Maybe the mini-ITX cluster would come in handy for an additional *umph* with your large compiles? If they support PXE, you wouldn't even need the cd's.
Of course I would mind. Do you have any idea of how hard it is to scrape human remains off a door?
Besides you are completely missing my point which was two-fold:
1) Religion is idiotic dribble, which should be outlawed planetwide (I said so in my original post) 2) Arguing against the logic of religion is impossible, because religion is not logical, it builds on circular arguments and you end up looking like a fool if you try to argue anyway
But hey - I didn't really count on anyone actually managing to comprehend what I was saying.
BUT - assuming it is true, then it would be because some supreme being finds it justifiable, presumably/hopefully because he/she/it/they can see a bigger picture than we can.
You and I may not like it, but any supreme being would be a better judge than you and I. And who knows - maybe the people who get blown up get 144 virgins/whatever for being another kind of martyr?
We don't know, and we CAN'T know. Maybe there are supreme beings, maybe there aren't. Personally I think the notion of doing the bidding of invisible beings is tantamount to insanity, not to mention stupidity if you haven't actually talked to these invisible beings yourself, but are just going on what other people tell you.
And how do you know that the 72 virgins bullshit is in fact bullshit? Were you by any chance a martyr in your previous life?
They have their belief in one invisible man, we in another - let the two invisible guys (who are in fact the same guy) duke it out on Pay Per View and not in the streets. Please.
Well, to be completely honest, the two points I made were taken from George Carlin's skit about airplane announcements, but imagine if you will, a catastrophic loss of cabin pressure (roof flies off) and it just HAPPENS to take the cockpit with it, just how are the pilots supposed to steer it? Sure, it doesn't happen all that often, but hey - we were talking about unlikely events anyway (like maneauvering (how the devil do you spell that?) a hypersonic aircraft outside of it's safety envelope).
You know, if anything goes wrong with a regular transatlantic airliner while it's over the North Atlantic, I think it's fairly safe to say you're toast as well.
Granted, the nice stewardesses tell you that you can use your seat cushion as a floatation device, but two things strike me in that scenario:
1) What are the chances of surviving initial impact into the ocean when the plane is in a 600 mile an hour vertical dive 2) Do I really want to float around in the North Atlantic for several days, clinging to a pillow full of beer farts
And yet, we still do this on a regular basis because guess what - it's actually fairly safe. As will hypersonic travel be, once we get around to getting better materials etc.
In the 1700's people really believed that if you traveld faster than a horse, you'd die from the shock and that it would be impossible to build a heavier than air flying machine. Guess what - they were wrong, and you will be as well. Some day (if we don't manage to blow up ourselves first).
Well, my gripe wasn't with Bill Gates. My gripe was with
"Bill Gates has given several hundred thousand dollars
per day to charity, amortized over his entire lifetime. What have you done?"
As if the fact that he has tons more money makes his sacrifice that much more worthy than anyone elses.
Yes, obviously the amount of money Bill Gates gives to charity make a way bigger difference than what little I give (seing as I make less than $10.000 a year). The original parents sentiment seems to me to be "if you can't give more money to charity than the richest man in the world, shut the fuck up and die!1!, which I have a problem with.
I believe it is one of Jebus' fables that an exidingly rich man donates 10% of his wealth to the church and expects better treatment than the pauper of a woman, who also donates 10% of her "riches".
Also - I didn't say that he gives away money to get a tax break. I listed a bunch of possible reasons why people might give to charity - you just picked one of them and pounced on it.
Well, I usually give about 5% of my income to charity (and no - that isn't tax-deductible here).
Bill Gates probably gives more than that - but on the other hand, if you have 40 billion dollars to your name, you could give away 99% and still be rich for life.
Anyway - my point is that the amount of money you give away doesn't really tell you. Some people give to charity in order to get tax breaks. Some do it to be popular. Others do it because it makes them feel good. Others just because they can't think of better things to do with their money.
So you'd do stuff like System.out.print("H"); System.out.print("e"); Sy stem.out.print("l"); System.out.print("l"); Syst em.out.print("o"); System.out.print(" "); System.out.print("w"); System.out.print("o") ; System.out.print("r"); System.out.print("l"); System.out.print("d"); System.out.print("!"); S ystem.out.print( \n); ?
Considering he went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America to defend his right to say "the seven dirty words" in a radio show (a case he won by the way), I would say he is fairly up to date on that...
[438 U.S. 726, 751-55 (1978)] FCC v Pacifica (1978)-- Pacifica owned an FM radio station, WBAI, in New York. It played a recorded monologue by comedian George Carlin called "The Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television." The station aired the monologue in the middle of a weekday afternoon. One listener, who was riding in his car with his son, heard the broadcast and was not amused. He complained to the FCC.
The commission reprimanded Pacifica. Pacifica appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Court agreed that Pacifica should be reprimanded but ruled that the monologue was not obscene, based on the Miller tests.
On the subject of indecency, the Supreme Court established the fundamental framework for analyzing sex and violence on television in its 1978 Pacifica decision. Pacifica involved George Carlin's "seven dirty words" monologue. A father was driving in his car with his child at two o'clock in the afternoon when they heard part of the monologue. It's a funny routine, but it's not suitable for children, he thought, and he complained to the FCC. Our decision in his favor went to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court recognized that the monologue was not obscene and that the routine had been preceded by a statement that it was not suitable for children. But the Court held that the broadcaster could be penalized -- perhaps even lose its license -- if it played such material when children were likely to be in the audience.
I'm sure you can find many more things on this on the net...
The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, decided all by itself, that radio and televisions were the only two parts of American life not protected by the free speech provisions of the first amendment to the constitusion.
I'd like to repeat that because it sounds vaguely important.
The FCC, an appointed body - not elected, answerable only to the president, decided on its own that radio and television were the only two parts of American life not protected by the first amenedment to the constitution.
And why did they decide that? Because they got a letter from a minister in Mississippi! A reverend Donald Wildman in Mississippi heard something on the radio that he didn't like. Well reverend - did anyone ever tell you there are two knobs on the radio? Two knobs on the radio.
Of course I'm sure the reverend isn't that comfortable with anything that has two knobs on it. But hey reverend - there are two knobs on the radio - one of them turns the radio off and the other one - changes the station! Imagine that reverend - you can actually change the station. It's called freedom of choice, and it's one of the priciples this country was founded upon - look it up in the library reverend, if you have any of them left when you're finished burning all the books!
George Carlin said it, and I support it wholeheartedly.
Maybe it's the Next Gen-crew? Ever seen the intro to the series? Notice just how MANY times they streak past the camera. They're obviously lost, trying to find their way home.
Then try to remember just how many times Enterprise managed to get taken over.
They're not the best of the best. They're the luckiest sons of bitches Starfleet have ever put on a ship.
Big brother may be watching you, but you have no way of knowing...
Which is far more scary... to me at least.
Personally I'd feel more comfortable travelling in China, as I know for a fact what will happen to me, if I were to air my oppinions about their government. In the USA however... well - I'm a foreign citizen, so hey presto - enemy combatant.
The painted ads don't mention IBM or its EServer family, and are part of a marketing push developed by New York advertising company Ogilvy and Mather, a unit of WPP Group. IBM can't shift the blame on the agency, however; responsibility for the infraction lies with "the source," [director of public affairs for the city's Department of Public Works, Alex] Mamak says.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the mini-ITX cluster would come in handy for an additional *umph* with your large compiles? If they support PXE, you wouldn't even need the cd's.
Not to mention Danish and danish ... one is a language and a nationality, the other is a pastry.
Of course I would mind. Do you have any idea of how hard it is to scrape human remains off a door?
Besides you are completely missing my point which was two-fold:
1) Religion is idiotic dribble, which should be outlawed planetwide (I said so in my original post)
2) Arguing against the logic of religion is impossible, because religion is not logical, it builds on circular arguments and you end up looking like a fool if you try to argue anyway
But hey - I didn't really count on anyone actually managing to comprehend what I was saying.
In other words: IHBT.
Nope.
BUT - assuming it is true, then it would be because some supreme being finds it justifiable, presumably/hopefully because he/she/it/they can see a bigger picture than we can.
You and I may not like it, but any supreme being would be a better judge than you and I. And who knows - maybe the people who get blown up get 144 virgins/whatever for being another kind of martyr?
We don't know, and we CAN'T know. Maybe there are supreme beings, maybe there aren't. Personally I think the notion of doing the bidding of invisible beings is tantamount to insanity, not to mention stupidity if you haven't actually talked to these invisible beings yourself, but are just going on what other people tell you.
But that's just me.
I hear the difference between the Boyscouts and the National Guard is the heavy artilary.
(Tom Lehrer - I think)
And how do you know that the 72 virgins bullshit is in fact bullshit? Were you by any chance a martyr in your previous life?
They have their belief in one invisible man, we in another - let the two invisible guys (who are in fact the same guy) duke it out on Pay Per View and not in the streets. Please.
Religion ought to be banned outright planet wide!
Well, to be completely honest, the two points I made were taken from George Carlin's skit about airplane announcements, but imagine if you will, a catastrophic loss of cabin pressure (roof flies off) and it just HAPPENS to take the cockpit with it, just how are the pilots supposed to steer it? Sure, it doesn't happen all that often, but hey - we were talking about unlikely events anyway (like maneauvering (how the devil do you spell that?) a hypersonic aircraft outside of it's safety envelope).
On the brighter side out of 9 words, 4 of them aren't buzzwords.
... 45% of that sentence wasn't even buzz-words.
Prothon (that's one)
is (that's two)
a (that's three)
new (that's four)
See
You know, if anything goes wrong with a regular transatlantic airliner while it's over the North Atlantic, I think it's fairly safe to say you're toast as well.
Granted, the nice stewardesses tell you that you can use your seat cushion as a floatation device, but two things strike me in that scenario:
1) What are the chances of surviving initial impact into the ocean when the plane is in a 600 mile an hour vertical dive
2) Do I really want to float around in the North Atlantic for several days, clinging to a pillow full of beer farts
And yet, we still do this on a regular basis because guess what - it's actually fairly safe. As will hypersonic travel be, once we get around to getting better materials etc.
In the 1700's people really believed that if you traveld faster than a horse, you'd die from the shock and that it would be impossible to build a heavier than air flying machine. Guess what - they were wrong, and you will be as well. Some day (if we don't manage to blow up ourselves first).
In Capitalist America, boob exposes YOU!
Well, Mr. Obvious, would you be as kind as to point us to some references to these kidnappings?
Just to nitpick a bit, I don't think it would be fair to call "the whole package" GNU/Linux. AFIK GNU/Linux IS the Kernel.
The whole package (as I read your post) would quite likely include various programs, that aren't GNU-programs.
Yes, obviously the amount of money Bill Gates gives to charity make a way bigger difference than what little I give (seing as I make less than $10.000 a year). The original parents sentiment seems to me to be "if you can't give more money to charity than the richest man in the world, shut the fuck up and die!1!, which I have a problem with.
I believe it is one of Jebus' fables that an exidingly rich man donates 10% of his wealth to the church and expects better treatment than the pauper of a woman, who also donates 10% of her "riches".
Also - I didn't say that he gives away money to get a tax break. I listed a bunch of possible reasons why people might give to charity - you just picked one of them and pounced on it.
Well, I usually give about 5% of my income to charity (and no - that isn't tax-deductible here).
Bill Gates probably gives more than that - but on the other hand, if you have 40 billion dollars to your name, you could give away 99% and still be rich for life.
Anyway - my point is that the amount of money you give away doesn't really tell you. Some people give to charity in order to get tax breaks. Some do it to be popular. Others do it because it makes them feel good. Others just because they can't think of better things to do with their money.
So you'd do stuff likey stem.out.print("l");t em.out.print("o");) ;
S ystem.out.print( \n);
System.out.print("H");
System.out.print("e");
S
System.out.print("l");
Sys
System.out.print(" ");
System.out.print("w");
System.out.print("o"
System.out.print("r");
System.out.print("l");
System.out.print("d");
System.out.print("!");
?
source
How about the FCC's own version:I'm sure you can find many more things on this on the net
In other words - blind-siding the likes of Microsoft?
Maybe it's the Next Gen-crew? Ever seen the intro to the series? Notice just how MANY times they streak past the camera. They're obviously lost, trying to find their way home.
Then try to remember just how many times Enterprise managed to get taken over.
They're not the best of the best. They're the luckiest sons of bitches Starfleet have ever put on a ship.
Big brother may be watching you, but you have no way of knowing...
... to me at least.
... well - I'm a foreign citizen, so hey presto - enemy combatant.
Which is far more scary
Personally I'd feel more comfortable travelling in China, as I know for a fact what will happen to me, if I were to air my oppinions about their government. In the USA however
Good one ... Sir.
Only 8? Did one of the others suddenly plunge into Uranus?
I mean - when IBM and Microsoft hired advertising agencies to spread the word about Linux and MSN respectively, weren't they fined for littering?
The IBM case The Microsoft Case and the Slashdot discussion about it
I think of spam as I do about drugs - if you go after the pushers, new ones will just pop up. Go after the suppliers, and they will wither away.
My question is - why doesn't anyone sue the people who purchaced the advertising?
How do you program an indian?
And do they use little or big indian encoding?
Add in the amount of commercials in modern television, a 90 minute movie becomes a 135 minute show, if not longer.