And who is going to define what a", say, religion pseudo-fanatic" is? Someone might really make an educated, informed decision that I like this persons moral values better than the other persons.
I certainly don't consider myself to be a religious pseudo-fanatic and I am not from Ohio, but I did look at length at the moral values of both candidates and that did play a part in my decision. So should my vote have counted less? BTW, I do have two college degrees in two totally different areas of study, so I would consider myself to be educated.
Talk about picking. Why not look at Ephesians 4:6 which says "One God and Father of all..." That pretty well covers no other gods. And while you are there look at verse 5 which says "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," that pretty well covers idol worship. Matthew 12:36 pretty well covers taking the Lord's name in vain when it speaks about "every idle word" and actually goes further than just taking the Lord's name in vain. And I believe if you look at Acts 20:7 we can cover worship on Sunday, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..."
But to a small degree you are correct, there is no commandment to remember the sabbath and keep it holy. Sunday worship is different than the sabbath. Thankfully we don't have quite as restrictive rules as the Hebrew people on that.
No, I wasn't just referring to breeding. I was referring to being a partner or "help meet for him" as mentioned in Genesis 2:18. It wasn't good for man to be alone and thus God made woman.
This means someone that is there for you at all times. Someone with which you can spend your entire life. One of the goals is breeding and producing off-spring, but that is just part of it.
Well, this sure sounds good, BUT!
You can't possibly follow the liberal beliefs on the religioustolerance site. You can't believe the Bible and believe that it was written by people that were trying to advance their own religious beliefs. In 2nd Timithy 3:16, Paul states "All scripture is given by inspiration of God...". Now this is either a true statement or it is not. And if this one statement is not true, then the entire book must be suspect and is therefore not useful.
Why should the liberals be looking for "applicable biblical themes" when by their own assertion the Bible has lies in it. If that one verse is false, then it is possible that the entire "justice, love, monogamy, caring, commitment, etc" part could be wrong also.
I once had a Bible teacher that told us that when you interpret the scriptures, you should determine if your interpretation comes in direct conflict with anyother scripture. If a conflict is found between your interpretation and any other scripture then YOU MUST be wrong. This applies directly to this suggestion. There is a problem with the liberal view on the religioustolerance site, in that there is a conflict with another scripture. They, like many others in the world, have decided that they obviously know better than God and thus will ignore the scripture in question.
This is much like children. Teenagers are often like this, in that they THINK that they know more than their parents. Parents give them advise which they choose to ignore because their parents are "just old and things are different now than when they were kids". We (well those of us that are adults and have kids) know that things are some different, but the same principles still apply. The same is true with the Bible, sure there are some things that are different, but not in major ways and the same principles still applly today.
I don't get this ownership deal that keeps being brought up. It seems that somewhere there is a misconception concerning marriage. There is no indication in the New Testament (I can't speak for the Koran as I haven't studied it) that ownership of a woman is transferred from father to husband in a marriage. The only concept of ownership is in 1 Corinthians 7:4.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
And this seems to indicate a joint ownership of each other. Now the man was made head of the house, which does imply authority, but it does not imply ownership. However, a good leader (head) accepts input and criticism from others and thus it would not imply ruling with an iron hand.
I am sorry, but I think you are totally off the mark here. The only reason for marriage is so that the human race can continue. Quite a few of the "benefits" of marriage are things that allow a man to provide for his wife and family while allowing the woman to be a primary care giver for the family.
While I realize that a "stay-at-home Mom" isn't necessarily a politically correct concept these days, it is still the intent of the institution of marriage. Many of our laws concerning marriage were intended to allow the woman to quit working and raise children. We have laws concerning medical insurance coverage, etc to protect these women that have a full time job of caring for children.
Also while many marriages are carried out in churches, if you carefully inspect the Bible (I can't speak for the Koran as I haven't studied it), you will not find that marriage is a religious ritual. Yes marriage is an institution that was created by God from the beginning, but it is not a religious state. Also, marriage is already a civil union. When I got married, I had to purchase a license from the state to be married. Without that license, there was no union. Also, I wasn't married in a church that I attended nor have I become a member of that church at any time. In all truthfulness, I don't even consider it a valid religious organization. It was simply a ceremony to complete the union of marriage between a myself and my (now) wife.
As for rewards, the almost 20 years that I have spent with my wife so far is a wonderful reward. So are the two children that we have. I would have married her and we would have raised these children whether there were "monetary 'rewards'" or not. However, those laws concerning marriage and the rewards that go along with it, allow my wife and I to raise our children in the way that we feel is best for them.
Something is wrong with the primaries when it produces these Bozos. There are better people out there. There have to be.
You are certainly right in that there is something wrong with the primaries. They are very unfair in that if you happen to be one of the unlucky inhabitants of the states that vote toward the end, you don't even have a voice in the primaries. As a matter of fact, if you don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire, your voice is limited.
Once those first two states have made their choices, candidates start dropping like flies. By the time 5 or 6 states have voted there might be only 1 or 2 candidates left in each party. By the time half the states have voted, the decision has been made because if you aren't the leader, you get no press and no money.
I live in Alabama and our primary isn't until June. We had a choice on our ballot in that we could choose the Democratic or Republican primary, but there wasn't but one candidate on each ticket for us. Now how was I supposed to tell anyone how I felt?
If you look for something that is old enough. Oh, but they won't run his bloatware:-| I guess that he is still wanting to sell M$ software, not use them with Linux.
So he is talking a $100.00 PC with a $200.00 OS and $500.00 office suite? How is this going to cut down on piracy?
You might do some searching on google concerning scouting. Cub Scouts have a program for "belt loops" and "academic pins". One of those programs is in computers. Since 9-10 year olds are cub scout aged, you might find some help there.
Basically to get the belt loop you have three things to do:
explain parts of a computer
how to start-up and shutdown a computer
use the computer to prepare and print a document
There are more requirements for the pin (you have to do five of the eleven choices), but you might find some interesting topics there. One is on computerized devices, one is on internet safety rules, etc.
I applaud you for taking the time and interest to do this. I wish that more schools had programs like this, and I really appreciate the fact that the parents are participating with their children in this program.
by Unv's own admission, there are other ways of achieving the same thing. He just doesn't want to do them
I don't think that he is referring to doing anything in userspace here. At least that is the implication that I believe you are giving this, as have several others. He is referring to simply making patches available to end-users that would have to apply them and build their own custom kernel.
This has all the same issues as being a "blessed" module in the first place. The only difference is whether or not Linus and the other maintainers have "blessed" the code and take any level of responsibility for it. And by being outside the main kernel tree, it is more difficult to keep the modules up-to-date.
The NDA doesn't matter, he stated that it had expired. He obviously could open-source the code as far as the NDA is concerned. However, there could be other issues than an NDA, there could potientially be copyright issues, etc that would play into this as well. There are other reasons for not open-sourcing the code. It is an act of good-will between him and Philips. Philips trusted him with their knowledge, knowing that he was an open-source developer. Obviously Philips wasn't planning on these cameras still being on the market when they picked that date to end the NDA, but by him not releasing code for a product they still have on the market, he has a better chance of getting a similar agreement on their next line of products.
Now, it is possble that there are still other ways to get these cameras to work properly. However, it would probably involve a large amount of time on the part of Nemosoft and he just might not have that time available right now. These drivers have been working at some level for a number of years and Nemosoft has ported them to new releases of the kernel, etc when necessary.
I am not sure that anyone is in the right on this issue. I believe that everyone involved has some blame for this. I am just glad that I didn't buy that Philips camera last month that I started to buy. I would have been highly upset at spending over $100.00 for a camera that was not going to be useful in a short period of time.
I had a teacher in college (any M.T.S.U. students or alumni will probably know who she is) that graded our assignments on spelling as well as did we do the programming in an appropriate way. I learned to re-read all code and comments while in her classes. I have maintained that through the years since I graduated and where possible I even run my code through a spell checker. Now, that doesn't mean that everything spell checks perfectly, but I at least try to make sure that the text of comments are correct and that other mis-spellings make sense.
It does make maintaining the code later easier. As I read through it, I make sure that I have followed all stylistic standards for the project properly and also verify logic where possible. I do all of this on a regular basis on small pieces of code as I go along.
If you wait until the end to do this, you probably won't get it done, as someone will be pushing you to release the code so that they can do something else with it. Once it is released, it is out of your control. This includes once the code is added to your source control system to some degree.
I don't understand why you think we fear some of these things. There is no reason to fear guns, they can't do a thing to you. However, murder is possibly another issue. There is no reason to fear cancer or disease as there is nothing that you can do about them. Terrorism is similar, if you live in fear, then they have won (that is the reason for the root word terror in that). And I am not sure about fear of killer bees either, come on what the chance?
But if it could be precisely redirected, it could eliminate some issue. The article mentioned it hitting England and Spain, but could we channel it to hit France instead:-) Now seriously, why would we fear France? I personallly am an American and I don't live in fear of any of those things. Life is way too short to spend time worrying about things that I can change. I don't even fear a giant Tidal wave (of course I live well in the mid-south) but I wouldn't fear it if I lived on the coast.
I recommend if you live in fear of any of these things, that you might want to consider professional assistance or relocation. It just isn't worth it.
No, I don't actually have any blocked ports right now. However, like others on dynamic IP addresses, I can't send to AOL. Big deal, there are two or three people on AOL to which I ever send email.
I was simply commenting that if the ISPs got this in, they would start blocking other things as well. The real answer isn't to block ports universally, the real answer is to lose the losers that abuse the system. Get the folks that are the root of the problem.
What the author is suggesting is a firewall that someone else would be able to control that would prevent me from doing what I might want to do. It is bad enough that I can't run my own SMTP server (properly configured and secured) to send email straight to others, but what would they impose next.
If your ISP wants to block your ability to send email, they can block port 25 already on their routers and it is blocked. They do not need to be able to block it at my residence.
Come on, an ISP can turn off anyone they wish at anytime they wish. But instead of taking a chance of hurting someones feelings, and then possibly having to face some liberal, bleeding-heart judge in the court system, they decide to kill flys with wrecking balls and sledge hammers. It is better to beat the masses into submission than to discipline the guilty party.
"SCO's principal argument in opposition to AutoZone's motion is that it will suffer irreparable harm if the case is stayed."
I believe that the key words were irreparable harm. And it is obvious that a stay will cause irreparable harm to SCO. After all if they don't win this one before they lose to IBM, then they can't win this one. Thus a lose to SCO that can't possible be recovered:-)
I am giving all the business that I can to AutoZone. Seems like they are always getting picked on. I remember when they used to be named Auto Shack, until Radio Shack sued them over their name.
How about the Tektronix 4000 series. They had a resolution of 1024x1024 and were around that far back. Some models only displayed 1024x768 but they stored 1024x1024. Also remember that 1 million pixels didn't equate to 1 million bytes, as the hi-res displays of the time were mono-chrome. This means that we would only be talking about 128KB of locations to be updated.
I saw some pretty impressive things still being done on some of those things well into the 1990s. They were wonderful for wire-frame modeling and they were reasonably fast as well. I saw one hooked to a Convex super-computer to do wire-frame modeling and it would blow away a Sparc 2 running ethernet to the same convex.
You forgot that to access that Big server with enterprise software, you will need CALs for the windows machines. Also you will need a CAL to access your exchance server and one for each of your file servers.
And while you are at it, don't for get the warehouse to store all those CALs in so that they don't get lost. br.
Not likely that a hurricane will hit Huntsville and MSFC. However, it is quite likely that a tornado could go through (in the 100 year picture). We here in Huntsville sit in the second tornado alley. But we have two here, one that is upright and complete and one that is laying down as I mentioned in an earlier post.
I agree that we need to preserve these rockets. They stand (or lay) as a challenge to us all that we should return. Our desire to explore has been tainted with a need for security. We as a people in a desire for safety have forced those with a desire to explore to fit into our needs.
I personally would have climbed into a shuttle the day after Challenger or Columbia either one and been ready to launch (unfortunately I am not an astronaut). I would happily sit on top of a Saturn V today (assuming it was closely inspected and refurbished as needed) for a ride into space.
We must preserve these monuments to our greatness, as that could be the end.
I don't think that it is the only one. There is a Saturn V at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsvlle, AL (you know Marshall SFC and Redstone Arsenal fame) that is sitting upright and intact, complete with Apollo capsule and emergency escape system on top. There are also pieces of a second one laid out on the grounds (not sure how complete, I can't remember).
The one laying down is suffering from deterioration. The Space and Rocket Center is attempting to raise funds to save it and one of their fund raisers is the first reunion of Apollo and Saturn V folks. They are inviting everyone who had anything to do with the Apollo and Saturn V programs to visit and help save the Saturn V rocket.
Buzz Aldrin will be the featured guest of this reunion. Here is a link to the flyer for the event.
When all the other jobs get shipped overseas, being a plumber isn't going to help your friend. After all, he isn't going to work for free (and continue doing very well). And if no one else is working, then no one else is going to have money to pay him. At that point in time, he like the rest of us will be living in a third world country. We will be the people that others look down their noses at and the ones in need of assistance from others who are technologically savey.
The same goes for most jobs. Once the majority of folks aren't working, then there won't be such a need for medical professionals as we won't be able to afford them. There won't be such a need for lawyers, because there will be no need to sue anyone with no means of paying and there certainly won't be ex-employees breaking non-compete clauses in employment contracts.
And a that point in time, we can even get some governmental reform. After all, if no one is working there won't be tax dollars to pay all the high salaries to the professional politicians. They won't work for peanuts, they aren't really that concerned with serving their country. Then we might get a few people serving in office that can actually turn the country around and return it to what it has been in the past.
My dad said many years ago that Detroit (you know that used to be the car capital of the world) was trying to make a throw-away car. He was saying this in the 60s and 70s so his spin was a little different than technology. His assessment of the situation was that they would lay down the first part, then attach the second part. When the third part was addded, it would be added in such a way that you couldn't remove the second part without removing the third part. The third part couldn't be removed until the fourth part was removed, etc. Then finally they would weld the last piece into place with a link all the way through to the first part. In that manner, you could not work on or repair the car. Once anything quit working, even as simple as a spark plug or a tire was low on pressure or the oil needed changing, you would have to get a new car.
So maybe he wasn't quite right on the actual outcome, as they are simply soldering the last piece in place:-) but his prediction is getting closer to coming true. After all that is better for Detroit because soldering is cheaper than welding. And they really don't have to tie all the pieces together, they just have to make they cost enough.
And are they working with the RIAA and MPAA on the DMCA stuff? Have they sued anyone for making duplicate parts yet? Are the designs of the parts copyrighted so that you can't copy them? That will likely be the next step if it isn't already happening.
You are giving extreme cases where the objectionable part is the story line. Obviously you can't watch the movies that you mention and hope to get anything out of them without the atrocities and violence. That is what the movie is trying to communicate and is therefore integral to the movie.
However, let's use another example. There is a movie by the name of "Overboard" that shows on TV quite regularly and has been edited for TV in such a way that there is limited objectionable language and a few references to sexual acts. If you purchase the DVD, the ojectionable blanguage content becomes much more noticable while still retaining the few references to sexual acts. On TV this is a movie that I don't find objectionable for my children to watch, the story line isn't bad and there are some things in the movie to generate discussion within the family every time we see it. On DVD, it is unwatchable by my children due to the language. This is the same movie and both of the movies carry the same director's and producer's names, but the impact is totally different. If I could put the DVD into a player and get basically the TV version of the movie, I would be much happier.
I am sure that many other examples could be found, but this one just jumped into my mind. As to the art portion, see my post earlier in this thread. Art is sometimes carried to the extreme.
I find your agrument here interesting. First you start by stating that "censorship is BAD" and I won't argue with that. But you must define what censorship is. According to my dictionary, censorship deals with an office or authority. That doesn't exist in this case. No one is being forced to watch a version that they don't want to watch. There is no authority, it is a service that is being purchased.
There are quite a few movies out that have interesting story lines and some really good acting, but a couple of scenes in them that do not even contribute significantly to the story line keep them from being watchable by me and my family. We have therefore made the decision not to watch or purchase those movies. That is taking money from the folks that claim to be hurt by this process. Not only the directors are hurt but also all the distribution system is hurt. The director in making his decision has taken money from people at much lower levels.
I also happen to be an artist, I am a musician and I appreciate that the director believes that his vision of the movie is the only one that matters. However, it isn't true. I will use musical analogies as that is what I am most familiar with. The composer writes the music assuming it will sound one way, the conductor interprets the music and conducts the ensemble so that it sounds a slightly different way, and then you the listener mess with your playback system including an equalizer so that is sounds still slightly different again. I actually performed a piece one time that was a derivative work of a composition (with permission) and the composer went back and changed his original composition because he liked the way we arranged one section better than his original version. He didn't take ours exactly, but it was a mix of our work and his original.
I just don't see any difference between the two. And if there isn't any difference, then the RIAA needs to come and remove the equalizer from your stereo system and your computer because the conductor intended for you to hear the music in a particular way. And while they are at it, they need to remove the ability to do random play, skip tracks, etc. Because whomever made the CD intended for you to hear the tracks in a particular order.
Also, I would venture a guess that there are probably more people in the world right now that find the products of today's Hollywood objectionable, than there has ever been directors and producers. Could it be that the movie directors and producers have bad taste? I realize that there are a lot of people out there that watch what Hollywood produces, but there were a lot of people that bought Yugo's also and that doesn't make them quality cars. A lot of people eat cottage cheese as well, but that doesn't mean it isn't made from spoiled milk, and a lot of people smoke cigarettes but that doesn't make them healthy. To me that goes back to the analogy my parents (and many others have used) "if all your friends were jumping off a cliff, would you?"
I would love to enjoy more movies, but I will not sacrifice my moral standings to do so. I accept that movies are a sacrifice that I make for what I feel is a greater good. Just as much as censorship is wrong, so is you forcing your standards on me.
Slashdot Mirror
And who is going to define what a", say, religion pseudo-fanatic" is? Someone might really make an educated, informed decision that I like this persons moral values better than the other persons.
I certainly don't consider myself to be a religious pseudo-fanatic and I am not from Ohio, but I did look at length at the moral values of both candidates and that did play a part in my decision. So should my vote have counted less? BTW, I do have two college degrees in two totally different areas of study, so I would consider myself to be educated.
Talk about picking. Why not look at Ephesians 4:6 which says "One God and Father of all..." That pretty well covers no other gods. And while you are there look at verse 5 which says "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," that pretty well covers idol worship. Matthew 12:36 pretty well covers taking the Lord's name in vain when it speaks about "every idle word" and actually goes further than just taking the Lord's name in vain. And I believe if you look at Acts 20:7 we can cover worship on Sunday, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..."
But to a small degree you are correct, there is no commandment to remember the sabbath and keep it holy. Sunday worship is different than the sabbath. Thankfully we don't have quite as restrictive rules as the Hebrew people on that.
No, I wasn't just referring to breeding. I was referring to being a partner or "help meet for him" as mentioned in Genesis 2:18. It wasn't good for man to be alone and thus God made woman.
This means someone that is there for you at all times. Someone with which you can spend your entire life. One of the goals is breeding and producing off-spring, but that is just part of it.
Well, this sure sounds good, BUT!
You can't possibly follow the liberal beliefs on the religioustolerance site. You can't believe the Bible and believe that it was written by people that were trying to advance their own religious beliefs. In 2nd Timithy 3:16, Paul states "All scripture is given by inspiration of God...". Now this is either a true statement or it is not. And if this one statement is not true, then the entire book must be suspect and is therefore not useful.
Why should the liberals be looking for "applicable biblical themes" when by their own assertion the Bible has lies in it. If that one verse is false, then it is possible that the entire "justice, love, monogamy, caring, commitment, etc" part could be wrong also.
I once had a Bible teacher that told us that when you interpret the scriptures, you should determine if your interpretation comes in direct conflict with anyother scripture. If a conflict is found between your interpretation and any other scripture then YOU MUST be wrong. This applies directly to this suggestion. There is a problem with the liberal view on the religioustolerance site, in that there is a conflict with another scripture. They, like many others in the world, have decided that they obviously know better than God and thus will ignore the scripture in question.
This is much like children. Teenagers are often like this, in that they THINK that they know more than their parents. Parents give them advise which they choose to ignore because their parents are "just old and things are different now than when they were kids". We (well those of us that are adults and have kids) know that things are some different, but the same principles still apply. The same is true with the Bible, sure there are some things that are different, but not in major ways and the same principles still applly today.
And this seems to indicate a joint ownership of each other. Now the man was made head of the house, which does imply authority, but it does not imply ownership. However, a good leader (head) accepts input and criticism from others and thus it would not imply ruling with an iron hand.
I am sorry, but I think you are totally off the mark here. The only reason for marriage is so that the human race can continue. Quite a few of the "benefits" of marriage are things that allow a man to provide for his wife and family while allowing the woman to be a primary care giver for the family.
While I realize that a "stay-at-home Mom" isn't necessarily a politically correct concept these days, it is still the intent of the institution of marriage. Many of our laws concerning marriage were intended to allow the woman to quit working and raise children. We have laws concerning medical insurance coverage, etc to protect these women that have a full time job of caring for children.
Also while many marriages are carried out in churches, if you carefully inspect the Bible (I can't speak for the Koran as I haven't studied it), you will not find that marriage is a religious ritual. Yes marriage is an institution that was created by God from the beginning, but it is not a religious state. Also, marriage is already a civil union. When I got married, I had to purchase a license from the state to be married. Without that license, there was no union. Also, I wasn't married in a church that I attended nor have I become a member of that church at any time. In all truthfulness, I don't even consider it a valid religious organization. It was simply a ceremony to complete the union of marriage between a myself and my (now) wife.
As for rewards, the almost 20 years that I have spent with my wife so far is a wonderful reward. So are the two children that we have. I would have married her and we would have raised these children whether there were "monetary 'rewards'" or not. However, those laws concerning marriage and the rewards that go along with it, allow my wife and I to raise our children in the way that we feel is best for them.
Once those first two states have made their choices, candidates start dropping like flies. By the time 5 or 6 states have voted there might be only 1 or 2 candidates left in each party. By the time half the states have voted, the decision has been made because if you aren't the leader, you get no press and no money.
I live in Alabama and our primary isn't until June. We had a choice on our ballot in that we could choose the Democratic or Republican primary, but there wasn't but one candidate on each ticket for us. Now how was I supposed to tell anyone how I felt?
If you look for something that is old enough. Oh, but they won't run his bloatware :-| I guess that he is still wanting to sell M$ software, not use them with Linux.
So he is talking a $100.00 PC with a $200.00 OS and $500.00 office suite? How is this going to cut down on piracy?
Basically to get the belt loop you have three things to do:
- explain parts of a computer
- how to start-up and shutdown a computer
- use the computer to prepare and print a document
There are more requirements for the pin (you have to do five of the eleven choices), but you might find some interesting topics there. One is on computerized devices, one is on internet safety rules, etc.I applaud you for taking the time and interest to do this. I wish that more schools had programs like this, and I really appreciate the fact that the parents are participating with their children in this program.
This has all the same issues as being a "blessed" module in the first place. The only difference is whether or not Linus and the other maintainers have "blessed" the code and take any level of responsibility for it. And by being outside the main kernel tree, it is more difficult to keep the modules up-to-date.
The NDA doesn't matter, he stated that it had expired. He obviously could open-source the code as far as the NDA is concerned. However, there could be other issues than an NDA, there could potientially be copyright issues, etc that would play into this as well. There are other reasons for not open-sourcing the code. It is an act of good-will between him and Philips. Philips trusted him with their knowledge, knowing that he was an open-source developer. Obviously Philips wasn't planning on these cameras still being on the market when they picked that date to end the NDA, but by him not releasing code for a product they still have on the market, he has a better chance of getting a similar agreement on their next line of products.
Now, it is possble that there are still other ways to get these cameras to work properly. However, it would probably involve a large amount of time on the part of Nemosoft and he just might not have that time available right now. These drivers have been working at some level for a number of years and Nemosoft has ported them to new releases of the kernel, etc when necessary.
I am not sure that anyone is in the right on this issue. I believe that everyone involved has some blame for this. I am just glad that I didn't buy that Philips camera last month that I started to buy. I would have been highly upset at spending over $100.00 for a camera that was not going to be useful in a short period of time.
I had a teacher in college (any M.T.S.U. students or alumni will probably know who she is) that graded our assignments on spelling as well as did we do the programming in an appropriate way. I learned to re-read all code and comments while in her classes. I have maintained that through the years since I graduated and where possible I even run my code through a spell checker. Now, that doesn't mean that everything spell checks perfectly, but I at least try to make sure that the text of comments are correct and that other mis-spellings make sense.
It does make maintaining the code later easier. As I read through it, I make sure that I have followed all stylistic standards for the project properly and also verify logic where possible. I do all of this on a regular basis on small pieces of code as I go along.
If you wait until the end to do this, you probably won't get it done, as someone will be pushing you to release the code so that they can do something else with it. Once it is released, it is out of your control. This includes once the code is added to your source control system to some degree.
I don't understand why you think we fear some of these things. There is no reason to fear guns, they can't do a thing to you. However, murder is possibly another issue. There is no reason to fear cancer or disease as there is nothing that you can do about them. Terrorism is similar, if you live in fear, then they have won (that is the reason for the root word terror in that). And I am not sure about fear of killer bees either, come on what the chance?
:-) Now seriously, why would we fear France? I personallly am an American and I don't live in fear of any of those things. Life is way too short to spend time worrying about things that I can change. I don't even fear a giant Tidal wave (of course I live well in the mid-south) but I wouldn't fear it if I lived on the coast.
But if it could be precisely redirected, it could eliminate some issue. The article mentioned it hitting England and Spain, but could we channel it to hit France instead
I recommend if you live in fear of any of these things, that you might want to consider professional assistance or relocation. It just isn't worth it.
Yeah it is 8.3, and everyone is answering Microsoft.
You are correct. This would be a major evolutionary breakthrough in a species. This doesn't change the species to another species.
No, I don't actually have any blocked ports right now. However, like others on dynamic IP addresses, I can't send to AOL. Big deal, there are two or three people on AOL to which I ever send email.
I was simply commenting that if the ISPs got this in, they would start blocking other things as well. The real answer isn't to block ports universally, the real answer is to lose the losers that abuse the system. Get the folks that are the root of the problem.
What the author is suggesting is a firewall that someone else would be able to control that would prevent me from doing what I might want to do. It is bad enough that I can't run my own SMTP server (properly configured and secured) to send email straight to others, but what would they impose next.
If your ISP wants to block your ability to send email, they can block port 25 already on their routers and it is blocked. They do not need to be able to block it at my residence.
Come on, an ISP can turn off anyone they wish at anytime they wish. But instead of taking a chance of hurting someones feelings, and then possibly having to face some liberal, bleeding-heart judge in the court system, they decide to kill flys with wrecking balls and sledge hammers. It is better to beat the masses into submission than to discipline the guilty party.
And we wonder what is wrong with our society!
I am giving all the business that I can to AutoZone. Seems like they are always getting picked on. I remember when they used to be named Auto Shack, until Radio Shack sued them over their name.
How about the Tektronix 4000 series. They had a resolution of 1024x1024 and were around that far back. Some models only displayed 1024x768 but they stored 1024x1024. Also remember that 1 million pixels didn't equate to 1 million bytes, as the hi-res displays of the time were mono-chrome. This means that we would only be talking about 128KB of locations to be updated.
I saw some pretty impressive things still being done on some of those things well into the 1990s. They were wonderful for wire-frame modeling and they were reasonably fast as well. I saw one hooked to a Convex super-computer to do wire-frame modeling and it would blow away a Sparc 2 running ethernet to the same convex.
You forgot that to access that Big server with enterprise software, you will need CALs for the windows machines. Also you will need a CAL to access your exchance server and one for each of your file servers.
And while you are at it, don't for get the warehouse to store all those CALs in so that they don't get lost.
br.
Not likely that a hurricane will hit Huntsville and MSFC. However, it is quite likely that a tornado could go through (in the 100 year picture). We here in Huntsville sit in the second tornado alley. But we have two here, one that is upright and complete and one that is laying down as I mentioned in an earlier post.
I agree that we need to preserve these rockets. They stand (or lay) as a challenge to us all that we should return. Our desire to explore has been tainted with a need for security. We as a people in a desire for safety have forced those with a desire to explore to fit into our needs.
I personally would have climbed into a shuttle the day after Challenger or Columbia either one and been ready to launch (unfortunately I am not an astronaut). I would happily sit on top of a Saturn V today (assuming it was closely inspected and refurbished as needed) for a ride into space.
We must preserve these monuments to our greatness, as that could be the end.
I don't think that it is the only one. There is a Saturn V at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsvlle, AL (you know Marshall SFC and Redstone Arsenal fame) that is sitting upright and intact, complete with Apollo capsule and emergency escape system on top. There are also pieces of a second one laid out on the grounds (not sure how complete, I can't remember).
The one laying down is suffering from deterioration. The Space and Rocket Center is attempting to raise funds to save it and one of their fund raisers is the first reunion of Apollo and Saturn V folks. They are inviting everyone who had anything to do with the Apollo and Saturn V programs to visit and help save the Saturn V rocket.
Buzz Aldrin will be the featured guest of this reunion. Here is a link to the flyer for the event.
When all the other jobs get shipped overseas, being a plumber isn't going to help your friend. After all, he isn't going to work for free (and continue doing very well). And if no one else is working, then no one else is going to have money to pay him. At that point in time, he like the rest of us will be living in a third world country. We will be the people that others look down their noses at and the ones in need of assistance from others who are technologically savey.
The same goes for most jobs. Once the majority of folks aren't working, then there won't be such a need for medical professionals as we won't be able to afford them. There won't be such a need for lawyers, because there will be no need to sue anyone with no means of paying and there certainly won't be ex-employees breaking non-compete clauses in employment contracts.
And a that point in time, we can even get some governmental reform. After all, if no one is working there won't be tax dollars to pay all the high salaries to the professional politicians. They won't work for peanuts, they aren't really that concerned with serving their country. Then we might get a few people serving in office that can actually turn the country around and return it to what it has been in the past.
My dad said many years ago that Detroit (you know that used to be the car capital of the world) was trying to make a throw-away car. He was saying this in the 60s and 70s so his spin was a little different than technology. His assessment of the situation was that they would lay down the first part, then attach the second part. When the third part was addded, it would be added in such a way that you couldn't remove the second part without removing the third part. The third part couldn't be removed until the fourth part was removed, etc. Then finally they would weld the last piece into place with a link all the way through to the first part. In that manner, you could not work on or repair the car. Once anything quit working, even as simple as a spark plug or a tire was low on pressure or the oil needed changing, you would have to get a new car.
:-) but his prediction is getting closer to coming true. After all that is better for Detroit because soldering is cheaper than welding. And they really don't have to tie all the pieces together, they just have to make they cost enough.
So maybe he wasn't quite right on the actual outcome, as they are simply soldering the last piece in place
And are they working with the RIAA and MPAA on the DMCA stuff? Have they sued anyone for making duplicate parts yet? Are the designs of the parts copyrighted so that you can't copy them? That will likely be the next step if it isn't already happening.
You are giving extreme cases where the objectionable part is the story line. Obviously you can't watch the movies that you mention and hope to get anything out of them without the atrocities and violence. That is what the movie is trying to communicate and is therefore integral to the movie.
However, let's use another example. There is a movie by the name of "Overboard" that shows on TV quite regularly and has been edited for TV in such a way that there is limited objectionable language and a few references to sexual acts. If you purchase the DVD, the ojectionable blanguage content becomes much more noticable while still retaining the few references to sexual acts. On TV this is a movie that I don't find objectionable for my children to watch, the story line isn't bad and there are some things in the movie to generate discussion within the family every time we see it. On DVD, it is unwatchable by my children due to the language. This is the same movie and both of the movies carry the same director's and producer's names, but the impact is totally different. If I could put the DVD into a player and get basically the TV version of the movie, I would be much happier.
I am sure that many other examples could be found, but this one just jumped into my mind. As to the art portion, see my post earlier in this thread. Art is sometimes carried to the extreme.
I find your agrument here interesting. First you start by stating that "censorship is BAD" and I won't argue with that. But you must define what censorship is. According to my dictionary, censorship deals with an office or authority. That doesn't exist in this case. No one is being forced to watch a version that they don't want to watch. There is no authority, it is a service that is being purchased.
There are quite a few movies out that have interesting story lines and some really good acting, but a couple of scenes in them that do not even contribute significantly to the story line keep them from being watchable by me and my family. We have therefore made the decision not to watch or purchase those movies. That is taking money from the folks that claim to be hurt by this process. Not only the directors are hurt but also all the distribution system is hurt. The director in making his decision has taken money from people at much lower levels.
I also happen to be an artist, I am a musician and I appreciate that the director believes that his vision of the movie is the only one that matters. However, it isn't true. I will use musical analogies as that is what I am most familiar with. The composer writes the music assuming it will sound one way, the conductor interprets the music and conducts the ensemble so that it sounds a slightly different way, and then you the listener mess with your playback system including an equalizer so that is sounds still slightly different again. I actually performed a piece one time that was a derivative work of a composition (with permission) and the composer went back and changed his original composition because he liked the way we arranged one section better than his original version. He didn't take ours exactly, but it was a mix of our work and his original.
I just don't see any difference between the two. And if there isn't any difference, then the RIAA needs to come and remove the equalizer from your stereo system and your computer because the conductor intended for you to hear the music in a particular way. And while they are at it, they need to remove the ability to do random play, skip tracks, etc. Because whomever made the CD intended for you to hear the tracks in a particular order.
Also, I would venture a guess that there are probably more people in the world right now that find the products of today's Hollywood objectionable, than there has ever been directors and producers. Could it be that the movie directors and producers have bad taste? I realize that there are a lot of people out there that watch what Hollywood produces, but there were a lot of people that bought Yugo's also and that doesn't make them quality cars. A lot of people eat cottage cheese as well, but that doesn't mean it isn't made from spoiled milk, and a lot of people smoke cigarettes but that doesn't make them healthy. To me that goes back to the analogy my parents (and many others have used) "if all your friends were jumping off a cliff, would you?"
I would love to enjoy more movies, but I will not sacrifice my moral standings to do so. I accept that movies are a sacrifice that I make for what I feel is a greater good. Just as much as censorship is wrong, so is you forcing your standards on me.