It's my understanding that there is some kind of review program and schedule for declassifying documents, however, that schedule is on the order of 30 or 40 years.
I'm not sure exactly how that works or applies here, but you routinely hear about old records from, say, the Nixon administration being made public.
You can find it in the U.S. but only in some places. here in Leesburg, VA, Food Lion carries it, but no others stores do. You might want to check each and every supermarket near you.
I like to keep a 12-pack around since sometimes I'm jonesing for Dew in the evening, but the caffeine would keep me up.
I would suspect that smokers rack up just as many medical bills (if not more) than non-smokers, depsite dying earlier. It's not like they are suddenly dropping dead out of blue, but much more likely after a long illness.
Your argument just doesn't make any sense to me.
But I salute you for helping to finance the government.
Um, try again. Maybe you need to do a little research. Caffeine indeed has quite a strong flavor, and I will bet you big $$$ to sit down and blind taste test Mountain Dew and No-Caffeine Mountain Dew.
My information comes from direct experience, plus I've seen documented in numerous places that caffeine has a bitter taste.
Where did you get your information? When you call people names, it looks really bad when you don't know what you're talking about.
Thirty seconds with Google produces this from the NIH's National Library of Medicine:
You've got a very good point, but I have to believe that the numbers of forces in Europe don't need to be as high as they were during the Cold War without compromising our commitment to NATO.
Similarly, the "trip wire" in the South Korea DMZ is essentially cannon fodder. I understand that Bush is working with China (and Japan and others) to help keep pressure on Kim to keep it in his pants. Shipping some of these folks to other locations probably makes sense, based on what I know.
Fox was never one to stand by while people blatantly unclose facts to the public
I don't even know what this means, or why you keep bringing up Fox. This has nothing to do with Fox.
This has everything to do with a long-time prominent news anchor going against his advisors to run a story with a clearly faked source, to attack someone against whom he clearly has a bias. If you think it's somehow far-fetched that these documents aren't real, then I suggest you look here:
I suggest you quit drinking the Kool-Aid and actually take a look at what's happening. This isn't the first time Dan Rather has aired false, but easily discredited, material.
Come, come, I like to bash Star Wars as much as the next guy
I began to make a serious point and just started having fun with it. Books often have the same problem too. Tolkien, Eddings and Pratchett created worlds which are both large and well fleshed-out. Science fiction is a little harder because a realistic scale means your universe is IMMENSE, but it happens. The problem with movies is that its easier to connect to a story that focuses on a single hero or a small group of heroes. The only good exception that I can think is Apollo 13, where all the NASA engineers, working together with the astronauts were the heroes.
Yeah, the Star Wars Universe was huge! Several planets! Dagobah! with, um, a shrimpy toad guy. Hoth! with, um, a scary snow guy! Tatooine! with, um, a big mouth in the desert. Coruscant! with, um 10 Jedi Knights! and about a hundred Storm Troopers
To be honest, I always found a certain "claustrophia" in the Star Wars movies. You understand the "universe" of the story is huge, but it never really feels like anything more than a handful of heroes, two bad guys and a small swarm of targets (Storm Troopers, Ewoks, Battle Droids). Look at the Death Star with it's thousands, er, hundreds, well, basically about 3 locations. Look at the massive battle on Naboo with millions, er, thousands, well... maybe a hundred Gungans.
If this were a pure democracy, you argument might be valid, but it is a democratic republic. We are electing representatives to make decisions for us, not to simply translate poll results into policy. Otherwise, why bother having a president?
You're right. Most computer users are not idiots, I was echoing the parent post's term.
In fact, as a software developer, I am acutely embarrassed at the state of software usability with respect to non-savvy computer users. There is still way too much voodoo involved in setting up for and performing basic tasks.
Besides, Senator Kerry has no problems vote on matters in a way that conflicts with his stated religion.
The fact of the matter is that "morality" as we see it in a non-religious context in the U.S. is still largely derivative of the Judeo-Christian ethic. I always love to hear how people say "you can't legislate morality". I would argue that it's almost impossible not to legislate morality.
I think it's simple. If a Christian politician wants to run for office, he can simply apply his beliefs and morals to the questions he would face in office and state where he would stand. It doesn't matter where he would get this stand from, be it the Bible, some secular philosopher or written on the bathroom wall. If we know how he stands on an issue, we can decide if we agree with that stand or not.
Any politician worth voting for will have some set of core beliefs that will help dictate where he stands on most issues relevant to the office. As long as we can determine what that set of beliefs is, we can understand how he would govern, and whether those beliefs have a religious basis or not shouldn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
It's my understanding that there is some kind of review program and schedule for declassifying documents, however, that schedule is on the order of 30 or 40 years.
I'm not sure exactly how that works or applies here, but you routinely hear about old records from, say, the Nixon administration being made public.
You can find it in the U.S. but only in some places. here in Leesburg, VA, Food Lion carries it, but no others stores do. You might want to check each and every supermarket near you.
I like to keep a 12-pack around since sometimes I'm jonesing for Dew in the evening, but the caffeine would keep me up.
I know, I spent a week in Canada, which was great, but couldn't get my proper Dew fix.
I would suspect that smokers rack up just as many medical bills (if not more) than non-smokers, depsite dying earlier. It's not like they are suddenly dropping dead out of blue, but much more likely after a long illness.
Your argument just doesn't make any sense to me.
But I salute you for helping to finance the government.
Dear Coke:
It is true that some symptoms of withdrawal
Isn't this the definition of "addiction"?
Caffeine does indeed add flavor, and I prefer the flavor of caffeinated drinks to non-, but quinine is bitter too (hence we have tonic water).
As long as I don't have to pay for your OD, that's fine with me.
And by pay I mean:
Um, try again. Maybe you need to do a little research. Caffeine indeed has quite a strong flavor, and I will bet you big $$$ to sit down and blind taste test Mountain Dew and No-Caffeine Mountain Dew.
d ing=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11444592& dopt=Abstract
My information comes from direct experience, plus I've seen documented in numerous places that caffeine has a bitter taste.
Where did you get your information? When you call people names, it looks really bad when you don't know what you're talking about.
Thirty seconds with Google produces this from the NIH's National Library of Medicine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?hol
I prefer the taste of caffeinated Dew to non-, but that doesn't vitiate the idea that beverage manufacturers do it to addict their customers.
You've got a very good point, but I have to believe that the numbers of forces in Europe don't need to be as high as they were during the Cold War without compromising our commitment to NATO.
Similarly, the "trip wire" in the South Korea DMZ is essentially cannon fodder. I understand that Bush is working with China (and Japan and others) to help keep pressure on Kim to keep it in his pants. Shipping some of these folks to other locations probably makes sense, based on what I know.
Nice talking points, Mr. Democrat.
You're not fooling anyone.
Fox was never one to stand by while people blatantly unclose facts to the public
0 04Sep13?language=printer 0 43-2004Sep17.html 7 27-2004Sep18.html
l y/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html
I don't even know what this means, or why you keep bringing up Fox. This has nothing to do with Fox.
This has everything to do with a long-time prominent news anchor going against his advisors to run a story with a clearly faked source, to attack someone against whom he clearly has a bias. If you think it's somehow far-fetched that these documents aren't real, then I suggest you look here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31
and especially, this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/dai
I suggest you quit drinking the Kool-Aid and actually take a look at what's happening. This isn't the first time Dan Rather has aired false, but easily discredited, material.
Who the hell wrote their software?
Star Fleet Redshirts.
Come, come, I like to bash Star Wars as much as the next guy
I began to make a serious point and just started having fun with it. Books often have the same problem too. Tolkien, Eddings and Pratchett created worlds which are both large and well fleshed-out. Science fiction is a little harder because a realistic scale means your universe is IMMENSE, but it happens. The problem with movies is that its easier to connect to a story that focuses on a single hero or a small group of heroes. The only good exception that I can think is Apollo 13, where all the NASA engineers, working together with the astronauts were the heroes.
Yeah, the Star Wars Universe was huge! Several planets! Dagobah! with, um, a shrimpy toad guy. Hoth! with, um, a scary snow guy! Tatooine! with, um, a big mouth in the desert. Coruscant! with, um 10 Jedi Knights! and about a hundred Storm Troopers
To be honest, I always found a certain "claustrophia" in the Star Wars movies. You understand the "universe" of the story is huge, but it never really feels like anything more than a handful of heroes, two bad guys and a small swarm of targets (Storm Troopers, Ewoks, Battle Droids). Look at the Death Star with it's thousands, er, hundreds, well, basically about 3 locations. Look at the massive battle on Naboo with millions, er, thousands, well... maybe a hundred Gungans.
While reading this I anticipated the second sentence to read:
And even if a lawyer isn't an expert, s/he is probably more than capable of spewing off some legal BS and charging you $200/hr anyway.
Besides, anyone with any savvy knows that if you put lemon juice on your face, video cameras can't record you.
At least /. doesn't burp loudly when it consumes a site.
Actually, the only got to 10000 words that way. The rest was filled with "Screw Flanders".
If this were a pure democracy, you argument might be valid, but it is a democratic republic. We are electing representatives to make decisions for us, not to simply translate poll results into policy. Otherwise, why bother having a president?
You obviously don't understand what "democratic republic" means.
His biggest fear would probably be that Detritus would eat it.
You're right. Most computer users are not idiots, I was echoing the parent post's term.
In fact, as a software developer, I am acutely embarrassed at the state of software usability with respect to non-savvy computer users. There is still way too much voodoo involved in setting up for and performing basic tasks.
What has Open Source done in the last 4 years?
Gone from Linux 2.0 to Linux 2.4 with all the huge improvements that go with it.
Built a world-class browser from scratch. Ditto for e-mail.
Developed half the apps I use under Windows.
(And while I like the Windows development platform, ironically, I still use VC++ 6 because that's what all my clients use and want.)
: What have other large companies done in the past 4 years?
Sun: Got in a pissing match with MS over Java. Won, or lost... heck I don't even know (or care).
Oracle: Continues to resent losing a competitive pissing match with MS despite having a superior product
Corel: Tried to enter a pissing match with MS with 1/100th of the resources... failed miserably and sold everything
Apple: Continued their pissing match with MS over usability (and is still losing the war despite winning all the battles)
IBM: Set themselves up for a pissing match with MS by backing Linux.
SCO: Pissed off everyone.
Enron: Pissed on everyone.
Novell: Pissed themselves.
A linear progressing, obviously is something like 1, 2, 3, 4...
A geometric progression would be something like 1, 2, 4, 8...
In other words, multiplying rather than adding. It's a standard mathemtical term.
Lead plumbing. Don't forget lead plumbing.
Besides, Senator Kerry has no problems vote on matters in a way that conflicts with his stated religion.
The fact of the matter is that "morality" as we see it in a non-religious context in the U.S. is still largely derivative of the Judeo-Christian ethic. I always love to hear how people say "you can't legislate morality". I would argue that it's almost impossible not to legislate morality.
I think it's simple. If a Christian politician wants to run for office, he can simply apply his beliefs and morals to the questions he would face in office and state where he would stand. It doesn't matter where he would get this stand from, be it the Bible, some secular philosopher or written on the bathroom wall. If we know how he stands on an issue, we can decide if we agree with that stand or not.
Any politician worth voting for will have some set of core beliefs that will help dictate where he stands on most issues relevant to the office. As long as we can determine what that set of beliefs is, we can understand how he would govern, and whether those beliefs have a religious basis or not shouldn't matter.
Yeah, this is clearly political in nature, especially since Kerry is now threatening that reelecting Bush will result in a draft.
Meanwhile, Bush is pulling some of the absurd numbers of troops we still have in places like Germany (protecting them from whom?) to help the problem.
The military may continue to be overstretched, but I think this draft issue is just a scare tactic.