On the other hand, prohibition of gay marriage has absolutely no reasonable, non-religious basis. It is the business of the consenting adults -- also based on equality of human rights.
The institution of marriage is the civil codification of the family, which is a mother, father and zero or more children. It is more than the business of consenting adults because of the children. No one's rights are being violated because any available man is free to marry any available woman. Is it a violation of civil rights that a man cannot marry his sister? Is it a violation of civil rights that a man cannot marry two women at the same time? By your logic, it is.
The non-religious justification of the definition of marriage remaining between men and women is because of the children involved to defend and protect families, which have always been the basis of society. More specifically, there is absolutely no justification for a completely novel interpretation of 'marriage' that serves no purpose in society. Frankly, there is plenty of historical precedence for polygamy, but absolutely none for gay 'marriage'.
It's funny how many Japanese discover their homeowner's insurance doesn't cover monster attacks.
You're 40 years into a 200-year mortgage, things are going fine, you can enjoy jellied urchin in your own luxurious 12 sq. ft. office with high-speed internet and 7 TVs, the kids don't bother you because they're in cram school 14 hours a day, and the Aibo's much less annoying since its battery died and WHAM! Rodan levels your block and you find out you aren't covered for "direct attacks or collateral damage from mythological monsters, creatures mutated by nuclear accidents or other sources of radioactivity, giant robots, mechanical life forms or powered battle armor".
Buy monster coverage people... it's the only sane thing to do!
I'm also *very* concerned by Republicans who go to radical Christian churches that preach discrimination, if not outright hatred, of homosexuals and bible fundamentalism where every word is to be taken literally, which gives them an anti-science agenda. Which is worse? Both are pretty damn bad.
Again, preaching hatred and practicing deliberate ignorance is much more in line with the Islamists who are strapping bombs to themselves (to quote Dennis Miller) if so much as the pizza toppings are wrong. The real problem here is that Christianity has been hijacked by some people almost as badly as people claim Islam has been hijacked. The abandonment of reason and embracing of blind faith, especially the rejection of science, in Christianity was a novel feature of various heresies and certain forms of _Protestantism_, and it's reaching it's ultimate culmination in some so-called Christians who seem all but ready to strap their own bombs on. Christians have often set a bad example (being flawed, sinful people like we all are), but some of these people are acting almost exactly the opposite of Christ wants us to be, in His Name, and are not consistent with the vast majority of Christian history or teachings.
True Christianity has never had a real conflict with rational science, and early Christians were as willing to mine useful nuggets of thought from the likes of Aristotle and Pythagoras as they were to study the tenets of their faith from St. Paul. Many of the greatest scientists throughout history were not only Christians, but actual clergy (Kepler and LeMaitre, to name a couple off the top of my head), and whole fields of science owe their existence to Christians (the Jesuits and seismology, for instance). The idea of evolution, far from being antithetical to Christian teaching was considered hypothetically by none other than St. Augustine, well more than a millennium before Darwin. A literal interpretation of the Scripture runs into its first contradiction on Page 2 of Genesis (was Man created first or last?), and there's no way this story could be taken as a literal description (how could time be measured in days before the creation of day and night?) but as an allegory describing the creation of the world by God, which happens to borrow from Sumerian and other creation myths to teach the truth of God creating the world without claiming or implying to be any kind of 'science' book. If someone can maintain the doublethink that the Bible is completely literal even when it's clearly allegorical, I don't see how you can take seriously anything else they have to say. It's one thing to have faith in things which cannot be empirically proved or disproved, such as the existence of God or the Divinity of Christ, it's another entirely to have faith in things which are easily demonstrated to be false. (Just watch a literalist Fundamentalist try to rationalize fossils, or a Mormon squirm when you talk archaeology...)
Hey, maybe God really did create a world that is not logical where reason is unreliable, and faith trumps (and can contradict) logical and empirical evidence. After all, He's God, but it wasn't until various heretical, Muslim and Protestant philosophers came along that that concept ever occurred to anyone. Frankly, the concept of an illogical God does not appeal to me, nor did it to any Fathers of the Church, but some people seem to think our reason and intelligence is a trap set by the devil rather than a gift from God. It's hard to argue with people like that... in fact, it's impossible by definition. Watcha gonna do?
Frankly anyone who claims Christianity of any form is becoming excessively influential in this country has no idea what it's like to live in a real theocracy. Just because so many liberal types are not Christians, or practitioners of any established religion doesn't make some of their ideas any less theocratic (in terms of imposition of 'arbitrary' morals) than those of the most fiery fundamentalists. Religion is part of our culture and a significant part of
How centrist he is between now and Election Day you mean. I'm sorry, but the 20+ years leading up to his nomination tell a radically different story, the story of someone I can't imagine any sane person would consider putting in the Oval Office. He has more criminal, racist and/or terrorist friends and associates than the average Supervillian. His mentors were Communists and America-haters. His so-called Christian pastor of 20 years has more in common with radical Islam than any Christianity I'm familiar with. Why would anyone believe anything he says when it contradicts everything he's been and done for his entire life? Doesn't anyone realize he's saying many of these things just to get elected? I mean, McCain's track record isn't very good, IMO, but at least I know where he's coming from and he's not pretending to be something he isn't, even if what he is isn't that great.
Look at Obama's history... he frightens the crap out of me, and should frighten anyone willing to see beyond his slick packaging and empty promises.
Good god, I think I'm voting for a Democrat for the first time in my life. That's how far the Republicans have fallen.
Don't do it... just remember, the Democrats have fallen just as far... they are beating the same old dead horse of all the stupid, failed politics of the mid 20th century and calling it "change". Who is worse, the party that promises to do smart things and then does stupid things, or the party who simply promises to do stupid things? Do you hope they are lying? Trust me, both parties are beyond repair.
You have to remember Microsoft's terminology differs from the conventional meanings. Rough approximations follow:
beta == early alpha RC == late alpha 1.0 == early beta SP1 == RC1 2.0 == first version that does anything useful 3.0 == first version you actually consider worth using
My wife and I wanted "white gold", which is normally plated with iridium for the reasons you described.
If you want a geeky wedding band, perhaps there's a design that incorporates a moebius strip?
If all else fails, I think some of the seven dwarven rings have shown up on eMy wife and I wanted "white gold", which is normally plated with iridium for the reasons you described.
If you want a geeky wedding band, perhaps there's a design that incorporates a moebius strip?
If all else fails, I think some of the seven dwarven rings have shown up on eBay, but some dude named "TarMairon9731" has been making some really high bids...
Well, if that weren't true we wouldn't have millions of zombie Windows computers being used for botnets, now would we?
Besides, informing people isn't "pushing around sheep". We're not talking about something like the government here. This is hardly intrusive, definitely not coercive, and it's very likely to help.
Or do you get offended when a light comes on in your car when something is wrong? What about the smoke alarm in your house? It's violating your freedom to die from smoke inhalation! I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but you are totally picking the wrong battle.
But this isn't about you, as much as you want it to be. It's about the 99% of users who don't realize what's going on and why it's important to know that you should upgrade.
Getting that bent out of shape over an occasional reminder is taking things waaaaaay too far.
Of course, you're free to be that way... it's Free software after all.:-)
Well, maybe, but is what they are proposing really nagging, and just how many people are avoid Ffx 3 for a reason, other than just not knowing it's out or being lazy?
I'd answer, "Not really", and "Can't be too many, after all this isn't Microsoft we're talking about."
Over what he's made from his movie and books and everything, he could retire with more than any hundred of us regular folks are likely to ever see in our lives. Al Gore has been a poster child for the wisdom of P. T. Barnum.
But you keep insisting that my opinion doesn't count for anything. All we have is our opinions. Sure, I can point to facts, and you can point to facts, but it all boils down to opinion. I don't think you can dismiss it so flippantly. My opinion is that Obama doesn't have much credibility and his popularity is almost entirely due to the rejection of the current administration and desire for a change and his superficial qualities. However, he's not good because Bush is bad and he's different and he's not good because he's a good orator with a voice like a thick steak cooked to perfection. He's accomplished very little, has no executive experience, has very little to show for his legislative experience and has chickened out in every confrontation he's had (unwillingness to debate on Fox, caving to Hillary Clinton even when he's essentially the nomineee, unwillingness to debate McCain (minus last weekend), unwillingness to take any stand on the "human rights" question because he's afraid of who he'll offend (showing that principles are subservient to politics). He could be a good candidate given time (although I'll never agree with his very liberal views), but he isn't one now. If the Republicans weren't in total disarray and utter chaos and corruption themselves, this race wouldn't even be close, and frankly, given current trends, I'd bet on McCain winning.
I don't care for McCain as a candidate either although I agree with a lot of his political views, however, given what he accomplished in the military, he's at least had the kind of successful executive experience that I think is imperative for the office.
Wow. You are spending an awful lot of energy telling me how you don't care about my opinions, which is more than a little contradictory. And you seem to be answering most of my charges with personal attacks rather than making actual points, and throwing in lots of foul language as if you want some air of gravitas, but don't really know how to get it for real. Ostensibly this is a political debate and yet you seem to have some kind of weird focus on me... it doesn't really make any sense... Uh oh. I'm starting to get it now. The insults, the user name, the weird way you seem to be making it all personal... it all adds up now. You're really in grade school and have a crush on me. How sweet! But I have to say I'm spoken for.
Either that or you're exactly the kind of person I would expect would support Obama.
Vista's more like the new Saab can only go 50 MPH, you need a key to start it, another key to use the accelerator, a third key to use the brake, and separate keys to adjust each mirror. You aren't allowed to turn on the radio until you put on all three seat belts (including the one that goes over your eyes if you're shorter than 5' 8"). No standard stereo equipment will work in it and the system it comes with can only play music if the vehicle is travelling slower than 25 MPH, otherwise all you get is static. The dashboard controls are really slick and flashy but cause epileptic seizures at night, and decrease gas mileage by 5 MPG.
It's supposed to get 15 MPG, but only if the driver is less than 80 lbs, and no other passengers or cargo are allowed, but that bit wasn't even in the small print. In reality it gets about 4MPG on premium gas, but only if you use the most expensive fuel-additives. The gas tank holds 150 gallons, which is helpful (and necessary) but it takes three gallons of gas just to start the thing. Oh, and 2 out of every 3 times it's idling for more than a minute, it stalls out.
It's got a manufacturer-controlled kill switch and for some strange reason the wipers only go once a minute, even at high speed. The windshield washers are very effective but the tanks only hold enough for two cleanings.
It comes with a state-of-the-art restraint system (see the three seat belts above), an air bag that goes off at any collision over 3 MPH, and yet still requires special safety seats for each occupant, even when they aren't children.
It costs $40,000 but will only run on roads paved in the last 10 years unless you pay for the $70,000 version. Plus it only comes in a really hideous shade of green that almost no one likes.
It works fine for trips to the market (although you can only fit 3 grocery bags in the trunk), but no one likes using it on the highway because of its speed limitations and incredibly poor gas mileage.
Too bad they didn't cite this study when they were locking up innocent people as child-molesters based on the testimony of 6-year-olds.
I've seen this effect in myself many times. It's hard to remember, and thanks to the Internet, there are more and more things that I can go back and explore after not having experienced them for 20 or 30 years or more. Sometimes I remember them very well. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I remember one little detail very well, but everything else is completely forgotten.
For the record, the Banana Splits theme _is_ still the best theme song ever written, but the show itself really was pretty tedious.
I've read his energy policy all the way through. It was completely and utterly useless and will cause economic disaster, in my opinion. If everything else he's got is twice as good he's every bit the smooth-talking, but know-nothing cypher I've always known him to be.
Sounds to me like you simply don't like Obama's policies, and therefore attack his credibility and his campaign strategy. And, quite frankly, it makes you look like an ass.
No, I don't like Obama's policies, AND he has no credibility and a disingenuous campaign strategy. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Since his campaign strategy is nothing but vapid, empty promises I'd say that I'm right on the mark. By the way is he for NAFTA or against it today? How about that FISA bill: has he retroactively decided he should have voted against immunity like he promised his cheering but uncritical fans? How about his Iraq withdrawal scheme which has slowly but consistently morphed from goofy nonsense to almost exactly what the Republicans are saying (and doing)? Why is it that he can't even answer a simple question about who deserves human rights? Of all things, an American President should be rock-solid certain on the issue of human rights.
If you want to call me names and use foul language that's your prerogative, but I don't think it furthers your case. If that's what you consider debate, then you've fit my prejudices of the typical Obama supporter.
Language, language, Anonymous. The potty-mouths these days.
As IPv6 becomes more accepted it seems these kinds of expressions would be built into the tools. Unless your Microsoft, software tends to advance towards making repetitive tasks easier over time.
If you're still "working over a serial terminal ion a barely-capable quirky embedded shell" you either need to upgrade your hardware, or if that's not possible, find tools to make accessing such a device easier, and if that's not possible, raise the rate you charge to work. Not everyone is an expert in QES (Quirky Embedded Shell (tm, pat. pending)) so take advantage of a seller's market.
Of course, unleashing a string of obscenities requires less thought and effort.
You mean, he's saying he'll try to do stuff in office, without giving you a reason to doubt him? How dastardly!
No, he's saying "I'm the one you're waiting for." What does that mean? It means whatever you want it to mean, and Obama knows that. What he truly is doesn't matter as long as you believe he's what you want him to be. That's how he intends to become President.
Well, the one I'm waiting for is a President that will guide this country back towards what was created by the Founding Fathers, who had more wisdom and intelligence than you or I do, or every single person in the Federal Government.
The one I'm waiting for will return the Federal government back to its constitutionally defined functions and powers, and no more. The one I'm waiting for will return the government to the protector of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not some giant Ponzi wealth-redistribution scheme that encourages waste and saps our national productivity.
The one I'm waiting for will secure our nation's "border, language and culture" by strictly and strongly enforcing against illegal immigration while encouraging as much legal immigration as is economically reasonable. Immigrants have fueled the economic engines of our Republic, and should continue to do so, but the reason the U.S. has been so successful is because we were a melting pot, alloying the many strengths of the peoples of the world and burning off the weaknesses to forge the greatest nation on Earth. What we are becoming is a disunited Balkanized set of tribes (political, economic, cultural) that would readily sacrifice the whole for the good of themselves.
The one I'm waiting for will restore the Rule of Law, return copyright to something in the same ballpark as it was originally envisioned, eliminate the idea of patents on software, algorithms or things that occur in nature, use our military to defend and protect our interests first, trade freely with only those trading partners that protect human rights and have fair labor laws, allow the U.S. to properly utilize its natural resources to stop its dependence on foreign entities, defend human life at all stages, which is the only consistently logical and moral stand possible, stop treating rich and powerful companies as the most important constituents, protect and assist those who truly need it in a way that does not encourage dependence, totally revamp the tax code to something simple enough a high school student can understand it, eliminate punitive taxes on people who happen to be successful, encourage savings and investment (see "revamp the tax code"), and most importantly, appoint judges who understand the Constitution as written and as intended who will interpret, not make, the law, and who don't believe in "living documents" or the secret penumbrae from which they can extract all kinds of bizarre interpretations and novel rights known only to them and desired only by them and their few elite supporters.
That's the one I'm waiting for. Obama is most certainly not he. I haven't seen him yet.
Funny. I only ran Windows 95 for about 6 months before I switched to NT 3.51.
NT 3.51 to NT 4.0 was not a huge hit in performance, and NT 4.0 was totally solid, even at beta 1 (a couple service packs later on changed that). It had some nice UI changes, but didn't require any huge changes to the way I did things.
NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 was not a huge hit in performance. Windows 2000 was very solid. It had some nice UI changes, but didn't require any huge changes to the way I did things.
Windows 2000 to XP was a performance hit but it wasn't too bad. XP was very solid. It had some really horrible UI changes, but you could turn them off. It didn't require any huge changes to the way I did things.
Windows XP to Vista was a huge performance hit. Vista came bundled with the laptop I bought, and yet it still managed to blue screen pretty regularly. It had UI changes which were mildly neat for about 30 seconds, but got tedious really fast, and I eventually found them ugly and turned them off. Almost nothing I did worked in Vista. I had to tinker around with permissions. I had to dodge security dialogs like the 9th level of Tempest just to rename an icon on the desktop. A bunch of my apps wouldn't run. Network file transfer performance, which I use A LOT, was totally crippled. I finally got sick of adjusting myself to Vista, with absolutely no return in terms of anything being superior to XP. There was literally nothing I found to be improved over XP, but the disadvantages were numerous and significant.
Finally, I switched my laptop to Ubuntu (like all my desktops already were). I got a huge performance boost. It's very solid. It has more UI flexibility that I could possibly want, and I've tweaked it out to look just perfect. And the funniest thing is that it _would_ run on a P3-800 with a dot matrix printer from 1977.
So your point fails. Having experienced the Microsoft OS change from DOS 1.1 to DOS 6 through Windows 2 up to Windows 95 briefly and then on the NT side from 3.51 through Vista, I found pluses and minuses each time, but going to Vista had the most minuses and no pluses.
That's just my experience and my opinion. I was willing to drop a Benjamin to get XP before I finally went to Linux and gave the XP license on a spare machine to my kids for their games.
Well, I never said they were doing a _good_ job, or that they didn't take 4 years to figure out what should have taken six months, but I also notice Obama's gone from the stupid "I'm bringing 'em home immediately no matter what, even if the military commanders say it's stupid" which would only appease the furthest left of the goofy-goofy lost-in-la-la-land types to something which is pointlessly obvious, but at least implies some contact with reality.
That said, I don't think Obama is offering anything constructive that hasn't already been said. But then he's not really offering anything but cheap, empty platitudes. His real strategy seems to be to convince you he's what you want him to be without giving you any reason to believe he couldn't be. It's a fiendishly clever scheme that would increase my cynicism of the American people ten-fold if it's actually successful.
Right now, he's sold the himself to the raving loonies, the uncritical chanters and knee-jerk bumper-sticker types. If he can pull off this scam on the whole nation, we, as a society, are in deeper kimchee than I even thought.
and if the incumbent is running unchallenged, I abstain.
Sounds good, but in this case, you should write someone in.
I had the same plan, but I seriously have to wonder if Obama wouldn't be so potentially dangerous that it's unwise to _not_ vote against him, even if that means voting for "the lesser of two evils" rather than someone I could actually support. His utter naivete and cluelessness continues to astound me. Sure, we need "change", but what we don't need is an entry-level employee in the top seat. This job is too important to be "cute" when voting for its occupant. The Democrats had an unprecedented chance to regain the White House and what do they do? They select a Barbie doll. Of course, given how utterly incompetently they've handled Congress since 2007, why would anyone see them as a viable alternative to anything is beyond me.
Looking beyond the Big Two Parties at the national level is the only solution that will ever make real changes. Don't fool yourself just 'cause the guy's young, good-looking and has a great voice... he's as much "more of the same" as McCain, only without the experience and clue.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, prohibition of gay marriage has absolutely no reasonable, non-religious basis. It is the business of the consenting adults -- also based on equality of human rights.
The institution of marriage is the civil codification of the family, which is a mother, father and zero or more children. It is more than the business of consenting adults because of the children. No one's rights are being violated because any available man is free to marry any available woman. Is it a violation of civil rights that a man cannot marry his sister? Is it a violation of civil rights that a man cannot marry two women at the same time? By your logic, it is.
The non-religious justification of the definition of marriage remaining between men and women is because of the children involved to defend and protect families, which have always been the basis of society. More specifically, there is absolutely no justification for a completely novel interpretation of 'marriage' that serves no purpose in society. Frankly, there is plenty of historical precedence for polygamy, but absolutely none for gay 'marriage'.
It's funny how many Japanese discover their homeowner's insurance doesn't cover monster attacks.
You're 40 years into a 200-year mortgage, things are going fine, you can enjoy jellied urchin in your own luxurious 12 sq. ft. office with high-speed internet and 7 TVs, the kids don't bother you because they're in cram school 14 hours a day, and the Aibo's much less annoying since its battery died and WHAM! Rodan levels your block and you find out you aren't covered for "direct attacks or collateral damage from mythological monsters, creatures mutated by nuclear accidents or other sources of radioactivity, giant robots, mechanical life forms or powered battle armor".
Buy monster coverage people... it's the only sane thing to do!
I'm also *very* concerned by Republicans who go to radical Christian churches that preach discrimination, if not outright hatred, of homosexuals and bible fundamentalism where every word is to be taken literally, which gives them an anti-science agenda. Which is worse? Both are pretty damn bad.
Again, preaching hatred and practicing deliberate ignorance is much more in line with the Islamists who are strapping bombs to themselves (to quote Dennis Miller) if so much as the pizza toppings are wrong. The real problem here is that Christianity has been hijacked by some people almost as badly as people claim Islam has been hijacked. The abandonment of reason and embracing of blind faith, especially the rejection of science, in Christianity was a novel feature of various heresies and certain forms of _Protestantism_, and it's reaching it's ultimate culmination in some so-called Christians who seem all but ready to strap their own bombs on. Christians have often set a bad example (being flawed, sinful people like we all are), but some of these people are acting almost exactly the opposite of Christ wants us to be, in His Name, and are not consistent with the vast majority of Christian history or teachings.
True Christianity has never had a real conflict with rational science, and early Christians were as willing to mine useful nuggets of thought from the likes of Aristotle and Pythagoras as they were to study the tenets of their faith from St. Paul. Many of the greatest scientists throughout history were not only Christians, but actual clergy (Kepler and LeMaitre, to name a couple off the top of my head), and whole fields of science owe their existence to Christians (the Jesuits and seismology, for instance). The idea of evolution, far from being antithetical to Christian teaching was considered hypothetically by none other than St. Augustine, well more than a millennium before Darwin. A literal interpretation of the Scripture runs into its first contradiction on Page 2 of Genesis (was Man created first or last?), and there's no way this story could be taken as a literal description (how could time be measured in days before the creation of day and night?) but as an allegory describing the creation of the world by God, which happens to borrow from Sumerian and other creation myths to teach the truth of God creating the world without claiming or implying to be any kind of 'science' book. If someone can maintain the doublethink that the Bible is completely literal even when it's clearly allegorical, I don't see how you can take seriously anything else they have to say. It's one thing to have faith in things which cannot be empirically proved or disproved, such as the existence of God or the Divinity of Christ, it's another entirely to have faith in things which are easily demonstrated to be false. (Just watch a literalist Fundamentalist try to rationalize fossils, or a Mormon squirm when you talk archaeology...)
Hey, maybe God really did create a world that is not logical where reason is unreliable, and faith trumps (and can contradict) logical and empirical evidence. After all, He's God, but it wasn't until various heretical, Muslim and Protestant philosophers came along that that concept ever occurred to anyone. Frankly, the concept of an illogical God does not appeal to me, nor did it to any Fathers of the Church, but some people seem to think our reason and intelligence is a trap set by the devil rather than a gift from God. It's hard to argue with people like that... in fact, it's impossible by definition. Watcha gonna do?
Frankly anyone who claims Christianity of any form is becoming excessively influential in this country has no idea what it's like to live in a real theocracy. Just because so many liberal types are not Christians, or practitioners of any established religion doesn't make some of their ideas any less theocratic (in terms of imposition of 'arbitrary' morals) than those of the most fiery fundamentalists. Religion is part of our culture and a significant part of
and also read how centrist Obama really is
How centrist he is between now and Election Day you mean. I'm sorry, but the 20+ years leading up to his nomination tell a radically different story, the story of someone I can't imagine any sane person would consider putting in the Oval Office. He has more criminal, racist and/or terrorist friends and associates than the average Supervillian. His mentors were Communists and America-haters. His so-called Christian pastor of 20 years has more in common with radical Islam than any Christianity I'm familiar with. Why would anyone believe anything he says when it contradicts everything he's been and done for his entire life? Doesn't anyone realize he's saying many of these things just to get elected? I mean, McCain's track record isn't very good, IMO, but at least I know where he's coming from and he's not pretending to be something he isn't, even if what he is isn't that great.
Look at Obama's history... he frightens the crap out of me, and should frighten anyone willing to see beyond his slick packaging and empty promises.
Good god, I think I'm voting for a Democrat for the first time in my life. That's how far the Republicans have fallen.
Don't do it... just remember, the Democrats have fallen just as far... they are beating the same old dead horse of all the stupid, failed politics of the mid 20th century and calling it "change". Who is worse, the party that promises to do smart things and then does stupid things, or the party who simply promises to do stupid things? Do you hope they are lying? Trust me, both parties are beyond repair.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
I think my brain just core-dumped. Count Dooku is wailing on Magneto with his light-sabre.
You have to remember Microsoft's terminology differs from the conventional meanings. Rough approximations follow:
beta == early alpha
RC == late alpha
1.0 == early beta
SP1 == RC1
2.0 == first version that does anything useful
3.0 == first version you actually consider worth using
My wife and I wanted "white gold", which is normally plated with iridium for the reasons you described.
If you want a geeky wedding band, perhaps there's a design that incorporates a moebius strip?
If all else fails, I think some of the seven dwarven rings have shown up on eMy wife and I wanted "white gold", which is normally plated with iridium for the reasons you described.
If you want a geeky wedding band, perhaps there's a design that incorporates a moebius strip?
If all else fails, I think some of the seven dwarven rings have shown up on eBay, but some dude named "TarMairon9731" has been making some really high bids...
Well, if that weren't true we wouldn't have millions of zombie Windows computers being used for botnets, now would we?
Besides, informing people isn't "pushing around sheep". We're not talking about something like the government here. This is hardly intrusive, definitely not coercive, and it's very likely to help.
Or do you get offended when a light comes on in your car when something is wrong? What about the smoke alarm in your house? It's violating your freedom to die from smoke inhalation! I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but you are totally picking the wrong battle.
But this isn't about you, as much as you want it to be. It's about the 99% of users who don't realize what's going on and why it's important to know that you should upgrade.
Getting that bent out of shape over an occasional reminder is taking things waaaaaay too far.
Of course, you're free to be that way... it's Free software after all. :-)
Well, maybe, but is what they are proposing really nagging, and just how many people are avoid Ffx 3 for a reason, other than just not knowing it's out or being lazy?
I'd answer, "Not really", and "Can't be too many, after all this isn't Microsoft we're talking about."
Over what he's made from his movie and books and everything, he could retire with more than any hundred of us regular folks are likely to ever see in our lives. Al Gore has been a poster child for the wisdom of P. T. Barnum.
But you keep insisting that my opinion doesn't count for anything. All we have is our opinions. Sure, I can point to facts, and you can point to facts, but it all boils down to opinion. I don't think you can dismiss it so flippantly. My opinion is that Obama doesn't have much credibility and his popularity is almost entirely due to the rejection of the current administration and desire for a change and his superficial qualities. However, he's not good because Bush is bad and he's different and he's not good because he's a good orator with a voice like a thick steak cooked to perfection. He's accomplished very little, has no executive experience, has very little to show for his legislative experience and has chickened out in every confrontation he's had (unwillingness to debate on Fox, caving to Hillary Clinton even when he's essentially the nomineee, unwillingness to debate McCain (minus last weekend), unwillingness to take any stand on the "human rights" question because he's afraid of who he'll offend (showing that principles are subservient to politics). He could be a good candidate given time (although I'll never agree with his very liberal views), but he isn't one now. If the Republicans weren't in total disarray and utter chaos and corruption themselves, this race wouldn't even be close, and frankly, given current trends, I'd bet on McCain winning.
I don't care for McCain as a candidate either although I agree with a lot of his political views, however, given what he accomplished in the military, he's at least had the kind of successful executive experience that I think is imperative for the office.
Wow. You are spending an awful lot of energy telling me how you don't care about my opinions, which is more than a little contradictory. And you seem to be answering most of my charges with personal attacks rather than making actual points, and throwing in lots of foul language as if you want some air of gravitas, but don't really know how to get it for real. Ostensibly this is a political debate and yet you seem to have some kind of weird focus on me... it doesn't really make any sense... Uh oh. I'm starting to get it now. The insults, the user name, the weird way you seem to be making it all personal... it all adds up now. You're really in grade school and have a crush on me. How sweet! But I have to say I'm spoken for.
Either that or you're exactly the kind of person I would expect would support Obama.
(~1990), it was impossible to do even cartoon level animation
I think the people who make Andre and Wally B would beg to differ.
Vista's more like the new Saab can only go 50 MPH, you need a key to start it, another key to use the accelerator, a third key to use the brake, and separate keys to adjust each mirror. You aren't allowed to turn on the radio until you put on all three seat belts (including the one that goes over your eyes if you're shorter than 5' 8"). No standard stereo equipment will work in it and the system it comes with can only play music if the vehicle is travelling slower than 25 MPH, otherwise all you get is static. The dashboard controls are really slick and flashy but cause epileptic seizures at night, and decrease gas mileage by 5 MPG.
It's supposed to get 15 MPG, but only if the driver is less than 80 lbs, and no other passengers or cargo are allowed, but that bit wasn't even in the small print. In reality it gets about 4MPG on premium gas, but only if you use the most expensive fuel-additives. The gas tank holds 150 gallons, which is helpful (and necessary) but it takes three gallons of gas just to start the thing. Oh, and 2 out of every 3 times it's idling for more than a minute, it stalls out.
It's got a manufacturer-controlled kill switch and for some strange reason the wipers only go once a minute, even at high speed. The windshield washers are very effective but the tanks only hold enough for two cleanings.
It comes with a state-of-the-art restraint system (see the three seat belts above), an air bag that goes off at any collision over 3 MPH, and yet still requires special safety seats for each occupant, even when they aren't children.
It costs $40,000 but will only run on roads paved in the last 10 years unless you pay for the $70,000 version. Plus it only comes in a really hideous shade of green that almost no one likes.
It works fine for trips to the market (although you can only fit 3 grocery bags in the trunk), but no one likes using it on the highway because of its speed limitations and incredibly poor gas mileage.
That's what Vista is like.
Too bad they didn't cite this study when they were locking up innocent people as child-molesters based on the testimony of 6-year-olds.
I've seen this effect in myself many times. It's hard to remember, and thanks to the Internet, there are more and more things that I can go back and explore after not having experienced them for 20 or 30 years or more. Sometimes I remember them very well. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I remember one little detail very well, but everything else is completely forgotten.
For the record, the Banana Splits theme _is_ still the best theme song ever written, but the show itself really was pretty tedious.
I've read his energy policy all the way through. It was completely and utterly useless and will cause economic disaster, in my opinion. If everything else he's got is twice as good he's every bit the smooth-talking, but know-nothing cypher I've always known him to be.
Sounds to me like you simply don't like Obama's policies, and therefore attack his credibility and his campaign strategy. And, quite frankly, it makes you look like an ass.
No, I don't like Obama's policies, AND he has no credibility and a disingenuous campaign strategy. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Since his campaign strategy is nothing but vapid, empty promises I'd say that I'm right on the mark. By the way is he for NAFTA or against it today? How about that FISA bill: has he retroactively decided he should have voted against immunity like he promised his cheering but uncritical fans? How about his Iraq withdrawal scheme which has slowly but consistently morphed from goofy nonsense to almost exactly what the Republicans are saying (and doing)? Why is it that he can't even answer a simple question about who deserves human rights? Of all things, an American President should be rock-solid certain on the issue of human rights.
If you want to call me names and use foul language that's your prerogative, but I don't think it furthers your case. If that's what you consider debate, then you've fit my prejudices of the typical Obama supporter.
Language, language, Anonymous. The potty-mouths these days.
As IPv6 becomes more accepted it seems these kinds of expressions would be built into the tools. Unless your Microsoft, software tends to advance towards making repetitive tasks easier over time.
If you're still "working over a serial terminal ion a barely-capable quirky embedded shell" you either need to upgrade your hardware, or if that's not possible, find tools to make accessing such a device easier, and if that's not possible, raise the rate you charge to work. Not everyone is an expert in QES (Quirky Embedded Shell (tm, pat. pending)) so take advantage of a seller's market.
Of course, unleashing a string of obscenities requires less thought and effort.
You mean, he's saying he'll try to do stuff in office, without giving you a reason to doubt him? How dastardly!
No, he's saying "I'm the one you're waiting for." What does that mean? It means whatever you want it to mean, and Obama knows that. What he truly is doesn't matter as long as you believe he's what you want him to be. That's how he intends to become President.
Well, the one I'm waiting for is a President that will guide this country back towards what was created by the Founding Fathers, who had more wisdom and intelligence than you or I do, or every single person in the Federal Government.
The one I'm waiting for will return the Federal government back to its constitutionally defined functions and powers, and no more. The one I'm waiting for will return the government to the protector of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not some giant Ponzi wealth-redistribution scheme that encourages waste and saps our national productivity.
The one I'm waiting for will secure our nation's "border, language and culture" by strictly and strongly enforcing against illegal immigration while encouraging as much legal immigration as is economically reasonable. Immigrants have fueled the economic engines of our Republic, and should continue to do so, but the reason the U.S. has been so successful is because we were a melting pot, alloying the many strengths of the peoples of the world and burning off the weaknesses to forge the greatest nation on Earth. What we are becoming is a disunited Balkanized set of tribes (political, economic, cultural) that would readily sacrifice the whole for the good of themselves.
The one I'm waiting for will restore the Rule of Law, return copyright to something in the same ballpark as it was originally envisioned, eliminate the idea of patents on software, algorithms or things that occur in nature, use our military to defend and protect our interests first, trade freely with only those trading partners that protect human rights and have fair labor laws, allow the U.S. to properly utilize its natural resources to stop its dependence on foreign entities, defend human life at all stages, which is the only consistently logical and moral stand possible, stop treating rich and powerful companies as the most important constituents, protect and assist those who truly need it in a way that does not encourage dependence, totally revamp the tax code to something simple enough a high school student can understand it, eliminate punitive taxes on people who happen to be successful, encourage savings and investment (see "revamp the tax code"), and most importantly, appoint judges who understand the Constitution as written and as intended who will interpret, not make, the law, and who don't believe in "living documents" or the secret penumbrae from which they can extract all kinds of bizarre interpretations and novel rights known only to them and desired only by them and their few elite supporters.
That's the one I'm waiting for. Obama is most certainly not he. I haven't seen him yet.
Funny. I only ran Windows 95 for about 6 months before I switched to NT 3.51.
NT 3.51 to NT 4.0 was not a huge hit in performance, and NT 4.0 was totally solid, even at beta 1 (a couple service packs later on changed that). It had some nice UI changes, but didn't require any huge changes to the way I did things.
NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 was not a huge hit in performance. Windows 2000 was very solid. It had some nice UI changes, but didn't require any huge changes to the way I did things.
Windows 2000 to XP was a performance hit but it wasn't too bad. XP was very solid. It had some really horrible UI changes, but you could turn them off. It didn't require any huge changes to the way I did things.
Windows XP to Vista was a huge performance hit. Vista came bundled with the laptop I bought, and yet it still managed to blue screen pretty regularly. It had UI changes which were mildly neat for about 30 seconds, but got tedious really fast, and I eventually found them ugly and turned them off. Almost nothing I did worked in Vista. I had to tinker around with permissions. I had to dodge security dialogs like the 9th level of Tempest just to rename an icon on the desktop. A bunch of my apps wouldn't run. Network file transfer performance, which I use A LOT, was totally crippled. I finally got sick of adjusting myself to Vista, with absolutely no return in terms of anything being superior to XP. There was literally nothing I found to be improved over XP, but the disadvantages were numerous and significant.
Finally, I switched my laptop to Ubuntu (like all my desktops already were). I got a huge performance boost. It's very solid. It has more UI flexibility that I could possibly want, and I've tweaked it out to look just perfect. And the funniest thing is that it _would_ run on a P3-800 with a dot matrix printer from 1977.
So your point fails. Having experienced the Microsoft OS change from DOS 1.1 to DOS 6 through Windows 2 up to Windows 95 briefly and then on the NT side from 3.51 through Vista, I found pluses and minuses each time, but going to Vista had the most minuses and no pluses.
That's just my experience and my opinion. I was willing to drop a Benjamin to get XP before I finally went to Linux and gave the XP license on a spare machine to my kids for their games.
Ask O.J.... he exercised some serious monetary might on his legal team.
Well, I never said they were doing a _good_ job, or that they didn't take 4 years to figure out what should have taken six months, but I also notice Obama's gone from the stupid "I'm bringing 'em home immediately no matter what, even if the military commanders say it's stupid" which would only appease the furthest left of the goofy-goofy lost-in-la-la-land types to something which is pointlessly obvious, but at least implies some contact with reality.
That said, I don't think Obama is offering anything constructive that hasn't already been said. But then he's not really offering anything but cheap, empty platitudes. His real strategy seems to be to convince you he's what you want him to be without giving you any reason to believe he couldn't be. It's a fiendishly clever scheme that would increase my cynicism of the American people ten-fold if it's actually successful.
Right now, he's sold the himself to the raving loonies, the uncritical chanters and knee-jerk bumper-sticker types. If he can pull off this scam on the whole nation, we, as a society, are in deeper kimchee than I even thought.
In the US, monetary "might" makes itself a legal declaration of "right".
and if the incumbent is running unchallenged, I abstain.
Sounds good, but in this case, you should write someone in.
I had the same plan, but I seriously have to wonder if Obama wouldn't be so potentially dangerous that it's unwise to _not_ vote against him, even if that means voting for "the lesser of two evils" rather than someone I could actually support. His utter naivete and cluelessness continues to astound me. Sure, we need "change", but what we don't need is an entry-level employee in the top seat. This job is too important to be "cute" when voting for its occupant. The Democrats had an unprecedented chance to regain the White House and what do they do? They select a Barbie doll. Of course, given how utterly incompetently they've handled Congress since 2007, why would anyone see them as a viable alternative to anything is beyond me.
Looking beyond the Big Two Parties at the national level is the only solution that will ever make real changes. Don't fool yourself just 'cause the guy's young, good-looking and has a great voice... he's as much "more of the same" as McCain, only without the experience and clue.