Seriously... if Obama were as amazing as we were supposed to believe he is, it would be more than enough to promote his virtues rather than trying to smear the opponent. Guess Obama isn't all that great stuff.
Read the summary, it's just some blogger doing this - not Obama himself. Besides, both candidates are going to point out the bad things about the other.
Pointing out your opponents flaws is not a smear campaign - I'd have to say it's central to any campaign.
Just the idea of moving the swap whatever, file or partition to a second drive is a good idea. Geez'ol petes, I figured the linux users wouldn't need a primer.
What I usually like to do with them is if I have an extra slot on the HD IDE I put the smaller drive as a dedicated swap. Takes some of the wear and tear off the main drive and gives you a nice little speed boost as well. But that is my 02c,YMMV
This is always a good idea. Move the swap and the Windows temp to this drive and keep it formatted FAT32 (or lower). If you can, partition the disk up and give it two 2 gig partitions. Each partition should be formatted FAT16 (aka: FAT, no 32). FAT32 and FAT16 need to read/write to the disk less for each transaction than NTFS and is much faster for it. Since it's just swap and temp files, you don't need NTFS.
If you do this, you leave the rest of the drive open for users' personal files or whatever. The two partition setup should be one for swapfiles, the other for temp files. You can get more creative and create another for a web browser cache, but as you create partitions the drive head has to move farther to span the space and slows down the operation. A large FAT32 partition works well if you dig deep and move a lot off onto this second drive. Another thing to keep in mind is what people are going to be putting into their temp directory. Video work might create files bigger than the partition. In this case, create a 2 gig swap partition at FAT16 and leave the rest FAT32 for normal files.
I always get a second drive now for this reason. Helps in both Windows and Linux. For even better results, keep the drives on different IDE channels. Just think, the overall strategy is to keep one disk working on program data and the other working on the memory swap data - a major bottleneck, especially at IDE speeds.
The funny thing about this statement, and the business that we are talking about here is this: I fired up this browser in the search of homes, condos and apartments in St. Petersburg, Fl where I'm thinking of moving for a different job. The reason this is an issue, and the reason the traditional real estate agent is so afraid is because this newfangled Internet (and this is how it intersects with nerd news) gives me the ability to check those listings from my home in Cincinnati, Oh.
Look out of my window all I see are large apartment buildings and I can't help but to think they could be cutting their overall energy consumption with solar panels. The tops of these building are flat and wide and raise above the landscape, I look out and see an energy farm.
I think there should be a city ordinance that states that each apartment building with more than 10 subunits should be forced to either install a set of solar panels or allow the local utility to do so. The surface area in my city alone could help the resident imprint. Make the law at the city level so it can be chosen to be followed by the local residents and if the property owner installs the system themselves allow their panels energy to impact the residents bill. I think there are forces in this type of legislation that could drive the market for panels and attracting residents with energy savings.
Putting panels sky scrapers don't make sense because they simply use too much energy compared to their top surface area, their impact would be minimal - but look around, there are many places these things could go. In some buildings during the day there is absolutely no one too, they are off somewhere else using energy but the building where they live is just feeding into the grid (or paying off their evening's usage).
It would be costly and would need to be implemented over some time frame; but the market would drive for the cheapest - and eventually most efficient of hardware.
Then call them and stop calling me and those of us who don't want to be called....
This argument falls flat when we continue to get telemarketing calls from companies who bypass the DNC list with loopholes.
First point: Sign up on the list, problem solved. Otherwise, can't help ya.
Second point: Don't lump us in with the criminals, you can't argue your logic against my points when you are using them as a go-between. It's like saying I'm a religious Jew who must defend myself against your view of Catholics...
They are criminals and haven't been punished enough.
I guess you can read that over and over and see it as an 'advocation' of beatings, but it really isn't and wasn't ever meant to be. And the next sentence makes me realize that this reply has nothing to really do with what I wrote - no where do I advocate Islam or really anything.
I'm just trying to say that these cut and dry looks at these other societies and comparing them our own is why we are in some eternal war with these other damn societies!!! Stop making all of these judgments and fucking educate yourself. I'm sorry, I'm just getting so sick of it all.
That is the entire problem, the people who thought this was a great idea are the same ones who don't mind being watched.
My big point of the year is this: The government isn't some far off, distant, thing that takes our money (and still is in debt), builds roads (to nowhere) and fights (immoral, illegal) wars. The government, in this great nation, IS the people. Once people realize this we can return to a society that valued freedom and the (history book) ideals that we were founded on.
This country needs its own French Enlightenment. It needs to have some writers, thinkers and speakers who don't involve themselves in the process at that level but rediscover the ideals we have strayed from (liberty!) and promote them to the masses. When people start saying The Government can look into your life then it's time to remind them that they are trying to look into your life, they are the ones trying to police your life. Start examining them for flaws, with most people it's not hard, and manipulate them if you have to - they need to realize that this is a very slippery slope.
That is a fact. I would rather live in an immoral society that has respect for others, than in one were you die if you don't pray often enough.
But your logic falls flat on its face (good sir!). First an immoral society, by definition can't have respect for others as it is the first tenet of many moral frameworks. Some would even argue respect for others is one of the greatest virtues. I also have to add that you can die at the hands of another in this society. I would have to say, just as easily if not more so.
My purpose here isn't to say 'they' are better than 'us' or that Islam is great or anything like that. I'm just saying that I'd rather know I could be killed by sleeping with someone's wife than worry about the guy that lugs around the interoffice mail because he is having a bad day. The hing is neither ideal is perfect as we have extreme religious, racial and apparently environmental groups that commit random acts every so often in the name of their ideals and they have random crime as well.
It's just that there are some basic things in societies that are protected in different ways - a part of the schism between Sunnis and Shiites is about hereditary rights - and these things like marriage, property rights, etc are always protected in some form.
You know what, this is a very insightful comment. I totally disagree with the statement that they can not fight the iPod, and no one else even stands a chance, because it's plain silly.
Microsoft beat the pants off the much better Apple once before because they did exactly what you mention and exactly what everyone is thinking they should be doing in regards to this situation. Apple made those pretty Macs, and people loved them. Microsoft beat them because they brought together a variety of hardware vendors together under their software platform. (Which they purchased, have to say it, can't resist the urge; Dave Cutler essentially wrote NT -> XP, and parts of Vista!)
All Microsoft has to do is create a hardware and software platform this time that does what Windows (once) did: Just Exist. Make the thing power on and talk to devices with common USB comm protocols, play music and video and just work. Don't build this system that takes care of the user, because many of us don't want that. We want a gadget we can play music on and tinker with - even on your limited level Microsoft!
Or, create a hands off software platform to unite those other hardware vendors against Apple - let the hardware manufacturer put the DRM on your platform.
MS: Get back to the BASICS and learn that your software platform is very successful. You don't have to fight Apple on the hardware front.
There are *no* legitimate telemarketing companies. Nobody has ever asked you to call them on the telephone and try to sell them something; stop trying to pretend otherwise. If you call me with a sales pitch, regardless of what it is or who you represent, I'll want your head on a pike.
What a laugh!
Sure, no one calls a telemarketer and asks them to call back - that logic fails when you are talking about an industry that thrives on cold calling.
Let me share; I work for a company that sells its product through telemarketing. I also used to work in the telemarketing office. At this point I must point out that you are asking for retirees and teenagers heads on a pike. The rest of the room is usually filled with people who've made mistakes in life and are trying to turn it around for the better. My point here is that the telemarketers themselves aren't evil - they are either trying to get by or are good at what they do, plain and simple. I see people on/. advocate yelling at callers and all of these other crazy ideas - but it is so far out of line with what has happened to you. No one called and yelled at you, and why would you want to yell at a 60 year old woman who wants something to do with her life? (Or a innocent kid - most of the younger crowd we would get are serious college students who love a flexible job that lets them read between calls. And with the available jobs out there for these demographics, be happy they are working period.)
I guess you could say that the management is evil, they are the ones forcing this poor people into making these calls. But lets speak to your point made in your post; telemarketing simply works. We have three avenues for marketing our product (directly to consumers), mail, phone and e-mail. (Aside: E-mail has been reserved for communications with existing customers and we have no desire to use this method.)
But since I'm the database marketing analyst and do these reports weekly, across the spectrum, let's look at the figures and you can decide if we can refute your argument:
Mail: Response rate is, on average, 1.5% and we mail 10,000 addresses a month. I've tried to communicate to those higher than me on the totem poll that, yes, we are getting orders from this method, but it is a huge waste of money. The cost per order is sometimes as high as $25.
Phones: The closing rate is anywhere from 5%-15% depending on the type of calling campaign (sequential numbers, targeted Prizm lists, new movers, etc). This means that in ~300 calling hours we would net ~475 orders. That's in just one week. Our voluntary sign up rate is the only one that is higher for new orders. The cost per order by the way: $2 - $7 depending on the week, how many calling hours, orders, and other costs.
Which would you employ?
The question then must be asked; why do you think that people don't want to be called and sold to? Yes, you don't, and many others don't, but plenty of people do. This isn't to say it's right or wrong to call someone to market to them (not my issue, and certainly one that could be debated until the end of time because there is no right answer). The reality is that it is simple economics - people buy so there is an economic incentive to call them and make a pitch.
As far as DNC lists are concerned; we are overly cautious. In fact, the best thing that could have happened to the telemarketing industry (overall) is the National Do Not Call Registry - it helps us avoid people who would verbally abuse a phone rep when a simple "no" or "place me on your do not call list" would suffice. Maybe you've had a bad experience with a company, but painting us all with the same brush... well that's prejudice (and I guess racism if you think you are just plain better than these 'scum of the earth' telemarketers).
But hell, if you think I'm lying let's look at some published numbers! Now I'll disclose the product in question: a newspaper. You know that dying old thing that no one wants anymore because th
sure america isn't perfect, but it's legal to beat your wife if she "dishonors" you in iran. which society do you think is more moral?
I'm betting wives in Iran don't "dishonor" their husbands as much as in the USA. Not that this is justification for a "beating", but looking at societies (seemingly) stuck in all stages of historic (and prehistoric) justice systems, their harsh punishments often reduce these crimes to almost zero. Where murder is punishable by ritual eating of the offender by the victims family there are very few murders.
And an authoritarian regime isn't needed to back up these systems, they just seem to go hand and hand. Usually the people would opt-out of these types of systems over time, because people as a collective want the freedom to do what is "wrong". This is where your question of morality comes into play. Is it fair to even compare the two? One is harsh and enforces rules quickly, and is admittedly unevenly handed (ie. men's vs. women's rights). The other seems more modern, but there exists no rules (laws) about honor, fidelity and etc, and those matters are left to be a personal choice and "no one else's business" (save you're the President).
Iran could argue that we are immoral as a society because they punish infidelity where we tolerate it. We could argue their system of punishment isn't fair because it can far outweigh the committed offense. The argument shouldn't be about which is "better" or more "moral" the argument should even exist. They are two different systems for two different societies, two different peoples. We are both raised from birth with a different outlook on the world as a whole, so either isn't pretty from the viewpoints of each of their peoples.
Judgments need to end and scholarship needs to take over. What the world needs now isn't soldiers, it needs philosophers. Looking at the surface is what is driving us apart. (American Evangelicals and Iranians have more in common than they'd both like to admit, share more goals than they'd like to admit.)
'Sloppy' can also get guilty people out of jail (in prosecutors terms) or delay the punishment of a guilty person because of sloppiness (sloppy defense attorney, execution delayed 20 years).
It's best that the people working in this system are 'on their game' at all times so it works as intended. I wonder how the BAR association may feel about this?
I don't have to picture it in my mind, I have a frost mage for that. This way I can see what I'd really look like as a hot skinny babe with boobs (or not really look like? I'm getting confused).
To be fair, my ex-gf started the toon. And, no, she didn't leave me because I played too much WoW. She's a devoted WoW fan who would look up quests before I even picked them up! Why did I leave her again?
First let's set aside this idea that we'll eventually employ these techniques and technologies to police drug dealers et. al. - it's already happening. DHS is working with law enforcement now to blanket the states with airborne surveillance.
Rather I want to address something that's been building lately (and you roughly hinted to in your post) mostly because of the tax season. I keep hearing people complain how the "government" is taking their money, and the "government" does this or that and they disagree. Yes, the United States government is an institution (many actually). Yes, this institution makes decisions everyday that have an effect on our lives, rules by agencies and committees all the way up to lasting legislation. But it isn't "them" doing it "to" us, or "it" living out it's own wishes. It is a body "for and by the people".
I'm not just beating the old 'vote so you have a right to complain' drum here - I'm talking about full commitment by the people of this nation. When someone starts seeing what has been going on for the past 7 years, and says something to me about it, I respond as such: "It's your fault! You've been sleeping while all of this has been happening - you've been asking for this to be done!"
I want to write more, but maybe my blog is a place for that. Besides, I'm being paid right now as a DB Analyst, not a Constitutional Scholar. (and this is my most half assed post ever.)
Even more Google offers a search within a site inline already.
When I'm tweaking my PVR I'll go to their forums but I do so with the Google search bar in my browser. After the second result I get... More results from forums.gbpvr.com
This idea has existed since Altavista, we could always search within a domain. Create a robots.txt, block all search engines, problem solved.
It should be pointed out that a move to digital only channels will only entrench the consumer in higher bills.
Right now I have the *right* to unscrambled HD content, and the *ability* to decode the analog cable signal freely. If the system moves to be all digital I'll never again be able to simply plug that coax into a TV or a PC tuner again - unless there is regulation in effect that keeps it "open". I don't see that ever happening, as with my local provider (Time Warner) you must call and *request* the ability to output from your digital cable box via Firewire (something that I understand is *mandated* by the FCC).
It sucks when the FCC gets into the cable's business, but to protect the rights of consumers sometimes they must. It isn't always fair to them - but look at your bill sometime - are they ever fair with you? (My city has negotiated a contract with the cable company setting a *floor* price for cable... so they are both screwing me).
If you think digital cable will be 'open', look at how many PC-based CableCard tuners exist out there. (All related technologies are doomed to fail due to both the cable company and the content owners).
Then again the question should be asked: Why do I and the cable companies need to pay for ad supported content in the first place?
If Disney, ESPN, et. al. are making millions on commercials shouldn't they beg the cable companies to carry their networks? Shouldn't *they* be paying for the bandwidth, not I?
The best part is that 'weblogs' like Slashdot pick up these stories and their likelihood of becoming common knowledge explode. Wikipedia is 'reporting' this story and they are being sued over spreading this 'untruth' - now Slashdot has just reported it too. Will the mayor of Florence sue CNN when it hits the mainstream media?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are the mistaken impression that these groups give a damn about the rest of us.
Internet piracy is more important to go after because it doesn't kill anyone and hurts (so the claim goes) the other powered elite.
Really, there is no room for piracy in the new world order - but famine, disease and slavery... they are all in the playbook.
Seriously... if Obama were as amazing as we were supposed to believe he is, it would be more than enough to promote his virtues rather than trying to smear the opponent. Guess Obama isn't all that great stuff.
Read the summary, it's just some blogger doing this - not Obama himself. Besides, both candidates are going to point out the bad things about the other.
Pointing out your opponents flaws is not a smear campaign - I'd have to say it's central to any campaign.
Just the idea of moving the swap whatever, file or partition to a second drive is a good idea. Geez'ol petes, I figured the linux users wouldn't need a primer.
But you can't even travel to those other states, your state has said it isn't safe based on statistical analysis. Sorry.
What I usually like to do with them is if I have an extra slot on the HD IDE I put the smaller drive as a dedicated swap. Takes some of the wear and tear off the main drive and gives you a nice little speed boost as well. But that is my 02c,YMMV
This is always a good idea. Move the swap and the Windows temp to this drive and keep it formatted FAT32 (or lower). If you can, partition the disk up and give it two 2 gig partitions. Each partition should be formatted FAT16 (aka: FAT, no 32). FAT32 and FAT16 need to read/write to the disk less for each transaction than NTFS and is much faster for it. Since it's just swap and temp files, you don't need NTFS.
If you do this, you leave the rest of the drive open for users' personal files or whatever. The two partition setup should be one for swapfiles, the other for temp files. You can get more creative and create another for a web browser cache, but as you create partitions the drive head has to move farther to span the space and slows down the operation. A large FAT32 partition works well if you dig deep and move a lot off onto this second drive. Another thing to keep in mind is what people are going to be putting into their temp directory. Video work might create files bigger than the partition. In this case, create a 2 gig swap partition at FAT16 and leave the rest FAT32 for normal files.
I always get a second drive now for this reason. Helps in both Windows and Linux. For even better results, keep the drives on different IDE channels. Just think, the overall strategy is to keep one disk working on program data and the other working on the memory swap data - a major bottleneck, especially at IDE speeds.
the quality of what was available through p2p's was suspect at best.
You say!
"Attract Almost As Much Interest"
The funny thing about this statement, and the business that we are talking about here is this: I fired up this browser in the search of homes, condos and apartments in St. Petersburg, Fl where I'm thinking of moving for a different job. The reason this is an issue, and the reason the traditional real estate agent is so afraid is because this newfangled Internet (and this is how it intersects with nerd news) gives me the ability to check those listings from my home in Cincinnati, Oh.
Look out of my window all I see are large apartment buildings and I can't help but to think they could be cutting their overall energy consumption with solar panels. The tops of these building are flat and wide and raise above the landscape, I look out and see an energy farm.
I think there should be a city ordinance that states that each apartment building with more than 10 subunits should be forced to either install a set of solar panels or allow the local utility to do so. The surface area in my city alone could help the resident imprint. Make the law at the city level so it can be chosen to be followed by the local residents and if the property owner installs the system themselves allow their panels energy to impact the residents bill. I think there are forces in this type of legislation that could drive the market for panels and attracting residents with energy savings.
Putting panels sky scrapers don't make sense because they simply use too much energy compared to their top surface area, their impact would be minimal - but look around, there are many places these things could go. In some buildings during the day there is absolutely no one too, they are off somewhere else using energy but the building where they live is just feeding into the grid (or paying off their evening's usage).
It would be costly and would need to be implemented over some time frame; but the market would drive for the cheapest - and eventually most efficient of hardware.
No one ever said a business has to be profitable either. Many new ones aren't in the first five years.
Then call them and stop calling me and those of us who don't want to be called. ...
This argument falls flat when we continue to get telemarketing calls from companies who bypass the DNC list with loopholes.
First point: Sign up on the list, problem solved. Otherwise, can't help ya.
Second point: Don't lump us in with the criminals, you can't argue your logic against my points when you are using them as a go-between. It's like saying I'm a religious Jew who must defend myself against your view of Catholics...
They are criminals and haven't been punished enough.
I guess you can read that over and over and see it as an 'advocation' of beatings, but it really isn't and wasn't ever meant to be. And the next sentence makes me realize that this reply has nothing to really do with what I wrote - no where do I advocate Islam or really anything.
I'm just trying to say that these cut and dry looks at these other societies and comparing them our own is why we are in some eternal war with these other damn societies!!! Stop making all of these judgments and fucking educate yourself. I'm sorry, I'm just getting so sick of it all.
That is the entire problem, the people who thought this was a great idea are the same ones who don't mind being watched.
My big point of the year is this: The government isn't some far off, distant, thing that takes our money (and still is in debt), builds roads (to nowhere) and fights (immoral, illegal) wars. The government, in this great nation, IS the people. Once people realize this we can return to a society that valued freedom and the (history book) ideals that we were founded on.
This country needs its own French Enlightenment. It needs to have some writers, thinkers and speakers who don't involve themselves in the process at that level but rediscover the ideals we have strayed from (liberty!) and promote them to the masses. When people start saying The Government can look into your life then it's time to remind them that they are trying to look into your life, they are the ones trying to police your life. Start examining them for flaws, with most people it's not hard, and manipulate them if you have to - they need to realize that this is a very slippery slope.
That is a fact. I would rather live in an immoral society that has respect for others, than in one were you die if you don't pray often enough.
But your logic falls flat on its face (good sir!). First an immoral society, by definition can't have respect for others as it is the first tenet of many moral frameworks. Some would even argue respect for others is one of the greatest virtues. I also have to add that you can die at the hands of another in this society. I would have to say, just as easily if not more so.
My purpose here isn't to say 'they' are better than 'us' or that Islam is great or anything like that. I'm just saying that I'd rather know I could be killed by sleeping with someone's wife than worry about the guy that lugs around the interoffice mail because he is having a bad day. The hing is neither ideal is perfect as we have extreme religious, racial and apparently environmental groups that commit random acts every so often in the name of their ideals and they have random crime as well.
It's just that there are some basic things in societies that are protected in different ways - a part of the schism between Sunnis and Shiites is about hereditary rights - and these things like marriage, property rights, etc are always protected in some form.
You know what, this is a very insightful comment. I totally disagree with the statement that they can not fight the iPod, and no one else even stands a chance, because it's plain silly.
Microsoft beat the pants off the much better Apple once before because they did exactly what you mention and exactly what everyone is thinking they should be doing in regards to this situation. Apple made those pretty Macs, and people loved them. Microsoft beat them because they brought together a variety of hardware vendors together under their software platform. (Which they purchased, have to say it, can't resist the urge; Dave Cutler essentially wrote NT -> XP, and parts of Vista!)
All Microsoft has to do is create a hardware and software platform this time that does what Windows (once) did: Just Exist. Make the thing power on and talk to devices with common USB comm protocols, play music and video and just work. Don't build this system that takes care of the user, because many of us don't want that. We want a gadget we can play music on and tinker with - even on your limited level Microsoft!
Or, create a hands off software platform to unite those other hardware vendors against Apple - let the hardware manufacturer put the DRM on your platform.
MS: Get back to the BASICS and learn that your software platform is very successful. You don't have to fight Apple on the hardware front.
I guess there is one candidate for President that didn't vote for USAPATRIOT or the Iraq war...
But that's an exercise for the reader.
There are *no* legitimate telemarketing companies. Nobody has ever asked you to call them on the telephone and try to sell them something; stop trying to pretend otherwise. If you call me with a sales pitch, regardless of what it is or who you represent, I'll want your head on a pike.
/. advocate yelling at callers and all of these other crazy ideas - but it is so far out of line with what has happened to you. No one called and yelled at you, and why would you want to yell at a 60 year old woman who wants something to do with her life? (Or a innocent kid - most of the younger crowd we would get are serious college students who love a flexible job that lets them read between calls. And with the available jobs out there for these demographics, be happy they are working period.)
What a laugh!
Sure, no one calls a telemarketer and asks them to call back - that logic fails when you are talking about an industry that thrives on cold calling.
Let me share; I work for a company that sells its product through telemarketing. I also used to work in the telemarketing office. At this point I must point out that you are asking for retirees and teenagers heads on a pike. The rest of the room is usually filled with people who've made mistakes in life and are trying to turn it around for the better. My point here is that the telemarketers themselves aren't evil - they are either trying to get by or are good at what they do, plain and simple. I see people on
I guess you could say that the management is evil, they are the ones forcing this poor people into making these calls. But lets speak to your point made in your post; telemarketing simply works. We have three avenues for marketing our product (directly to consumers), mail, phone and e-mail. (Aside: E-mail has been reserved for communications with existing customers and we have no desire to use this method.)
But since I'm the database marketing analyst and do these reports weekly, across the spectrum, let's look at the figures and you can decide if we can refute your argument:
Mail:
Response rate is, on average, 1.5% and we mail 10,000 addresses a month. I've tried to communicate to those higher than me on the totem poll that, yes, we are getting orders from this method, but it is a huge waste of money. The cost per order is sometimes as high as $25.
Phones:
The closing rate is anywhere from 5%-15% depending on the type of calling campaign (sequential numbers, targeted Prizm lists, new movers, etc). This means that in ~300 calling hours we would net ~475 orders. That's in just one week. Our voluntary sign up rate is the only one that is higher for new orders. The cost per order by the way: $2 - $7 depending on the week, how many calling hours, orders, and other costs.
Which would you employ?
The question then must be asked; why do you think that people don't want to be called and sold to? Yes, you don't, and many others don't, but plenty of people do. This isn't to say it's right or wrong to call someone to market to them (not my issue, and certainly one that could be debated until the end of time because there is no right answer). The reality is that it is simple economics - people buy so there is an economic incentive to call them and make a pitch.
As far as DNC lists are concerned; we are overly cautious. In fact, the best thing that could have happened to the telemarketing industry (overall) is the National Do Not Call Registry - it helps us avoid people who would verbally abuse a phone rep when a simple "no" or "place me on your do not call list" would suffice. Maybe you've had a bad experience with a company, but painting us all with the same brush... well that's prejudice (and I guess racism if you think you are just plain better than these 'scum of the earth' telemarketers).
But hell, if you think I'm lying let's look at some published numbers! Now I'll disclose the product in question: a newspaper. You know that dying old thing that no one wants anymore because th
sure america isn't perfect, but it's legal to beat your wife if she "dishonors" you in iran. which society do you think is more moral?
I'm betting wives in Iran don't "dishonor" their husbands as much as in the USA. Not that this is justification for a "beating", but looking at societies (seemingly) stuck in all stages of historic (and prehistoric) justice systems, their harsh punishments often reduce these crimes to almost zero. Where murder is punishable by ritual eating of the offender by the victims family there are very few murders.
And an authoritarian regime isn't needed to back up these systems, they just seem to go hand and hand. Usually the people would opt-out of these types of systems over time, because people as a collective want the freedom to do what is "wrong". This is where your question of morality comes into play. Is it fair to even compare the two? One is harsh and enforces rules quickly, and is admittedly unevenly handed (ie. men's vs. women's rights). The other seems more modern, but there exists no rules (laws) about honor, fidelity and etc, and those matters are left to be a personal choice and "no one else's business" (save you're the President).
Iran could argue that we are immoral as a society because they punish infidelity where we tolerate it. We could argue their system of punishment isn't fair because it can far outweigh the committed offense. The argument shouldn't be about which is "better" or more "moral" the argument should even exist. They are two different systems for two different societies, two different peoples. We are both raised from birth with a different outlook on the world as a whole, so either isn't pretty from the viewpoints of each of their peoples.
Judgments need to end and scholarship needs to take over. What the world needs now isn't soldiers, it needs philosophers. Looking at the surface is what is driving us apart. (American Evangelicals and Iranians have more in common than they'd both like to admit, share more goals than they'd like to admit.)
'Sloppy' can also get guilty people out of jail (in prosecutors terms) or delay the punishment of a guilty person because of sloppiness (sloppy defense attorney, execution delayed 20 years).
It's best that the people working in this system are 'on their game' at all times so it works as intended. I wonder how the BAR association may feel about this?
I don't have to picture it in my mind, I have a frost mage for that. This way I can see what I'd really look like as a hot skinny babe with boobs (or not really look like? I'm getting confused).
To be fair, my ex-gf started the toon. And, no, she didn't leave me because I played too much WoW. She's a devoted WoW fan who would look up quests before I even picked them up! Why did I leave her again?
First let's set aside this idea that we'll eventually employ these techniques and technologies to police drug dealers et. al. - it's already happening. DHS is working with law enforcement now to blanket the states with airborne surveillance.
Rather I want to address something that's been building lately (and you roughly hinted to in your post) mostly because of the tax season. I keep hearing people complain how the "government" is taking their money, and the "government" does this or that and they disagree. Yes, the United States government is an institution (many actually). Yes, this institution makes decisions everyday that have an effect on our lives, rules by agencies and committees all the way up to lasting legislation. But it isn't "them" doing it "to" us, or "it" living out it's own wishes. It is a body "for and by the people".
I'm not just beating the old 'vote so you have a right to complain' drum here - I'm talking about full commitment by the people of this nation. When someone starts seeing what has been going on for the past 7 years, and says something to me about it, I respond as such: "It's your fault! You've been sleeping while all of this has been happening - you've been asking for this to be done!"
I want to write more, but maybe my blog is a place for that. Besides, I'm being paid right now as a DB Analyst, not a Constitutional Scholar. (and this is my most half assed post ever.)
The original poster meant in a vacuum, you insensitive clod!
Even more Google offers a search within a site inline already.
When I'm tweaking my PVR I'll go to their forums but I do so with the Google search bar in my browser. After the second result I get... More results from forums.gbpvr.com
This idea has existed since Altavista, we could always search within a domain. Create a robots.txt, block all search engines, problem solved.
It should be pointed out that a move to digital only channels will only entrench the consumer in higher bills.
Right now I have the *right* to unscrambled HD content, and the *ability* to decode the analog cable signal freely. If the system moves to be all digital I'll never again be able to simply plug that coax into a TV or a PC tuner again - unless there is regulation in effect that keeps it "open". I don't see that ever happening, as with my local provider (Time Warner) you must call and *request* the ability to output from your digital cable box via Firewire (something that I understand is *mandated* by the FCC).
It sucks when the FCC gets into the cable's business, but to protect the rights of consumers sometimes they must. It isn't always fair to them - but look at your bill sometime - are they ever fair with you? (My city has negotiated a contract with the cable company setting a *floor* price for cable... so they are both screwing me).
If you think digital cable will be 'open', look at how many PC-based CableCard tuners exist out there. (All related technologies are doomed to fail due to both the cable company and the content owners).
Then again the question should be asked: Why do I and the cable companies need to pay for ad supported content in the first place?
If Disney, ESPN, et. al. are making millions on commercials shouldn't they beg the cable companies to carry their networks? Shouldn't *they* be paying for the bandwidth, not I?
I can't define intelligence, but I know it when I see it!
The best part is that 'weblogs' like Slashdot pick up these stories and their likelihood of becoming common knowledge explode. Wikipedia is 'reporting' this story and they are being sued over spreading this 'untruth' - now Slashdot has just reported it too. Will the mayor of Florence sue CNN when it hits the mainstream media?