I am tired of seeing people 'tasked'. Or having to put my cell phone to the 'off position' while on an airplane. It seems like legalese is taking over ordinary usage of english.
The "there'll be no music" arguement is complete BS. Before modern copyright law, people made music. Creative people will draw, sculpt, and make music independent of copyright law. Creating art is something people do. The only thing that copyright law produced was 1)RIAA/MPAA, and 2) pop stars. Maybe you think that there are not enough N'syncs, but I for one think one is too many.
If you look at the contracts that most musicians sign, you will see that they are exceptionally one-sided. So, while the musicians ARE getting screwed by p2p, the real losers from p2p are the record labels. And frankly, I don't have much compassion for record labels.
I also want to mention the Lifetime + 70 years copyright length. I think that the RIAA/MPAA are trying to keep the public domain as empty as possible, in the hopes that the public domain withers away. Yet the corporations will take as much from the public domain as possible (e.g. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen)
Wow - the way you phrase that it gives the impression that envirionmentalists are like boogiemen just waiting to leap out at you.
Actaually, rotting is not as great a problem. Plain wood can last a long time - look at the many hundred+ year old buildings around. Also, redwood is naturally resistant to rot.
Finally, if you make the bike somewhat modular, it would be possible to periodically replace sections which show any signs of damage or rot.
My main question, which the article really didn't address (or I misses it), is price. Obviously, the first article must have been expensive. But how low could these get in volume production?
Actually, There are anti-neutrons - the parameter that changes is spin, IIRC.
As for visiting an anti-matter galaxy, you would be mostly fine (probably just a lot more radiation from interstellar particles eroding your ship's hull. Just don't try to land on a planet.
Absolutely love my s800. Awesome printer - fast, reliable. Much more robust than any HP I've ever had. Ink is cheaper, and prints beautiful photos. Canon is the way to go. No stupid chips like HP or Epson. No outrageously priced ink like Lexmark.
I'd like a gun and ammo Here you go. That'll be $342.22 Here's my anonymous cash card! Right, here's your pistol and ammo. Oh - I won't be needing a bag...
Bullshit. It is a witch hunt, pure and simple. I will in no way deny the tragic events and the evil of those that implemented it. HOWEVER, when there are hospital workers who where imprisioned for 5 months because "they wore their surgical mask too much" (according to a co-worker), perhaps rational response was lacking.
Not to be pedantic, but the US really didn't elect Bush, rather the Supreme Court appointed him.
And the President is actually accountable to the public (in theory). Conservatives ragged on Clinton for polling to find out what people wanted (and supported what was 'popular'), but it is better than Bush, where he pretends to support the popular choice, then actually undermines it while loudly proclaiming his support.
You remind me of this. And maybe everyone should walk around with a GPS recorder everyday, so that we know where you went. Oh - you're opposed? You must have something to hide! Are you a terrorist?
As the police rely on DNA more and more, they stop performing thorough criminal investigations. And it is a slippery slope: do you start using DNA evidence to catch the guy who's only crime was to spit gum on the street? If this doesn't give you pause, then I hope you enjoy the fruits of such an environment.
you claim it falls under defense. However, the fleet approaching has yet to fire a single shot... they are merely approaching.
Your example does not expose an inconsistency in my interpetation. What would happen in such an example: 1) The presence and direction of the fleet would be known well in advance. 2) at some point, 'polite' diplomatic inquiries into the fleet would begin. 3) the nation that launched the fleet would eventually do one of three things:
a) declare war
b) return/stop the fleet
c) continue the fleet's progress without a declaration of war The only case that fits your scenario is c. In that case, the there would be a increase in diplomatic discussions, eventually leading to an ultimatium: your fleet is not to come within XXX miles of our coast. Any transgression is considered an act of war. If the fleet violates the territorial waters of our nation, war is implictly declared.
So, a detailed analysis shows your example to be a valid defensive action.
What would you do if our satellites saw a fleet of naval vessels approaching our coast (aircraft carriers, amphibious assault vehicles, etc.)?
Your example clearly falls under the definition of defense- we would be DEFENDING our country from an attack. BTW -How many other countries in the world have a fleet that includes aircraft carriers?
If something happens somewhere else in the world that threatens our way of life, then preventing that from transpiring may be a significant enough threat. There's the catch - there is a slippery slope in the definition of that threat. I would assert that we have gone extremely far down it.
Also note that I have not mentioned anything about Iraq. True - but it is the most recent example of a new policy in the use of our military, so it is most assuredly applicable.
As for your so-called "facts", exactly where have you acquired them? I would assume that unless you're a foot soldier in Iraq right now, you have received your information through some news agency. So why is that news agency anymore credible than FOX? It's all hear-say to you. You simply choose to believe the stories that agree with your political persuasion. Well, we can quickly fall into a endlessly deep discussion on epistemology. But, belief in something does not change the facts of a situation.
Your solution to the fact that you're going to make enemies is to do more of the things that make you those enemies?
I think you have managed to sum up Bush's foreign policy in one sentence. If you can come up with descriptions as succinct of his economic policy and his environmental policies, I think your 3 sentences would be longer than the longest book Bush ever read...
I would say we would have had the same situation on our hands as Europe did pre-WWII..
Not by a longshot. Was Iraq sinking our shipping? I don't think so. Comparing Iraq to Germany is really a lame arguement. For starters, there never was any chance Iraq could win. Germany on the otherhand was extremely advanced, both in military capability and technological prowness.
Did I say to be a pollyanna? No. Here are a few facts(BTW, for you republicans, facts are things that are true):
1) Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11. 2) Iraq had no WMD 3) We attacked Iraq.
The war in Iraq was in no way necessary. Bush forced it to happen.
And please, spare me your "We liberated Iraq" BS. Or the "The WMD were moved to XXXX", and the "If we hadn't stood firm, Saddam would have gotten stronger".
The same people who complained about how the UN arms inspectors couldn't find Iraq's WMD need to explain their absence.
The hypocrisy gets better - unless I misheard, the Bush administration is thinking of asking Nato or the UN to help in Iraq.
So, to boil everything down to a simple theme: We need a strong military DEFENSE. We really don't need a strong military OFFENSE.
Maybe you're ready to live under strict Islamic fundamentalist law, but I'm not. And that's pretty much the choice that Uncle Osama has laid on our doorstep.
In a word: BULLSHIT.
Can you actually provide any proof? How is Osama forcing anything on us?
What a myth. Defense spending is not good for the economy. Spending $5,000,000,000.00 dollars on a weapon does not enhance the economy as much as improving infrastructure. The money is better spent on things like transportation, education, communication, or even the national parks. The same money would make as many jobs anywhere else in the conomy, and leave a tangible improvment, versus a continual money suck on the economy.
Amazing. It seems that conservatives always trot out Hitler and start spouting appeasment. I'm sure that Limbaugh (blowhard) school gives you a few other examples. Oh, it doesn't?
At a national level you either are powerful and defend your interest or you are a play thing of your enemies. Like Switzerland. Or Canada. Or Sweden. They seem to have a lot less enemies than the US. And they don't have to appease.
So turn off Fox news, and try to avoid the cult-like conservative thought process for a while. You might actually learn about things like compassion, and liberty.
Really - we are sooooo much safer now that Saddam's WMD are gone, aren't we? (for the conservative dittohead: this worry - you don't need to think about it. You don't even need to use the FOX news wrong answer. I'll give the answer to you - the real answer is NO)
Yes, but notice how he use pretty good grammer. He also has a decent vocabulary. No doubt, he was earlier in the slash-education process. Don't worry, the current crop of students will be too ignorant to catch on.
Aschcroft is already alerted and will soon execute that wanna-be-terrorist/liberal/communist/america-hater.
Am I the only one who noticed the discrepency between: in the high end markets, RISC CPUs from HP, SGI, IBM and Sun still dominate. x86 has never been able to reach these performance levels... and: x86 CPUs have been getting faster and faster for the last few years, threatening even the server vendors. HP and SGI may have given up...
Am I going to argue that the x86 is ineffecient? Hell no. But it gets the job done better than many critics anticipate. And it seems to piss them off to no end...
Well, I guess you must be happy with the direction that society is going: paranoid, repressed, and ignorant.
Sorry, I just don't buy into your approach. I would rather have a terrorist blow up a fiber-optic connection or a power grid than kill thousands of people in a crowded city. The is not the kind of message that/alleged/ terrorists want to send. The way people talk these days, it is as if a terrorist is on every corner, just waiting to cause mayhem.
What is next on your list of restricted information?
Slashdot Mirror
I am tired of seeing people 'tasked'. Or having to put my cell phone to the 'off position' while on an airplane. It seems like legalese is taking over ordinary usage of english.
The "there'll be no music" arguement is complete BS. Before modern copyright law, people made music. Creative people will draw, sculpt, and make music independent of copyright law. Creating art is something people do. The only thing that copyright law produced was 1)RIAA/MPAA, and 2) pop stars. Maybe you think that there are not enough N'syncs, but I for one think one is too many.
If you look at the contracts that most musicians sign, you will see that they are exceptionally one-sided. So, while the musicians ARE getting screwed by p2p, the real losers from p2p are the record labels. And frankly, I don't have much compassion for record labels.
I also want to mention the Lifetime + 70 years copyright length. I think that the RIAA/MPAA are trying to keep the public domain as empty as possible, in the hopes that the public domain withers away. Yet the corporations will take as much from the public domain as possible (e.g. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen)
Wow - the way you phrase that it gives the impression that envirionmentalists are like boogiemen just waiting to leap out at you.
Actaually, rotting is not as great a problem. Plain wood can last a long time - look at the many hundred+ year old buildings around. Also, redwood is naturally resistant to rot.
Finally, if you make the bike somewhat modular, it would be possible to periodically replace sections which show any signs of damage or rot.
My main question, which the article really didn't address (or I misses it), is price. Obviously, the first article must have been expensive. But how low could these get in volume production?
Actually,
There are anti-neutrons - the parameter that changes is spin, IIRC.
As for visiting an anti-matter galaxy, you would be mostly fine (probably just a lot more radiation from interstellar particles eroding your ship's hull. Just don't try to land on a planet.
Absolutely love my s800. Awesome printer - fast, reliable. Much more robust than any HP I've ever had. Ink is cheaper, and prints beautiful photos. Canon is the way to go. No stupid chips like HP or Epson. No outrageously priced ink like Lexmark.
The conversation really goes like:
I'd like a gun and ammo
Here you go. That'll be $342.22
Here's my anonymous cash card!
Right, here's your pistol and ammo.
Oh - I won't be needing a bag...
Everything in society is not about terrorism, yet it is the overwhelming topic. I want to make and addendum to Godwin's Law:
Every slashdot discussion will eventually mention terrorism.
So you can read minds? How long did that take for dubya, anyway?
It is not a hysterical witch hunt
Bullshit. It is a witch hunt, pure and simple. I will in no way deny the tragic events and the evil of those that implemented it. HOWEVER, when there are hospital workers who where imprisioned for 5 months because "they wore their surgical mask too much" (according to a co-worker), perhaps rational response was lacking.
Not to be pedantic, but the US really didn't elect Bush, rather the Supreme Court appointed him.
And the President is actually accountable to the public (in theory). Conservatives ragged on Clinton for polling to find out what people wanted (and supported what was 'popular'), but it is better than Bush, where he pretends to support the popular choice, then actually undermines it while loudly proclaiming his support.
You remind me of this. And maybe everyone should walk around with a GPS recorder everyday, so that we know where you went. Oh - you're opposed? You must have something to hide! Are you a terrorist?
As the police rely on DNA more and more, they stop performing thorough criminal investigations. And it is a slippery slope: do you start using DNA evidence to catch the guy who's only crime was to spit gum on the street? If this doesn't give you pause, then I hope you enjoy the fruits of such an environment.
You forgot to include:
A reading from the holy book, as written by the prophet Adams, you insenstive clod!
On Linux, I would agree with you. But on other platforms, Framemaker is a serious package that scales much better than Word.
you claim it falls under defense. However, the fleet approaching has yet to fire a single shot... they are merely approaching.
Your example does not expose an inconsistency in my interpetation. What would happen in such an example:
1) The presence and direction of the fleet would be known well in advance.
2) at some point, 'polite' diplomatic inquiries into the fleet would begin.
3) the nation that launched the fleet would eventually do one of three things:
a) declare war
b) return/stop the fleet
c) continue the fleet's progress without a declaration of war
The only case that fits your scenario is c. In that case, the there would be a increase in diplomatic discussions, eventually leading to an ultimatium: your fleet is not to come within XXX miles of our coast. Any transgression is considered an act of war. If the fleet violates the territorial waters of our nation, war is implictly declared.
So, a detailed analysis shows your example to be a valid defensive action.
What would you do if our satellites saw a fleet of naval vessels approaching our coast (aircraft carriers, amphibious assault vehicles, etc.)?
Your example clearly falls under the definition of defense- we would be DEFENDING our country from an attack. BTW -How many other countries in the world have a fleet that includes aircraft carriers?
If something happens somewhere else in the world that threatens our way of life, then preventing that from transpiring may be a significant enough threat.
There's the catch - there is a slippery slope in the definition of that threat. I would assert that we have gone extremely far down it.
Also note that I have not mentioned anything about Iraq.
True - but it is the most recent example of a new policy in the use of our military, so it is most assuredly applicable.
As for your so-called "facts", exactly where have you acquired them? I would assume that unless you're a foot soldier in Iraq right now, you have received your information through some news agency. So why is that news agency anymore credible than FOX? It's all hear-say to you. You simply choose to believe the stories that agree with your political persuasion.
Well, we can quickly fall into a endlessly deep discussion on epistemology. But, belief in something does not change the facts of a situation.
Your solution to the fact that you're going to make enemies is to do more of the things that make you those enemies?
I think you have managed to sum up Bush's foreign policy in one sentence.
If you can come up with descriptions as succinct of his economic policy and his environmental policies, I think your 3 sentences would be longer than the longest book Bush ever read...
I would say we would have had the same situation on our hands as Europe did pre-WWII..
Not by a longshot. Was Iraq sinking our shipping? I don't think so. Comparing Iraq to Germany is really a lame arguement. For starters, there never was any chance Iraq could win. Germany on the otherhand was extremely advanced, both in military capability and technological prowness.
Did I say to be a pollyanna? No. Here are a few facts(BTW, for you republicans, facts are things that are true):
1) Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11.
2) Iraq had no WMD
3) We attacked Iraq.
The war in Iraq was in no way necessary. Bush forced it to happen.
And please, spare me your "We liberated Iraq" BS. Or the "The WMD were moved to XXXX", and the "If we hadn't stood firm, Saddam would have gotten stronger".
The same people who complained about how the UN arms inspectors couldn't find Iraq's WMD need to explain their absence.
The hypocrisy gets better - unless I misheard, the Bush administration is thinking of asking Nato or the UN to help in Iraq.
So, to boil everything down to a simple theme: We need a strong military DEFENSE. We really don't need a strong military OFFENSE.
Maybe you're ready to live under strict Islamic fundamentalist law, but I'm not. And that's pretty much the choice that Uncle Osama has laid on our doorstep.
In a word: BULLSHIT.
Can you actually provide any proof? How is Osama forcing anything on us?
What a myth. Defense spending is not good for the economy. Spending $5,000,000,000.00 dollars on a weapon does not enhance the economy as much as improving infrastructure. The money is better spent on things like transportation, education, communication, or even the national parks. The same money would make as many jobs anywhere else in the conomy, and leave a tangible improvment, versus a continual money suck on the economy.
Amazing. It seems that conservatives always trot out Hitler and start spouting appeasment. I'm sure that Limbaugh (blowhard) school gives you a few other examples. Oh, it doesn't?
At a national level you either are powerful and defend your interest or you are a play thing of your enemies.
Like Switzerland. Or Canada. Or Sweden. They seem to have a lot less enemies than the US. And they don't have to appease.
So turn off Fox news, and try to avoid the cult-like conservative thought process for a while. You might actually learn about things like compassion, and liberty.
Actually, maybe try no conflict.
Really - we are sooooo much safer now that Saddam's WMD are gone, aren't we? (for the conservative dittohead: this worry - you don't need to think about it. You don't even need to use the FOX news wrong answer. I'll give the answer to you - the real answer is NO)
Yes, but notice how he use pretty good grammer. He also has a decent vocabulary. No doubt, he was earlier in the slash-education process. Don't worry, the current crop of students will be too ignorant to catch on.
r .
Aschcroft is already alerted and will soon execute that wanna-be-terrorist/liberal/communist/america-hate
Am I the only one who noticed the discrepency between:
in the high end markets, RISC CPUs from HP, SGI, IBM and Sun still dominate. x86 has never been able to reach these performance levels...
and:
x86 CPUs have been getting faster and faster for the last few years, threatening even the server vendors. HP and SGI may have given up...
Am I going to argue that the x86 is ineffecient? Hell no. But it gets the job done better than many critics anticipate. And it seems to piss them off to no end...
Well, I guess you must be happy with the direction that society is going: paranoid, repressed, and ignorant.
/alleged/ terrorists want to send. The way people talk these days, it is as if a terrorist is on every corner, just waiting to cause mayhem.
Sorry, I just don't buy into your approach. I would rather have a terrorist blow up a fiber-optic connection or a power grid than kill thousands of people in a crowded city. The is not the kind of message that
What is next on your list of restricted information?