Ingenious of you to link to a 4+ year old poll that seems to back up your assertion more.
The latest poll from 2009 shows 44% in favor, 54% against. While still not a majority it shows a quickly changing trend.
Here is the latest poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123728/U.S.-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana-Reaches-New-High.aspx
You might as well have linked to a poll from 1970 when 84% were against.
Off main topic but on topic with what this poster is claiming.
A little perspective for you on poverty in the United States.
Understanding Poverty in America by Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. Backgrounder #1713
January 5, 2004 | Executive Summary | |
Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.
For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has tw
The funny thing is that if Microsoft was a company based in the EU they would be getting government money and protection from the EU and its member states. A shining example of this is Airbus who clearly benefits from government subsidies, etc.
I am all for this because I think Microsoft abuses their position of power, but lets face it; if MS was based in the EU it would be up to the US government to sanction them. What would happen then? The EU would cry foul and say we don't have the power to do that!
This is just a ploy by the EU to try and influence global commerce beyond their reach. They want to matter.
The problem with this is that the reason it is "cold" at altitude is that there is a very low density of air. There is not much air at altitude to hold "heat." So although it feels cold to us at altitude (due to there being very few air molecules hitting our skin and transferring their energy to us in the collision), it will be VERY difficult to shed heat at high altitudes. On top of that air is one of the best insulators around, and a vacuum is the best. So not only is there very little air, which is a good insulator, there is also a significant space between the air molecules, a vacuum, across which no energy except radiation can be transferred. I would say that the best way to use this on an airplane would be to use the Aluminum (Aluminium for those that would bitch about that) skin and components of the airplane as a heat dump. Aluminum is highly conductive and has a large mass on the plane and thus could take a large amount of energy. Plus with it's large surface area and the air moving past it rapidly there should still be quite a bit of energy transferred to the atmosphere even at high altitudes.
You say that RedHat puts a lot of junk in their kernels, that is just plain false. The RedHat Kernels are compiled with everything chosen as modules. So all that ever get's loaded are the modules that your system needs. Of course you would know that if you had taken the time to actually look at their different kernels. Also I refer you to this article you will see that the stock 2.4.9 RedHat kernel is extremely fast.
Re:Anyone make mplayer for RH7.1 or beyond?
on
Lindows Reviewed
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
It works fine for me with the latest release of RedHat's gcc. You just have to remember all their crazy./configure options. Don't forget the GUI at that time if you want to use that. I had to compile it 3 times before I finally got all the./configure options correct.
I could see there being a market for Borland if they released a nice GUI C++ development environment; but if it was just a command line program, can someone explain to me why they would use it instead of gcc. I just see no reason to pay for it if it is a command line program. I can't believe that they would offer some feature that gcc doesn't.
Are they just going to buy a line from whoever runs the main line linking.au to the rest of the world? is that Telstra? I probably don't understand the situation, but how many companies are there in Sydney that you can buy an internet pipeline from? Just some random thoughts on the subject. Any answers?
In order for something to be a true monopoly there must be barriers to entry to the market. MS is able to create those by controlling such a large portion of the software market. More specifically the OS market.
The USPS doesn't do anything to block UPS or FedEx from entering the mail delivery market. Really it just comes down to the fact that it isn't profitable for a company to deliver mail for 0.34 USD per envelope. (I know that there are a lot of other options and classes)
So the USPS is not something that the DOJ should go after.
No astrophysicist will say that 2*10^33 grams is equivalent to 9.8m/(s^2). That is totally wrong as grams (actually some form of kg) is a unit of mass not weight. Only weight includes acceleration as part of its magnitude.
You may want to redo your calculation there. The average dorm room computer has a 10Mbit/sec connection which is 1.25 MBytes/sec. At most a dorm would have 100mbit/sec which is, you guessed it, 12.5MBytes/sec. So lets see now, multiply each number by ten and we get a 100mbit/sec line or a 1000mbit/sec line. That sounds a little high seeing as how my University is only on a 45mbit/sec line, but I think you get the point.
The first shuttle was the Columbia, there is no shuttle enterprise. Learn the facts. Look through the NASA launch schedule and tell me if you see an Enterprise. Maybe you meant the Aircraft carrier. Oh wait the first aricraft carrier was not Enterprise and was certainly well before Star Trek.
It is impossible for it to get less than 0 Kelvin. Even in open space the temperature is around 2 Kelvin. Kelvin is an absolute scale, it starts at zero, there is nothing lower.
If you had read the article, you would see that the advantages are that the moon would shield the telescope from garbage radio transmissions from Earth and that we would be able to detect emmissions that our atmosphere blocks. Also it would be built ON the moon not orbiting around it.
I would say try out a TI-89 or HP49 calculator. They both do a variety of curve fits and could be programed to do other curve fits very easily. I own both and have found them invaluable for doing regressions, both linear and non-linear. Although I am not in biology (Chemical Engineering Student). They are both availble for less than 200 USD. There are also emulators available for both, and although I couldn't quickly find any for linux, I believe that you could run the windows ones under wine very easily, but I haven't tried to.
I believe that the F15 is capable of engaging at near that altitude (engage not FLY). I remember reading about special missiles that could be loaded onto an F15 that would be able to take out a Sattelite. The F15 would fly a parabolic flight path so as to maximize the altitude that it could achieve and then would fire near the top of the arc. So theoretically one could shoot down an SR71 in a smilar matter. Kepp in mind that most satelites are moving at speeds far in excess of any plane would be capable of in the atmospere.
I also believe that I read that the only way that the soviets could have shot down an SR71 was to start flying in front of the SR71 as fast as they could and then to fire their air to air missiles at the SR71 behind them. Otherwise the missiles closing speed on the SR71 was not high enough for them to catch up with one if they were fired in a conventional manner.
Also a number of SR71's were lost in "accidents" but I am not aware of any official or unofficial as to the numbers of aircraft lost.
Actually this has already been implemented. This article at Scentific American Magazine from the November 2001 issue describes in detail where the technology is and how it is currently being used.
P.S. I know that it is an IP address, but that is what Scientific american sends you to. If you want goto Scientific American's homepage and search for electronic paper. The first result is the article linked to above.
Slashdot Mirror
Libraries in Dallas/Fort Worth Texas also have ebooks that can be borrowed.
It is pretty handy and very easy.
Ingenious of you to link to a 4+ year old poll that seems to back up your assertion more. The latest poll from 2009 shows 44% in favor, 54% against. While still not a majority it shows a quickly changing trend. Here is the latest poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/123728/U.S.-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana-Reaches-New-High.aspx You might as well have linked to a poll from 1970 when 84% were against.
Off main topic but on topic with what this poster is claiming.
A little perspective for you on poverty in the United States.
Understanding Poverty in America
by Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #1713
January 5, 2004 | Executive Summary | |
Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.
For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has tw
The funny thing is that if Microsoft was a company based in the EU they would be getting government money and protection from the EU and its member states. A shining example of this is Airbus who clearly benefits from government subsidies, etc.
I am all for this because I think Microsoft abuses their position of power, but lets face it; if MS was based in the EU it would be up to the US government to sanction them. What would happen then? The EU would cry foul and say we don't have the power to do that!
This is just a ploy by the EU to try and influence global commerce beyond their reach. They want to matter.
Because according to google 24 Watts is 0.0321845302 HP
How usefull do you think that is? Somehow I doubt it is even remotely close to cost effective.
How about a nice warm cup of shut the fuck up!
Please read parent post for explanation of my vile language.
mirror
The problem with this is that the reason it is "cold" at altitude is that there is a very low density of air. There is not much air at altitude to hold "heat." So although it feels cold to us at altitude (due to there being very few air molecules hitting our skin and transferring their energy to us in the collision), it will be VERY difficult to shed heat at high altitudes. On top of that air is one of the best insulators around, and a vacuum is the best. So not only is there very little air, which is a good insulator, there is also a significant space between the air molecules, a vacuum, across which no energy except radiation can be transferred. I would say that the best way to use this on an airplane would be to use the Aluminum (Aluminium for those that would bitch about that) skin and components of the airplane as a heat dump. Aluminum is highly conductive and has a large mass on the plane and thus could take a large amount of energy. Plus with it's large surface area and the air moving past it rapidly there should still be quite a bit of energy transferred to the atmosphere even at high altitudes.
You say that RedHat puts a lot of junk in their kernels, that is just plain false. The RedHat Kernels are compiled with everything chosen as modules. So all that ever get's loaded are the modules that your system needs. Of course you would know that if you had taken the time to actually look at their different kernels. Also I refer you to this article you will see that the stock 2.4.9 RedHat kernel is extremely fast.
It works fine for me with the latest release of RedHat's gcc. You just have to remember all their crazy ./configure options. Don't forget the GUI at that time if you want to use that. I had to compile it 3 times before I finally got all the ./configure options correct.
I could see there being a market for Borland if they released a nice GUI C++ development environment; but if it was just a command line program, can someone explain to me why they would use it instead of gcc. I just see no reason to pay for it if it is a command line program. I can't believe that they would offer some feature that gcc doesn't.
Are they just going to buy a line from whoever runs the main line linking .au to the rest of the world? is that Telstra? I probably don't understand the situation, but how many companies are there in Sydney that you can buy an internet pipeline from? Just some random thoughts on the subject. Any answers?
In order for something to be a true monopoly there must be barriers to entry to the market. MS is able to create those by controlling such a large portion of the software market. More specifically the OS market.
The USPS doesn't do anything to block UPS or FedEx from entering the mail delivery market. Really it just comes down to the fact that it isn't profitable for a company to deliver mail for 0.34 USD per envelope. (I know that there are a lot of other options and classes)
So the USPS is not something that the DOJ should go after.
No astrophysicist will say that 2*10^33 grams is equivalent to 9.8m/(s^2). That is totally wrong as grams (actually some form of kg) is a unit of mass not weight. Only weight includes acceleration as part of its magnitude.
You may want to redo your calculation there. The average dorm room computer has a 10Mbit/sec connection which is 1.25 MBytes/sec. At most a dorm would have 100mbit/sec which is, you guessed it, 12.5MBytes/sec. So lets see now, multiply each number by ten and we get a 100mbit/sec line or a 1000mbit/sec line. That sounds a little high seeing as how my University is only on a 45mbit/sec line, but I think you get the point.
The first shuttle was the Columbia, there is no shuttle enterprise. Learn the facts. Look through the NASA launch schedule and tell me if you see an Enterprise. Maybe you meant the Aircraft carrier. Oh wait the first aricraft carrier was not Enterprise and was certainly well before Star Trek.
It is impossible for it to get less than 0 Kelvin. Even in open space the temperature is around 2 Kelvin. Kelvin is an absolute scale, it starts at zero, there is nothing lower.
If you had read the article, you would see that the advantages are that the moon would shield the telescope from garbage radio transmissions from Earth and that we would be able to detect emmissions that our atmosphere blocks. Also it would be built ON the moon not orbiting around it.
turn into a 13 year old girl who actually likes n'sync prior to seeing Star Wars Episode 2
try everybuddy for linux, it works great and supports AIM, MSN, Yaho,ICQ, and more I think.
I would say try out a TI-89 or HP49 calculator. They both do a variety of curve fits and could be programed to do other curve fits very easily. I own both and have found them invaluable for doing regressions, both linear and non-linear. Although I am not in biology (Chemical Engineering Student). They are both availble for less than 200 USD. There are also emulators available for both, and although I couldn't quickly find any for linux, I believe that you could run the windows ones under wine very easily, but I haven't tried to.
I believe that the F15 is capable of engaging at near that altitude (engage not FLY). I remember reading about special missiles that could be loaded onto an F15 that would be able to take out a Sattelite. The F15 would fly a parabolic flight path so as to maximize the altitude that it could achieve and then would fire near the top of the arc. So theoretically one could shoot down an SR71 in a smilar matter. Kepp in mind that most satelites are moving at speeds far in excess of any plane would be capable of in the atmospere.
I also believe that I read that the only way that the soviets could have shot down an SR71 was to start flying in front of the SR71 as fast as they could and then to fire their air to air missiles at the SR71 behind them. Otherwise the missiles closing speed on the SR71 was not high enough for them to catch up with one if they were fired in a conventional manner.
Also a number of SR71's were lost in "accidents" but I am not aware of any official or unofficial as to the numbers of aircraft lost.
Actually this has already been implemented. This article at Scentific American Magazine from the November 2001 issue describes in detail where the technology is and how it is currently being used. P.S. I know that it is an IP address, but that is what Scientific american sends you to. If you want goto Scientific American's homepage and search for electronic paper. The first result is the article linked to above.
Please don't root for Michael Schumacher!
well remember that Microsoft is responsible for OSS's existence.