
> understand what made Hithhikers worthwhile.
If you're desperate to see it without paying the big bucks, check with your local independent media papers and college campus papers.
The new movie "Sahara" is about as much like the Clive Cussler novel as the new Hitchhikers' is like the Douglas Adams' novels ("Sahara" author Clive Cussler, being currently alive, is currently suing the "Sahara" studio...I wonder if Douglas Adams' ghost could be persuaded to do something similar), and the Politically Correct way I went to see just how bad "Sahara" could be, is get a free "pre-screening" ticket from my local campus newspaper.
Get one for Hitchhikers' and thus skip paying any money whatsoever for your own chance at seeing the movie.
Do you know the difference between a sewer rat and a lawyer? One is a dark creature that crawls in filthy dejects and spreads panic and pain wherever it shows. The other is a small rodent.
Do you know the difference between a guy who hires a lawyer for his defense and a guy who tries to defend himself without a lawyer?
The grease spot on the floor of the courtroom tried to defend himself.
Sure, its not as funny as the "lawyers are bad, m'kay" joke, but when it comes down to it, you'll beg for a lawyer if your ass is on the line, and you'll like it.
I don't know if the quality difference extends to all AUDIO CDRs, but there is a possibility that a better grade of CDR is being used by the manufacturers to justify the price hike for AUDIO CDRs. I think thats a definite hope by the folks who make AUDIO CDRs, and also by the RIAA.
The problem with that hope is that most people who burn their own audio CDs do so from their home CD-R drives, and inevitably will accidentally pick up a data CDR and discover that data CDRs work just fine for making Audio CDs.
AUDIO CDRs are sold for use in those "make your own mix disks without a computer" Audio CD-Burners. They're an Audio CD Player combined with a CD Burner. Philips makes one (PDF file). If you stuck a data CD into it, it would report that whatever extra bit of stuff they put into an AUDIO CD isn't present, and refuse to work. People who haven't bothered with the computer, and instead have purchased one of the CD Player/Recorder options (like above) will keep buying AUDIO CDRs because they have to.
"Phoenix's Core System Software (CSS) is a next-generation BIOS with a more sophisticated integration of operating system and hardware, for example making it easier for system administrators to remotely monitor the hardware configurations of their systems."
As with all computer software, complexity increases the chance of bugs and often also security exploits. How can Microsoft and Phoenix assure these "enhancements" to the BIOS don't do this? They can't? Well, then we might have an interesting future with really messy exploits ahead (with potential for viruses to gain direct hardware access and control), and also BIOS crashes due to the added complexity.
I just had a crazy idea.
You know the old hacker urban legend, which made it into Superman III, about "write a program for a bank which takes all the leftover fractions of a cent and puts them into a bank account"?
What if some group of virus writers wrote such a program back in the late 1980s, made millions, and, now that they were a part of the lazy rich, looked around for a way to make virus writing easier.
And so they bought up a controlling share in Microsoft, or kidnapped Bill's pet dog, or in some way made it possible for them to dictate Microsoft policy. So much so that all of the security exploits in Microsoft products are there deliberately, and deliberately fixed slowly.
In a way, it makes Microsoft make more sense.
Anything created with the purpose of being listened to should qualify as "music" - yes I know that this also would include radio broadcasts of news and whatnot that's just ppl talking, but as far as it goes audio is audio.
Whats ironic is that I help process data packets for SETI@Home. Technically all the packets are is radio static, but the intent is to receive the "radio broadcasts" that may be emanating from other galaxies.
From a technical perspective there's not much difference between a SETI data packet and part of a recording off some Earth-based FM radio station. So are the files the SETI Project records considered data, or are they music as well?
One thing kept hitting me on the head like a ballpeen hammer while reading the article: he was discussing products which had been around for years, in terms of services and qualities which were not realized until some years after the original product was first introduced.
When the IBM PC was first introduced, it didn't have a huge software base, not many people owned one, and repair shops weren't well-trained in repairing one. So in terms of "the whole product", the IBM PC was WORSE than any other computer existing at the time.
Due to gradual changes over time, plus decisions such as allowing other motherboard manufacturers to make "clones" of the IBM PC, the IBM PC developed the additional qualities of "the whole product" that made it so much better than its competition. In other words, any newly introduced product is automatically WORSE than any competing product, if you are considering "the whole product". By definition, all competing products released before the new product have more of the qualities attributed to "the whole product" than the new product.
This leads me to what I think is the logical conclusion of "the whole product": "Our product, though technologically inferior to anything else anyone can come up with, is, by 'the whole product' standards, vastly superior to anything else on the market. Don't waste your time marketing anything other than our product, since anything else doesn't stack up to our product in terms of 'the whole product'."
Sounds like a Micro$oftism to me: anything to discourage competition, as long as it can't be directly traced back to us.
All I can think is that "the whole product" must be a relatively new marketing concept, since if we'd had it back in the days of the horse and buggy, the Model-T would only be available to "obsolete product collectors" on the telegraph version of E-Bay, and delivered by the Pony Express.
I'm looking at this discussion, and while in basic agreement that Yahoo is threatening our privacy, that this is a hole in the dike, the main point is that Yahoo has also provided the plug for the hole in the dike!
The people all yammering about how Yahoo gets to invade your privacy no matter what you do, have not read the Yahoo privacy policy and looked at the attached "opt-out" page. Yes, thats right, the OPT-OUT page.
I read the policy, I went straight from there to the opt-out page, and told Yahoo not to call me, write me, or otherwise spam me using the information on my account.
Yes, having to opt-out rather than being automagically opted-out is a pain in the ass. Yahoo shouldn't do it, but it ain't the "how much venture capital did I waste today?" 90's anymore, so they have to make money any way they can. If it means only giving privacy to those Yahoo users who give a damn about their privacy, so be it.
But don't forget that the users who want their privacy have the CHOICE to opt-out of the spam and keep their privacy.
I've noticed that when I'm surfing some sites on the fringe of "warez", such as Abandonware, I get pop-ups for Warez sites. Also, some sites are adding porn ads to their pop-ups, which in turn link to Warez pop-ups.
What does this have to do with FAST? Well, people have mentioned two categories of people who will use FAST: self-appointed vigilantes, and teenage boys.
I'd like to add a third category: people who are PISSED OFF WITH POP-UPS. Yes, those of us out there who are starting to dislike what the Internet is becoming may not have much recourse towards the regular pop-ups and the porn ads (other than the pop-up stopper apps), but boy-oh-boy, there's an F button in the corner of that pop-ad for those Warez people!
You can support 700 users on a decent dual desktop system with Linux, what's this guy thinking?
:)
Maybe he's just got an extra mainframe laying around...? You've got to think the support/maintenance on a mainframe would be horrendous compared to buying a new desktop server for this?
Well, the standard line on getting people to try out Linux is "Linux can run on anything! Get that old computer out of your closet and turn it into a computing powerhouse with Linux!"
So he's just fulfilling the Linux promise that it will run on nearly anything and on the Linux promise that chances are that old machine you have will run Linux just fine. The fact that it is big iron is irrelevant.
And now it can encourage people to collect big iron! Now instead of having it sit around doing 50-year old software, you can run the latest and greatest software! Maybe Linux's power-saving features will mean your latest acquisition will only cause a brownout once or twice a month!
Linux for the PDP-11: it could happen!
When you get the merging of the owners of the means of production and the political power you have in the US, the lines become blurrier. It's not communism, any more than the Soviet union was, but it has more in common with the soviet economy than with free market capitalism.
Capitalism requires private, not government, ownership of production. When the owners of the production have the means to get the political leaders elected or not, as well as an inordinate amount of political influence through lobbying, they cannot really be regarded as entirely separate from the government anymore.
There is a name for a government of the wealthy, or controlled nearly completely by the wealthy (other than the pejoratives uttered by the protestors at WTO events). This word is Plutocracy, often combined with or confused with Oligarchy, or rule by a small group of people (i.e., a small group of dictators).
Ironically, the Russian economy went from an Oligarchy (a small group of people owning the means of production) to a Plutocracy (close friends of the original government, "cronyism", owning most of the means of production). Since the two types of government are virtually identical, one could argue that the Russian economy didn't change much, other than the availability of imports, when it went from totalitarian Soviet to parliamentarian Russian.
In any case, if we are to take it as granted that democracies develop capitalism, free market capitalism develops into monopolies, and excessive amounts of wealth used to buy political power will continue to be defined as "exercising the freedom of speech which a corporation, as a legally defined person, has as a protected right", it can be stated that democracy will eventually develop into a Plutocracy/Oligarchy, if the capitalism is left unchecked as a free market capitalism. Obviously, government regulation to prevent excessive consolidation of market share is necessary to keep a democracy a democracy, regardless of what the pseudo-libertarians seem to think.
If spending money to buy governmental power continues to remain a "protected right", then the only way to limit the power of corporations to continue to push us towards a government controlled entirely by the wealthy, is in the form of government regulation of capitalism. Not necessarily the excessive regulation espoused by liberals (such as myself), but certainly the anti-monopoly laws and other regulations preventing any one corporation from having more than its fair share of "monetary freedom of speech".
It is, of course, very clear that individuals no longer have the same freedom of speech rights as those other constitutionally-protected "persons", corporations. The best that can be done is to try and keep the current "oligarchy" of corporations as fragmented as possible so as to still allow individuals some rights to determine the course of their own government.
While it still in some way resembles a government by the people, of the people, and for the people.
Sharp's global website is listed as
http://sharp-world.com/index.html. Ironically, no email addresses listed for contacting them, but their Global website does list an 800#:
NORTH AMERICA - U.S.A. - SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
For the location of your nearest Sharp Authorized Service Station or for information about Sharp product,call toll-free 1-800-237-4277 / 1-800-BE SHARP (within U.S.A.)
There is of course another sentence extolling the virtues of the aforementioned "Linux users need not come here" Sharp-USA website.
Well, looks like people interested in privacy will be picking their favorite *nix (mine's Linux, hence the subject).
However, there is one aspect of open source which worries me: the FBI developing a kernel with a built-in security backdoor, and dropping it onto a system.
I don't think there's time to crack a system for kernel replacement during a sneak-and-peek search warrant, but the idea of replacing kernel source in some manner doesn't seem too far-fetched.
One scenario that comes to mind is contacting an individual who bought a boxed set and isn't a programmer, and through subterfuge getting the source code on the system for a kernel recompile (which have gotten much easier in the past few years). A plausible excuse might be "you have just won" a proprietary device requiring a kernel recompile.
Yes, a programmer would catch the error pretty quick, but the targets here are non-programmers.
When I heard about this "punishment", "inflicted" on Microsoft by the DOJ, I wondered when the tobacco companies would call for an identical "punishment" for themselves: being required to provide free cigarettes to schools for the next five years.