> More interesting : you may not use it and infringe
> ANY state, federal, international laws !
There must be at least one site MS publishes (do they use their own stuff?) that critices the Feds, and another that violates the law in the sense that it provides evidence of MS breaking the law in their antitrust suit...
Bush, Sr., used to mispronounce "Sad-damn" deliberately, both for the "damn" and because the mispronounciation sounded like something else in their language...
Climate may vary naturally a lot more than is currently believed, quite possibly more (a lot more) than the worst Chicken Little predictions.
A simple predator-prey relationship is not stable by nature, as boom and bust cycles run endlessly. Indeed, even if you start out with perfectly balanced populations, boom and bust quickly becomes the norm again.
The same is true for business cycles.
For something as incredibly complex as climate, with natural perturbations constantly (sunspots, moon's tidal effect, volcanos, etc.) it would be silly to believe climate is anywhere near stable at any extended time period you choose.
That never stops politicians from standing on street corners saying "elect me, elect me! I'll fix the problem!"
Predicting the weather is like predicting the exact position of pool balls on the pool table after they've been bouncing around for 10 minutes.
Predicting the climate is like predicting that in 10 minutes, 45% of the balls will be in the vicinity of the far left corner. You've scarcely narrowed the problem, and miniscule tweaks to initial conditions still alter the calculations massivly.
It's been estimated that if you took the pressure, temp, humidity, and wind velocity every cubic foot for a hundred miles up, you could only reasonably predict the weather 30 days in advance.
Climate is the average temp, rain, etc. over a period of decades, if not longer.
> where Western cultural imperialism is stomping
> out eons-old traditions and faith.
Yes, let's keep our culturally superior noses in the air. We dare not open a McDonald's lest people there actually go there of their own free will. < sarcasm=on> We, as the West, know that we are culturally superior, all the while claiming otherwise for public show.</sarcasm> That's why we look down on other cultures as these "fragile, quaint things". Meanwhile, the actual citizens of these "other cultures" are more than happy to shuck off what we, the Western cultural elitists, think are important in their culture.
How dare you stop beating on logs and go working in factories!
How dare you stop wearing those robes and start wearing blue jeans and Bart Simpson shirts.
The Royal We shall not allow you to do this. The Royal We have Determined that your culture is in need of Our Protection because it makes Us feel Good.
Re:Iraq is a lot flatter than Afghanistan
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
Yes, creating a freedom-based democracy with strong constitutional protections for freedom of speech and religion and association, allowing the local population to rise up out of 3rd world status would be so...hideous. How arrogant of us Westerners!
Re:Iraq is a lot flatter than Afghanistan
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
> No, what? Another ten years where we fight a war
> against Iraq but make no real effort to win?
No, not this time. I think some of you don't realize that this will not be another TV show to watch with a few automated bombs.
Re:The only problem is this: Culture
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
The sanctity of indigenous cultures is a curiously western conceit, and an elitest one at that.
"Those cute little primitives! How dare we let McDonald's in there to ruin them!"
I don't advocate "exterminating a culture", of course. Just the getting of the extremists responsible for this. I just wanted to point out that "tread lightly on those quaint little cultures" is an idiotic stance. Any time a factory opens near those cultures, they flee the bush/desert/mountains/whatever, put on T-shirts and jeans, and start a much better life. It is our Ivory Tower elite who decry this, not those who actually live the marginal, day-to-day existance of those quaint cultures, crying with joy at the opportunity to escape.
> Ever heard of a strawman fallacy?
>
> It is generally used by those that dislike the
> argument a person makes
Yes, that's why it's rhetoric.
> and represents a personal
> attack when a refutation is not easily found.
Actually, that's not a straw man attack. Personal attacks are arguments from moral (or other) intimidation by questioning the speaker rather than the speaker's argument.
A straw man argument is setting up an easy target so you can immediately knock it down again. Usually the "straw man" is an incomplete representation of the argument.
> Just imagine it's 15 years later, you're running
> for some public office, and some reporter gets
> hold of a somewhat sketchy month's worth of your
> life from today.
On the third hand, Clinton's "I loathe the military" letter didn't hurt him that much, did it? Nor did the marijuana.
With the evil, as always, being the legal right to initiate offensive force. If the government doesn't have this power to begin with, then no corporations can assume it. Note that the assumption of such power is sold to the hoi polloi as part of socialist/communist nonsense about things being better off if there is only one source for this or that thing...
Yes, let's just keep increasing regulation until we're all just a bunch of brains sitting in vats talking about things we'd like to do, while any actual action is completely dictated down to the atom and nanosecond by the government.
Woo hoo! We're free now! We can talk about anything we want, we just can't do anything.
Here's a hint: talk is precursor to action. A country with free speech without free action is not free.
> That 'unelected president' remark throws the whole
> thing off IMO.
It is a cheap shot that does cast doubt on the reasoning of his article. It should not have been included, but I don't think superior prose construction is necessarily (some) programmers' strong point.
> The Bush campaign managed to make it look like the
> evil Democrats were trying to disenfranchise Our
> Brave Men And Women In Uniform, but in fact they
> were merely trying to follow the law.
Oh, now let's not be two-faced about this. Both sides were guilty of trying to include votes in their favor, and exclude those likely against them.
Had, for whatever reason, absentee military ballots been mostly for Democrats, you can be sure the Democrats would have been the ones saying "Include them, it's the spirit of the election!" and Republicans saying "Don't include them -- they violate the law!"
I mean, for Christ's sake, there was that millionaire trying to dig up dirt on the electors for hmm, hmm, nudge, nudge, wink, wink reasons. Hint: it wasn't the side you think, if you haven't heard the story. Both sides are nasty. The winner writes the history books, the other waits four or eight years.
> you mean to tell me you feel safer in the US
> than in Britain?
The only place I've ever had anything stolen was in a fancy, 120 £ a night hotel when someone broke into the room (1st floor window) while I was away. I had nothing valuable, and an employee saw them and they ran away before getting, sorry, nicking the TV.
> I fully agree. But there is still one question
> left unaswered about the coming Corporate police
> state...
When a country turns from keeping open the trade routes to lording over their own people, it is their undoing. Corporations are among the first to suffer in these situations as the cronies start favoring some companies over others, and then those lucky few get lazy. One modern twist on this: environmentalism or other regulations making entry into the market very difficult, a defacto "grandfathering" of companies that exist. Benefit? Negligible as liability takes most of the problems. Downside? Huge, as it is the same old thing under a new label, with the same old effects. "With the approval of their own conscience..."
> Make it the policy of all pilots to let the
> passengers die? Oh! That'd make me feel real safe.
They're going to die, anyway. It's a hell of a decision, but no longer can you just cough up control of the plane. Of course, the passengers won't sit around anymore, either, knowing what is going on.
Slashdot Mirror
> More interesting : you may not use it and infringe
> ANY state, federal, international laws !
There must be at least one site MS publishes (do they use their own stuff?) that critices the Feds, and another that violates the law in the sense that it provides evidence of MS breaking the law in their antitrust suit...
That is, without doubt, a calculated name.
Bush, Sr., used to mispronounce "Sad-damn" deliberately, both for the "damn" and because the mispronounciation sounded like something else in their language...
If they blindly shot down a singleton hijacking, yes.
In a situation like this, where there were 2 or even 3 known hijackings, the liklihood of the 4th being a "standard" hijacking is slim, indeed.
Evidently not.
Extra lines added to bypass lameness filter. It's obviously a filter that induces lameness, like this, to posts...
I'll go one step further.
Climate may vary naturally a lot more than is currently believed, quite possibly more (a lot more) than the worst Chicken Little predictions.
A simple predator-prey relationship is not stable by nature, as boom and bust cycles run endlessly. Indeed, even if you start out with perfectly balanced populations, boom and bust quickly becomes the norm again.
The same is true for business cycles.
For something as incredibly complex as climate, with natural perturbations constantly (sunspots, moon's tidal effect, volcanos, etc.) it would be silly to believe climate is anywhere near stable at any extended time period you choose.
> due to Quantum theory, a lot of these variables are probably truly random.
Your assumption is that there is no deterministic framework behind QT. It could be a guy in a room rolling quadrillion-sided dice, for all you know.
That never stops politicians from standing on street corners saying "elect me, elect me! I'll fix the problem!"
Predicting the weather is like predicting the exact position of pool balls on the pool table after they've been bouncing around for 10 minutes.
Predicting the climate is like predicting that in 10 minutes, 45% of the balls will be in the vicinity of the far left corner. You've scarcely narrowed the problem, and miniscule tweaks to initial conditions still alter the calculations massivly.
It's been estimated that if you took the pressure, temp, humidity, and wind velocity every cubic foot for a hundred miles up, you could only reasonably predict the weather 30 days in advance.
Climate is the average temp, rain, etc. over a period of decades, if not longer.
> where Western cultural imperialism is stomping
> out eons-old traditions and faith.
Yes, let's keep our culturally superior noses in the air. We dare not open a McDonald's lest people there actually go there of their own free will. < sarcasm=on> We, as the West, know that we are culturally superior, all the while claiming otherwise for public show.</sarcasm> That's why we look down on other cultures as these "fragile, quaint things". Meanwhile, the actual citizens of these "other cultures" are more than happy to shuck off what we, the Western cultural elitists, think are important in their culture.
How dare you stop beating on logs and go working in factories!
How dare you stop wearing those robes and start wearing blue jeans and Bart Simpson shirts.
The Royal We shall not allow you to do this. The Royal We have Determined that your culture is in need of Our Protection because it makes Us feel Good.
Yes, creating a freedom-based democracy with strong constitutional protections for freedom of speech and religion and association, allowing the local population to rise up out of 3rd world status would be so...hideous. How arrogant of us Westerners!
> No, what? Another ten years where we fight a war
> against Iraq but make no real effort to win?
No, not this time. I think some of you don't realize that this will not be another TV show to watch with a few automated bombs.
The sanctity of indigenous cultures is a curiously western conceit, and an elitest one at that.
"Those cute little primitives! How dare we let McDonald's in there to ruin them!"
I don't advocate "exterminating a culture", of course. Just the getting of the extremists responsible for this. I just wanted to point out that "tread lightly on those quaint little cultures" is an idiotic stance. Any time a factory opens near those cultures, they flee the bush/desert/mountains/whatever, put on T-shirts and jeans, and start a much better life. It is our Ivory Tower elite who decry this, not those who actually live the marginal, day-to-day existance of those quaint cultures, crying with joy at the opportunity to escape.
> Ever heard of a strawman fallacy?
>
> It is generally used by those that dislike the
> argument a person makes
Yes, that's why it's rhetoric.
> and represents a personal
> attack when a refutation is not easily found.
Actually, that's not a straw man attack. Personal attacks are arguments from moral (or other) intimidation by questioning the speaker rather than the speaker's argument.
A straw man argument is setting up an easy target so you can immediately knock it down again. Usually the "straw man" is an incomplete representation of the argument.
Yes! So pick up a gun and kick some ass!
> Just imagine it's 15 years later, you're running
> for some public office, and some reporter gets
> hold of a somewhat sketchy month's worth of your
> life from today.
On the third hand, Clinton's "I loathe the military" letter didn't hurt him that much, did it? Nor did the marijuana.
Without water, there is no non-water. Without non-water, there is no water.
Without air, there is no non-air. Without non-air, there is no air.
Without qwerty, there is no non-qwerty. Without non-qwerty, there is no qwerty.
Wait! There is no qwerty, yet non-qwerty, i.e. reality, seems to be here still.
With the evil, as always, being the legal right to initiate offensive force. If the government doesn't have this power to begin with, then no corporations can assume it. Note that the assumption of such power is sold to the hoi polloi as part of socialist/communist nonsense about things being better off if there is only one source for this or that thing...
Yes, let's just keep increasing regulation until we're all just a bunch of brains sitting in vats talking about things we'd like to do, while any actual action is completely dictated down to the atom and nanosecond by the government.
Woo hoo! We're free now! We can talk about anything we want, we just can't do anything.
Here's a hint: talk is precursor to action. A country with free speech without free action is not free.
> That 'unelected president' remark throws the whole
> thing off IMO.
It is a cheap shot that does cast doubt on the reasoning of his article. It should not have been included, but I don't think superior prose construction is necessarily (some) programmers' strong point.
> The Bush campaign managed to make it look like the
> evil Democrats were trying to disenfranchise Our
> Brave Men And Women In Uniform, but in fact they
> were merely trying to follow the law.
Oh, now let's not be two-faced about this. Both sides were guilty of trying to include votes in their favor, and exclude those likely against them.
Had, for whatever reason, absentee military ballots been mostly for Democrats, you can be sure the Democrats would have been the ones saying "Include them, it's the spirit of the election!" and Republicans saying "Don't include them -- they violate the law!"
I mean, for Christ's sake, there was that millionaire trying to dig up dirt on the electors for hmm, hmm, nudge, nudge, wink, wink reasons. Hint: it wasn't the side you think, if you haven't heard the story. Both sides are nasty. The winner writes the history books, the other waits four or eight years.
> If Osama bin Laden's millions can finace this
> sort of operation, imagine what kind of operation
> Bill Gates could finance with his Billions??
Actually, I heard on the radio this morning that some billionaires are putting together a pool of money to hire mercenaries to take care of business.
Actually, seeing as he was from frontier times, he would probably kick your ass.
> you mean to tell me you feel safer in the US
> than in Britain?
The only place I've ever had anything stolen was in a fancy, 120 £ a night hotel when someone broke into the room (1st floor window) while I was away. I had nothing valuable, and an employee saw them and they ran away before getting, sorry, nicking the TV.
And I live in the Detroit area.
> I fully agree. But there is still one question
> left unaswered about the coming Corporate police
> state...
When a country turns from keeping open the trade routes to lording over their own people, it is their undoing. Corporations are among the first to suffer in these situations as the cronies start favoring some companies over others, and then those lucky few get lazy. One modern twist on this: environmentalism or other regulations making entry into the market very difficult, a defacto "grandfathering" of companies that exist. Benefit? Negligible as liability takes most of the problems. Downside? Huge, as it is the same old thing under a new label, with the same old effects. "With the approval of their own conscience..."
> Make it the policy of all pilots to let the
> passengers die? Oh! That'd make me feel real safe.
They're going to die, anyway. It's a hell of a decision, but no longer can you just cough up control of the plane. Of course, the passengers won't sit around anymore, either, knowing what is going on.