Where have I said anything that can be construed as defending Bush. Let's back up a bit. The original contention was that the press covers material selectively in order to keep on the White House's good side...in order to protect their access. Your response contended that the press will readily cover any salacious scam they can get their hands on.
My entire point is that the scams are under Presidential control. The White House controls the scams as a distraction. Whether the Bush controlled White House had the evidence they claimed to justify the invasion of Irag is immaterial. Hell, nearly every war this country (US) has ever entered into has had bullshit presented as the reason. WWII for example. Unprovoked attack on a day that will live in infamy? Maybe it would have been unprovoked if we weren't militarily blockading Japanese ports and sending fighter planes and pilots to support their enemies in their ongoing war with China. But the President went on the radio and told the world that we were just sitting there, minding our own business when these sneaky Japanese came and bombed us for no good reason. Remember the Lusitania? The thing I remember about it is that we were using passenger ships as gun runners for the French and English who were at war. Germany was justified in sinking it. But it was presented as an act of unprovoked agression.
We bombed Kosavo (as NATO) but we never invaded.
I appreciate that clarification. I'll be sure to let my workmate know that he was never in Kosovo. It's also good to know that the President can "bomb" anyone he damn well pleases as long as NATO says he can. I can rob your house, as long as I use a helicopter to fly over and don't actually land. And there's no need to bother with minor details like Congress...you know, that irritating body of 'Representatives' that is assigned the responsibility of declaring war, as long as NATO gives him permission. I assume the caveat that he do the bombing quickly still applies, but now we have a further caveat that the President base the decision on "good and factual evidence" and do it competently. This was good to know, because I haven't heard about all this evidence where Kosovonians were preparing to invade the US. There I was thinking that all any President has really required in the past has been political expediency.
For the record, no one here is excusing Bush of anything. In fact, you seem to assign quite a bit more power to him than he actually has. The little skirmish in the sand did nothing to raise oil prices. Iraq doesn't have enough oil under it to have that big of an effect. The price hikes were coming no matter who sat in the Whitehouse, because India and China are both coming online with First World class economies and the accompanying demand for oil. But the President sits in the Whitehouse, so he must control everything, right?
Pull your head from your dogma for a minute, and I'll let you in on something. The Whitehouse doesn't have a king. It has a President with limited powers. One thing it does have is influence in the press (the so-called 'bully pulpit'). In fact, it has whole teams dedicated to manipulating how stories are handled. One of the handling techniques, which you have be trying very clumsily to avoid, is that the Whitehouse will allow some stories to flourish while quietly suppressing others...usually, with the explicit consent of the so-call Fourth Estate.
The whole LewinskyGate was a distraction. So what? A man was getting a little trim on the side from another consenting adult. I don't give a damn that she was an intern. She was older than the age of consent, making her an adult. Hillary should have kicked Bill's ass like every other American woman would (should?) do, we should ahve all got a snicker at his expense...and that should have been the end of the story.
The real story was that a sitting President blatantly lied under oath during a court proceeding. Either perjury is crime or it isn't. But t
High-voltage in switches is still relatively easy to handle as long as you stick to AC. AC crosses the 0V point twice per cycle, and stays near it a relatively long time (for electrons). That makes is fairly easy to extinquish the arc.
-If using it for lighting, add another string of opposite polarity in close proximity. -Add a large diode to the start of the string, then add a medium sized capacitor. The capacitory fills up on the upstroke, and will power the LEDs on the downstroke. There's still a short period when no light will be output, but it will be very short. Get the RC constants just right, and it will disappear. For further reference, Google "DC power supply filtering".
they will be able to sell you Dell Linux, or HP Open Linux.
Anybody remember 1995 and the push for OOBE (out of box experience), or whatever they called it? All the big players wanted you to open the box and have a Dell or a HP, not a box running Microsoft Windows(TM). Remember the big legal battles over who should be allowed to change what on the default desktop?
The $64,000 question is, "Who's box is it anyway?" Who gets to brand the box? Who gets credit for that pleasurable OOBE?
The interface is ready to go for desktop Linux. Once the component vendors are lined up, and drivers are solid, the "Microsoft Ready" stickers will quickly fade into the past like the nightmare it has been.
I was implying that Clinton did indeed benefit from the Lewinsky scandal, as it acted as a distraction. Furthermore, this happens all the time. A small, inconsequential scandal is created and blown out of proportion as cover for a serious scandal. Lewinski not only covered some illegal aggressive actions, it also blocked out cover of a President lying under oath, a very serious and troubling circumstance that is accompanied by all sorts of serious legal question that impact the underpinnings of American Democracy.
Are you implying that our military can be used to invade anyone the President damn well pleases to, as long as it is done quickly? It isn't illegal for me to rob your house, as long as I get in and back out fast enough?
I still say people that say "cars are a huge waste and that smart city planning and effective mass transportation can do way more than electric cars could ever do" need to pull their heads out of their asses and look at a population density map occasionally.
And just how much power did Clinton lose when we all found out he was spewing on the interns?
Yes. We get to hear about fornication...maybe even get to watch a mock impeachment. But what was going on that they didn't want us to hear about? Maybe the illegal invasion of Kosovo?
It sounds to me like paying protection money to a botnet would be like paying protection money to the mafia.
Or the police? Government officials force money out of you at the point of a gun (they call it 'taxes'), so that they can hire 'policemen' to protect you.
So the phalanx stands in front of the server and only hands it as many requests as the server can handle. My request is still sitting behind a huge queue.
The whole point of a "distributed Denial of Service" is... wait for it... Denial of Service. It doesn't matter if the bottleneck is shifted. If the server can't handle the traffic, then my request won't be serviced.
If Windows 3.1 gets thrown away because Windows 95 is on the scene, and you have to spend another $100 for the same functionality, something was most definitely lost.
Code is lost all the time in a proprietary world. Lost long before its usefulness is fulfilled. The end can come in the form of a large corporation buying out the upstart competition, a large corporation trying to keep you on an upgrade treadmill, or a small vendor letting a subpar product with some superb features dying off of natural causes. Regardless of the reason, in a world with open code, the community has the ability to retain good code. The closed world has an incentive to make sure your Windows all get broken on a periodic basis.
You can go "by the book" all you want, but even if you win the battle (unlikely) you will still lose the respect of your coworkers and consequently lose the war.
I don't know about that. I had a situation where a fellow developer was being "overly assertive" about how I should change my code. I wrote an email to the entire group, explaining his objections and why it was coded the way I had it.
It got me an apology and a vanilla latte as a peace offering. Letting people know that you won't deal with bullshit doesn't require threats of violence, and knowing what you're talking about will win you true respect.
Two hours of running a marathon will also make a person calm and less stressful. The question is, how are the stress levels the next day at approximately the same time?
Are people made less stressful, or like preparing for a sport, are the stress levels simply being trained to be more intense?
One of the biggest problems modern free societies face is an alleged free press that doesn't bother to check the facts about anything.
As opposed to less modern free societies have had where the newspaper publishers and the government were basically in cahoots to print whatever the government wanted printed?
Overdoses? Give people measured doses of pharmaceutical heroin. ..and they will take the measured doses, and then go on the street to find more.
Killing or hooking for their next fix? If it's legal, a fix costs pennies. Cheap enough to give away. ...and then they will take all you have, and then kill someone to get pennies for their next fix. You do realize that we're talking about a drug that will lead people to starve to death if given the choice of one more fix or a meal.
Aids? If it's legal clean needles will be easy to come by.
Not for someone that can't hold a job because they're addicted to heroine.
Homelessness? Most alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and prescription opiate addicts have a home, why should heroin be any different?
Most? What about those that don't? Would the number that don't be 10 times higher if the drug addiction was 10 times as severe. What if the drug addiction was 100 times as severe? Heroine, like cocaine, should be different because it's effect on brain chemistry is different.
Of course, you can choose to step outside the 'game', which can be a noble calling. But then of course, you're no longer a player. And as you mentioned a wife it doesn't sound like you've made this choice.
Marriage doesn't mean you have to play.
- She say, "...but I wanted..." I say, "Well, you should have told me so." When she tells me what she wants, she gets it. - She acts like she wants to, but then falls asleep or manipulates the situation so that the act is impossible to carry out. The next time she acts like she wants to, I ignore her. She gets upset. I remind her how she feel asleep or called friends over at the last minute the last time.
Back in the '80s, the Soviet Union had advanced this technology to the point where you could control a fighter jet with it. You had to speak native Russian to use it, though.
1. No money from lobbyists or PACs So the money will have to come straight from the heads of the oligarchy. The biggest open secret about politics is that all interests are "special interests". Banning money from lobbyists and PACs is just a way to shut out large groups of people that have NO power individually. If the politicos aren't being paid, they will have no reason to listen. At the end of the day, will Elizabeth Dole (my senator) listen to the CEO of Boeing and American Airlines, or a simple private pilot like myself, when it comes to how FAA policy will affect general aviation? Without the lobbyist hired by AOPA and EAA, I would have no voice.
2. Vote to end earmarks And next year you will have the same thing, with a different name. Congresspeople from Arizona will want to push billions into solar energy research. Nothing wrong with solar energy, but are they pushing for money to be spent on this research vs nuclear research because they expect the money to come rolling into their sunny state (vs Kentucky's mined state). How about supporting a bill to end unconstitutional Federal spending? They can still spend the money. They just have to go through the proper process (amend the Constitution in the prescribed manner).
3. Support publicly-financed campaigns In which case we hand over large sums of money to random "candidate" that then use the money to try to convince us how much money they can bring back home vs the other "candidate"? Why not just remove money from the equation and support publicly-financed debates. Ones where every candidate gets to submit questions, and every candidate has to answer the same one. The problem with our current campaign paradigm is that the media is a co-conspirator to keep the public in the dark. Pouring more money into this cesspool will just dilute the contents, not clean it out. Hearken back to the South Carolina Republican Debate. Everyone gets a serious question about fiscal policy, then they mock Ron Paul with a question about beliefs of some of his supporters. Why was each candidate asked a slightly different question, and one completely mocked? You want more money for that sort of nonsense?
4. Support reform to increase Congressional transparency Vague, but commendable. Force all meeting to be open, recorded, and made available in a YouTube like manner. Heh, I'm with you on this one, Lawrence.
Slashdot Mirror
Good job guys. Now, can we turn that telescope around and look for something useful...like my car keys?
That sort of code should be caught by a code review. Rule #1: Body cavity search all data at the boundaries.
But I guess dumb developer checkers have a place in the toolbox.
So that should be the reply. Plain. Simple. and Polite.
"Sir, we could really use some help with beefing up the OpenGL support on Windows."
If you say, "F-off", then they go back to the EU judges and say, "Gee, sir! We offered them help, but they gave us the back of their hand."
But, if you publicly ask for help, and they turn you down after making an open offer....
Where have I said anything that can be construed as defending Bush. Let's back up a bit. The original contention was that the press covers material selectively in order to keep on the White House's good side...in order to protect their access. Your response contended that the press will readily cover any salacious scam they can get their hands on.
My entire point is that the scams are under Presidential control. The White House controls the scams as a distraction. Whether the Bush controlled White House had the evidence they claimed to justify the invasion of Irag is immaterial. Hell, nearly every war this country (US) has ever entered into has had bullshit presented as the reason. WWII for example. Unprovoked attack on a day that will live in infamy? Maybe it would have been unprovoked if we weren't militarily blockading Japanese ports and sending fighter planes and pilots to support their enemies in their ongoing war with China. But the President went on the radio and told the world that we were just sitting there, minding our own business when these sneaky Japanese came and bombed us for no good reason. Remember the Lusitania? The thing I remember about it is that we were using passenger ships as gun runners for the French and English who were at war. Germany was justified in sinking it. But it was presented as an act of unprovoked agression.
We bombed Kosavo (as NATO) but we never invaded.
I appreciate that clarification. I'll be sure to let my workmate know that he was never in Kosovo. It's also good to know that the President can "bomb" anyone he damn well pleases as long as NATO says he can. I can rob your house, as long as I use a helicopter to fly over and don't actually land. And there's no need to bother with minor details like Congress...you know, that irritating body of 'Representatives' that is assigned the responsibility of declaring war, as long as NATO gives him permission. I assume the caveat that he do the bombing quickly still applies, but now we have a further caveat that the President base the decision on "good and factual evidence" and do it competently. This was good to know, because I haven't heard about all this evidence where Kosovonians were preparing to invade the US. There I was thinking that all any President has really required in the past has been political expediency.
For the record, no one here is excusing Bush of anything. In fact, you seem to assign quite a bit more power to him than he actually has. The little skirmish in the sand did nothing to raise oil prices. Iraq doesn't have enough oil under it to have that big of an effect. The price hikes were coming no matter who sat in the Whitehouse, because India and China are both coming online with First World class economies and the accompanying demand for oil. But the President sits in the Whitehouse, so he must control everything, right?
Pull your head from your dogma for a minute, and I'll let you in on something. The Whitehouse doesn't have a king. It has a President with limited powers. One thing it does have is influence in the press (the so-called 'bully pulpit'). In fact, it has whole teams dedicated to manipulating how stories are handled. One of the handling techniques, which you have be trying very clumsily to avoid, is that the Whitehouse will allow some stories to flourish while quietly suppressing others...usually, with the explicit consent of the so-call Fourth Estate.
The whole LewinskyGate was a distraction. So what? A man was getting a little trim on the side from another consenting adult. I don't give a damn that she was an intern. She was older than the age of consent, making her an adult. Hillary should have kicked Bill's ass like every other American woman would (should?) do, we should ahve all got a snicker at his expense...and that should have been the end of the story.
The real story was that a sitting President blatantly lied under oath during a court proceeding. Either perjury is crime or it isn't. But t
High-voltage in switches is still relatively easy to handle as long as you stick to AC. AC crosses the 0V point twice per cycle, and stays near it a relatively long time (for electrons). That makes is fairly easy to extinquish the arc.
Two solutions:
-If using it for lighting, add another string of opposite polarity in close proximity.
-Add a large diode to the start of the string, then add a medium sized capacitor. The capacitory fills up on the upstroke, and will power the LEDs on the downstroke. There's still a short period when no light will be output, but it will be very short. Get the RC constants just right, and it will disappear. For further reference, Google "DC power supply filtering".
If they get Linux desktops rolling...
they will be able to sell you Dell Linux, or HP Open Linux.
Anybody remember 1995 and the push for OOBE (out of box experience), or whatever they called it? All the big players wanted you to open the box and have a Dell or a HP, not a box running Microsoft Windows(TM). Remember the big legal battles over who should be allowed to change what on the default desktop?
The $64,000 question is, "Who's box is it anyway?" Who gets to brand the box? Who gets credit for that pleasurable OOBE?
The interface is ready to go for desktop Linux. Once the component vendors are lined up, and drivers are solid, the "Microsoft Ready" stickers will quickly fade into the past like the nightmare it has been.
I was implying that Clinton did indeed benefit from the Lewinsky scandal, as it acted as a distraction. Furthermore, this happens all the time. A small, inconsequential scandal is created and blown out of proportion as cover for a serious scandal. Lewinski not only covered some illegal aggressive actions, it also blocked out cover of a President lying under oath, a very serious and troubling circumstance that is accompanied by all sorts of serious legal question that impact the underpinnings of American Democracy.
Are you implying that our military can be used to invade anyone the President damn well pleases to, as long as it is done quickly? It isn't illegal for me to rob your house, as long as I get in and back out fast enough?
I still say people that say "cars are a huge waste and that smart city planning and effective mass transportation can do way more than electric cars could ever do" need to pull their heads out of their asses and look at a population density map occasionally.
And just how much power did Clinton lose when we all found out he was spewing on the interns?
Yes. We get to hear about fornication...maybe even get to watch a mock impeachment. But what was going on that they didn't want us to hear about? Maybe the illegal invasion of Kosovo?
It sounds to me like paying protection money to a botnet would be like paying protection money to the mafia.
Or the police?
Government officials force money out of you at the point of a gun (they call it 'taxes'), so that they can hire 'policemen' to protect you.
Just sayin'.
Which does no good for anyone.
... wait for it... Denial of Service. It doesn't matter if the bottleneck is shifted. If the server can't handle the traffic, then my request won't be serviced.
So the phalanx stands in front of the server and only hands it as many requests as the server can handle. My request is still sitting behind a huge queue.
The whole point of a "distributed Denial of Service" is
My old high-school has prior art on anything you'll ever come up with.
If Windows 3.1 gets thrown away because Windows 95 is on the scene, and you have to spend another $100 for the same functionality, something was most definitely lost.
Code is lost all the time in a proprietary world. Lost long before its usefulness is fulfilled. The end can come in the form of a large corporation buying out the upstart competition, a large corporation trying to keep you on an upgrade treadmill, or a small vendor letting a subpar product with some superb features dying off of natural causes. Regardless of the reason, in a world with open code, the community has the ability to retain good code. The closed world has an incentive to make sure your Windows all get broken on a periodic basis.
You can go "by the book" all you want, but even if you win the battle (unlikely) you will still lose the respect of your coworkers and consequently lose the war.
I don't know about that. I had a situation where a fellow developer was being "overly assertive" about how I should change my code. I wrote an email to the entire group, explaining his objections and why it was coded the way I had it.
It got me an apology and a vanilla latte as a peace offering. Letting people know that you won't deal with bullshit doesn't require threats of violence, and knowing what you're talking about will win you true respect.
Exactly...team skills to prepare you for a position in corporate America.
I wonder who Heidi RÃf¼hle's campaign contributors are.
Probably someone that lives in the EU...unlike Bill Gates, et.al.
Two hours of running a marathon will also make a person calm and less stressful. The question is, how are the stress levels the next day at approximately the same time?
Are people made less stressful, or like preparing for a sport, are the stress levels simply being trained to be more intense?
Ooooh! A big touchscreen that I can spill my coffee on while getting neck cramps from leaning over it all day. What will they think of next?
One of the biggest problems modern free societies face is an alleged free press that doesn't bother to check the facts about anything.
As opposed to less modern free societies have had where the newspaper publishers and the government were basically in cahoots to print whatever the government wanted printed?
Everything old is new again.
Overdoses? Give people measured doses of pharmaceutical heroin. ..and they will take the measured doses, and then go on the street to find more.
...and then they will take all you have, and then kill someone to get pennies for their next fix. You do realize that we're talking about a drug that will lead people to starve to death if given the choice of one more fix or a meal.
Killing or hooking for their next fix? If it's legal, a fix costs pennies. Cheap enough to give away.
Aids? If it's legal clean needles will be easy to come by.
Not for someone that can't hold a job because they're addicted to heroine.
Homelessness? Most alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and prescription opiate addicts have a home, why should heroin be any different?
Most? What about those that don't? Would the number that don't be 10 times higher if the drug addiction was 10 times as severe. What if the drug addiction was 100 times as severe? Heroine, like cocaine, should be different because it's effect on brain chemistry is different.
Nearly every treaty dealing with Native Americans...
Of course, you can choose to step outside the 'game', which can be a noble calling. But then of course, you're no longer a player. And as you mentioned a wife it doesn't sound like you've made this choice.
Marriage doesn't mean you have to play.
- She say, "...but I wanted..." I say, "Well, you should have told me so." When she tells me what she wants, she gets it.
- She acts like she wants to, but then falls asleep or manipulates the situation so that the act is impossible to carry out. The next time she acts like she wants to, I ignore her. She gets upset. I remind her how she feel asleep or called friends over at the last minute the last time.
The bullshit only continues because men let it.
Back in the '80s, the Soviet Union had advanced this technology to the point where you could control a fighter jet with it. You had to speak native Russian to use it, though.
1. No money from lobbyists or PACs
So the money will have to come straight from the heads of the oligarchy. The biggest open secret about politics is that all interests are "special interests". Banning money from lobbyists and PACs is just a way to shut out large groups of people that have NO power individually. If the politicos aren't being paid, they will have no reason to listen. At the end of the day, will Elizabeth Dole (my senator) listen to the CEO of Boeing and American Airlines, or a simple private pilot like myself, when it comes to how FAA policy will affect general aviation? Without the lobbyist hired by AOPA and EAA, I would have no voice.
2. Vote to end earmarks
And next year you will have the same thing, with a different name. Congresspeople from Arizona will want to push billions into solar energy research. Nothing wrong with solar energy, but are they pushing for money to be spent on this research vs nuclear research because they expect the money to come rolling into their sunny state (vs Kentucky's mined state). How about supporting a bill to end unconstitutional Federal spending? They can still spend the money. They just have to go through the proper process (amend the Constitution in the prescribed manner).
3. Support publicly-financed campaigns
In which case we hand over large sums of money to random "candidate" that then use the money to try to convince us how much money they can bring back home vs the other "candidate"? Why not just remove money from the equation and support publicly-financed debates. Ones where every candidate gets to submit questions, and every candidate has to answer the same one. The problem with our current campaign paradigm is that the media is a co-conspirator to keep the public in the dark. Pouring more money into this cesspool will just dilute the contents, not clean it out. Hearken back to the South Carolina Republican Debate. Everyone gets a serious question about fiscal policy, then they mock Ron Paul with a question about beliefs of some of his supporters. Why was each candidate asked a slightly different question, and one completely mocked? You want more money for that sort of nonsense?
4. Support reform to increase Congressional transparency
Vague, but commendable. Force all meeting to be open, recorded, and made available in a YouTube like manner. Heh, I'm with you on this one, Lawrence.