Amen. A good mate of mine in the Royal Engineers was (and is) a bomb disposal expert and spent many years in Angola getting rid of nasties like this and he mentioned that radio control was a no-no. His method was as low tech as possible: stick it all in a big hole and use a remote electrical detonator. No radio interference and if there's a shielding problem at the moment of detonation, then it really doesn't matter since you're blowing up the stuff anyway.
I first heard about The Watchmen through my g/f this year as it is on the required readings list for one of her English courses at Queen's University in Ontario.
I recently read an interview with Alan Moore where he says, amusingly, that his own daughter Amber had to study it for a university literature course. Talk about an unfair advantage: "Hey dad what did you mean here?"
Pathetic. You're sticking your head in the sand. It's a classic example of Stallmanesque Software Fanatics cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Heh - you're the one that seems to be all insecure about Photoshop and Gimp competing with each other, not me.
What is your reason for wimping out about making Gimp easier to use than Photoshop? Are you actually setting your goals lower than Photoshop for a good reason? Why are you so intent on sabotaging Gimp's potential? Are you embarassed to try Photoshop yourself, and afraid to face the fact that it's much easier to use than Gimp?
I don't doubt that Photoshop is easier to use than the Gimp. It's almost certainly been through professional usability tests. But my reasons for hacking away on the Gimp and some of its plugins are much simpler than you imagine: it's fun. That's all. No more no less. There are bonuses when people find your code useful, but they are just bonuses.
Don't give me that line of crap about not having access to Windows, not being able to afford Phoshop, and being too politically correct to use a pirated copy. You're just making excuses, and not motivated enough.
It's not a line of crap. I don't need Windows for my work. I don't want Windows for my work - it's insecure, buggy and expensive. I haven't needed it for my work for many years now. I can afford Photoshop but I have no real need for it since Gimp does me just fine. And yeah, I don't rip off software without paying what the authors ask. That's not "politically correct", it's just being honest. It comes from a culture that does respect copyrights. Or would you prefer I did get a cracked version to install on a cracked version of Windows just to check out what I've been missing?
If you're developing Gimp (or even evangelizing it), you have a responsibility to figure out a way to learn what Photoshop is all about.
Here's a clue pal: I don't have any responsibility whatsoever to anyone as to what Free Software I write in my spare time. No-one is paying me, I'm just creating stuff for fun which I'm sharing with others on very generous terms. If it's good and it works, it might get used by others and incorporated into something bigger. If not, then I still had fun and learned something. This is how Linux got going: people hacking away on stuff for fun and sharing. But in case you still don't get it, I'll say it again with added emphasis. Ready? Here we go: Nearly all Free and Open Source Software developers DO NOT CARE whether what they do competes with some proprietary project. I am one of those developers.
You mean to tell me that you're a Gimp developer, but you've never used Photoshop?!?!
You're either trolling or a sharecropper or both.
There's your problem right there. No wonder Gimp is so hard to use.
I've always found it very straighforward but then I've never used Photoshop.
No user interface designer or software developer should be afraid to use a competing product.
Here's a heads-up: a large number of Gimp users and developers do not care if Gimp competes with PS or not for all sorts of reasons:
they don't have or need Windows
they are forced to use Windows at work but can't or won't spend money on additional proprietary software
they don't want to ever give money to Adobe specifically
Gimp suits them fine
Gimp will continue along just fine, competing with previous versions of itself, being written for its users by its developers with feedback from its users. It's already incorporated some good ideas from PS. If Windows users want to compare it to Photoshop then fine, but if the Win32 port comes to a screaming halt and never advances again, that won't stop it getting better on other platforms.
It's your responsibility to know Photoshop cold before trying to write something that competes with it. Many of the users you're trying to win over certainly do.
Gimp was not written as a competitor to Photoshop. And Gimp for Windows is just a port of the Linux version which may work or may not. Anyway, think of how utterly stupid your comment sounds when you replace "Photoshop" with "Linux" - or any other popular free-as-in-freedom program. Do you really think Linus bothered to "learn Windows cold" before he tried to write a competitor?
Pretty much every guy I know who's got married (and who isn't rich) had it ruin his life.
Again, I'm really sorry to hear that. But marriage is hard work. You have to work at keeping your relationship going. Love isn't a nice mushy feeling that lasts for ever (that's the freshness of intimacy which only lasts about three years) - it's an act of the will which says "I will love my partner no matter what." When you do that that's when the feelings come and they just get better and better over time like a good wine.
Oh, sure, they won't admit it. Even to themselves. It's taboo to do so, because heaven forbid you admit you didn't want children.
Children are wonderful, frustrating, joyous, nerve-wracking and all-consuming little creatures. But you really really have to be ready for them, both you yourself and your relationship with your partner. I would say having children is a decision you need to make even before you get married or even jump in the hay. How many, when, why and so on. That's just common sense. Many people seem to know this, which could explain the looks your brother is getting.
Haha - touche. Now that I read my post again it sounds as silly as you describe. What I meant (and didn't make clear) was that both the aforementioned works are descriptions of real experiences by real people. Naturally the gp isn't going to put any stock in that since he then has to rely on written records but that's his problem...
The directing, especially the camera work, is pretty bad. For instance, far too much time is spent in the beginning showing off those mechanical cargo-moving whatevers. The first time I saw the dang thing, I was saying to myself why are they showing me this? Oh, that must be what she kills the last alien with. The point gets over-established.
Mmm, yeah all 30 seconds of a scene which establishes a) Ripley did in fact have a job as a loader in the docks b) she's as strong and independent as ever c) she's going to play more than just an adviser later on d) Hicks and Apone have a good working relationship and e) yeah this beastie might come in handy somewhere near the end. All without bringing the movie to a screeching halt in the process. So how would you have done it Mr Director?
The acting is pretty bad. 'Game-over man!' The Marines are, to me, complete stereotypes. Comic book figures driven completely by machismo.
Just like all those other space marine movies before! Er, except this was the first really...
You know immediately the one with the toughest mouth is going to die first, screaming. Another example of overestablishing the point.
She doesn't:)
Memorable quotes? Sure, I guess so. So are advertising slogans. It's not any kind of measure of a film in my book.
It's actually a very subtle and effective measure of a film if you think about it. When people talk about Scent of a Woman they always refer back to the great speech at the end. Similarly Aliens and its fistful of good lines. Or hundreds of other great films.
It's only recent that the quaint notion of love had any force beyond poems and books.
May I point you to the poems of Catullus (for the down side of love) or perhaps the Song of Solomon (for the up side), both thousands of years old.
But take everything I say with a grain of salt. As someone who has watched his brother methodically destroyed by an unwanted child and a scheming woman, I'm a tad bitter.
I'm sorry to hear that. But your brother made a mistake and now marriage and your strange definition of love are to blame?
Yeah - go DD. Titanic was the first small rattling of stones in 1996 that became the avalanche of Linux in movie CGI, and employer of Darryl Strauss, the man who brought 3d hardware acceleration to Linux users. He also wrote relevant rebuttals to NT fanboys. Titanic is quite a nasty thorn in SCO's side since the 100-odd Alpha boxes used for rendering were most certainly an enterprise-class use of Linux before IBM came long.
It is a very popular opinion and with good reason.
The original was a creepy, atmospheric, suspense/horror movie. The audience never even gets to see the alien through most of the movie, just quick flashes that leave the impression or something horrible lurking just slightly out of sight.
Agreed 100%.
By comparison, the sequels - all of 'em - were run-of-the-mill action flicks.
I disagree about Aliens. Aliens not only is a worthy sequel precisely because it didn't try to remake the original, but is probably one of the finest action films ever made. Here are some of my reasons:
The pacing is perfect. Act I sets up the story, pulling quite a few disparate elements together successfully, Act II is mainly action combined with suspense and Act III is the race against time. And Act IV is a genuine shock when the mother is revealed to be still alive. There's good sub-plots too - Burke's real motivation for one.
Cameron manages to resolve Ripley's fate from the last film, and incorporate the Alien species into the new one in a believable way while giving his audience more of a look.
The Marines are real characters who engage you and you can care about. I can't name any prisoners from Alien 3 but I can reel off all the characters from Aliens (and Alien).
For 1986 the effects are stunning (and almost all physical). Even the best CGI films of today can't compare with that fight between Ripley and the queen.
It's well-acted and well-directed.
It's genuinely scary.
The score is at least the equal of Alien's.
It's no accident that its rating is so high on IMDB nor that its technology and memorable quotes have had such a lasting influence on fans.
The suspense that made the original so great was gone, and in its place was buckets of gore.
Aliens has far less gore than the two that followed it. Also remember the first Alien has two of the most gory scenes of all.
I suppose it was inevitable - the original was a *very* tough act to follow, and splatter flicks were making big bank at the time.
I don't know where you get this from. And anyway, Cameron's intent was most certainly not to make a splatter flick and he succeeded.
I see. As magefile has pointed out most non-Europeans think of your country as Eastern Europe for historical reasons, not exactly where you are on the map. I imagine the next couple of generations who don't remember the Berlin Wall or the Cold War will start referring to it as central rather than Eastern.
Wait - its Czech clone is called Danix? So the Hungarian clone is called Norwix and the Bulgarian one Swedix? What's the pattern (for those of us not living in Eastern Europe)?
While the book offers encouragement to those who (think they) can't draw, it does not address the not-so-encouraging point that spatial intelligence can't really be taught (but maybe simulated).
Spacial intelligence is just practice like everything else...
In the visual arts, observation requires more than just the sense of sight, and even the vital criteria of awareness, sensitivity, presence of mind, and technical ability don't inherently translate to the ability to transcode your sensory input into something personal, meaningful, powerful, and coherent; the ability to do so is "skill at art".
And yet some of the great artists describe their own "hit rate" as being somewhere around one in five. So for every memorable piece they were happy with, there were four turkeys. This says to me that transcoding your sensory input into something personal, meaningful, powerful and coherent isn't guaranteed - even if you're great. It's quite easy to see this in action in other artistic disciplines like filmmaking and music composition. Hitchcock had his off days, some of Mozart's piano concertos are less than inspiring but that doesn't take away from their best works. Hmmm - I'm not sure whether I'm now disagreeing with you or not:)
You can teach technique, allowing someone to draw a passable Neo (for example).
Ouch that hurts:) Look at some of the others too!
You can't teach art; nothing will ever teach someone to be able to create original work on the level of the Sistine Chapel, Adam's photos, or some of The Designer's Republic's better works.
I disagree - van Gogh, Michaelangelo and Leonardo, all taught themselves technique and then got to where they were through relentless practice and perseverance. Figure studies, copies, sketches, early drafts, training - none of these artists works just suddenly appeared. You can compare van Gogh's Carpenter (which is crap) to his Woman in Mourning (which is a masterpiece) and see how he taught himself technique and thus improved the quality of his work. But it depends on your definition of art I suppose. I'm obviously in the "can be taught" camp but I have a good decade of practice still to do before I can branch out and do more original work.
Personal skill at art is something that is teachable and can be learned. Objects look the way they do because of where they are in relation to the viewer and what their dimensions are. Similarly light has rules which you can learn if you are to duplicate the illusion of light in a 2d representation like a drawing. Textures also have rules and so on. It's all about drawing what you see and not what you think is there. Sure there are people who have this ability from early on but the rest of us can learn very quickly. I'd suggest getting Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain if the submitter wants to learn for himself. And let me shamelessly plug my Deviant Art site so I can get a few more views. I must finish that Neo drawing sometime...
I've done it when installing qmail under the gun at a very large company. Instead of (not exact syntax - too lazy to look it up):
echo "This is a test mail" |/usr/bin/qmail-inject
I did:
echo "This is a test mail" >/usr/bin/qmail-inject
whereupon I confidently proclaimed that all was done and so left for a well-earned long weekend. The following Monday morning was not enjoyable. At least the incident taught me several very sharp lessons which I haven't forgotten...
Huh? Someone sets fire to a car in a "difficult suburb" (read ghetto) and all of a sudden it's "militants"?
There was a hilarious Onion story a few months ago headlined something like "Vandalism in quiet town is either the work of Al-Qaida cell or bored teenagers, says Sherrif." In the article the "sherrif" said "you just can't be too careful."
I don't know if you've heard it or not but if you have then I'd like to know the truth of it.
Once upon a time a very bright young lad decided he wanted to work for a young startup in Cape Town. The Internet was getting big and he thought the company was going places. Ultimately he didn't because his parents talked him out of it - too risky, too far to travel, this startup looked dodgy, blah blah blah.
However this career move (or lack thereof) deprived him of the million dollar bonus that you paid to your employees when the sale to Verisign went through since Thawte was the startup! I hear it left his relations with his parents quite strained.
Keep it up with Go OSS and Ubuntu and tell Craig he needs to work harder:)
I've heard lots of accusations of Harris disenfranchising, etc... but never that ChoicePoint had "close ties to the GOP". You cite Greg Palast. Could you find a less biased source? Noam Chomsky Perhaps?
I assume you're being sarcastic. It takes very little work to find that many directors of ChoicePoint and DBT were big fat Republican donors. And I'm also amused at the accusation of bias. I am not American (although I have travelled widely there), I am just an outsider looking in. I hold no brief for either of the two main parties and prefer to see how the evidence speaks for itself. Which is why I enjoy Greg Palast's work. He asks questions, he spends years looking for documents that some want kept secret, he causes paroxysms with his stories, and most importantly of all, he's not owned by anyone.
From the article, 57,700 "felons" were struck from the voter list. These people were all contacted (although I assume it is reasonable that many of these people were not reached)
Still looking for more info on this section...
Now lets go after that last bullet: None of the names on the list were Hispanic. Greg Palast has this screenshot on his website of a segment of the list. (Ignore for the moment that he apparently uses Windows, AOL, and has 16 non-standard icons in his system tray.)
Thanks - I will. It's an ad-hominem attack which has got sod-all to do with his reputation as a reporter and the quality of the information we're discussing. I use Gentoo (got to get an unrelated plug in somewhere!). Does that have absolutely anything to do with the quality of the research I did this morning on South African innovation?
While I don't dispute that ChoicePoint used poor methods to determine matches,
Yeah, and they were forced to admit that in court.
what else can we glean from the spreadsheet? For one thing, there are no "Hispanics" in the race column, despite there being two names that appear to be hispanic in origin. One is listed as unknown, and one as white. So, the argument that "hispanics have been removed because they tend to vote Republican" is probably bunk. Much more likely, ChoicePoint correctly identified Hispanics as an "ethinic group" and not a race. This would very reasonably explain why there are no "hispanics" on the list.
Right. Given a screenshot with twenty names on it, let's extrapolate to 57000-odd. So far you're not impressing me.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen. A good mate of mine in the Royal Engineers was (and is) a bomb disposal expert and spent many years in Angola getting rid of nasties like this and he mentioned that radio control was a no-no. His method was as low tech as possible: stick it all in a big hole and use a remote electrical detonator. No radio interference and if there's a shielding problem at the moment of detonation, then it really doesn't matter since you're blowing up the stuff anyway.
I first heard about The Watchmen through my g/f this year as it is on the required readings list for one of her English courses at Queen's University in Ontario.
I recently read an interview with Alan Moore where he says, amusingly, that his own daughter Amber had to study it for a university literature course. Talk about an unfair advantage:
"Hey dad what did you mean here?"
Pathetic. You're sticking your head in the sand. It's a classic example of Stallmanesque Software Fanatics cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Heh - you're the one that seems to be all insecure about Photoshop and Gimp competing with each other, not me.
What is your reason for wimping out about making Gimp easier to use than Photoshop? Are you actually setting your goals lower than Photoshop for a good reason? Why are you so intent on sabotaging Gimp's potential? Are you embarassed to try Photoshop yourself, and afraid to face the fact that it's much easier to use than Gimp?
I don't doubt that Photoshop is easier to use than the Gimp. It's almost certainly been through professional usability tests. But my reasons for hacking away on the Gimp and some of its plugins are much simpler than you imagine: it's fun. That's all. No more no less. There are bonuses when people find your code useful, but they are just bonuses.
Don't give me that line of crap about not having access to Windows, not being able to afford Phoshop, and being too politically correct to use a pirated copy. You're just making excuses, and not motivated enough.
It's not a line of crap. I don't need Windows for my work. I don't want Windows for my work - it's insecure, buggy and expensive. I haven't needed it for my work for many years now. I can afford Photoshop but I have no real need for it since Gimp does me just fine. And yeah, I don't rip off software without paying what the authors ask. That's not "politically correct", it's just being honest. It comes from a culture that does respect copyrights. Or would you prefer I did get a cracked version to install on a cracked version of Windows just to check out what I've been missing?
If you're developing Gimp (or even evangelizing it), you have a responsibility to figure out a way to learn what Photoshop is all about.
Here's a clue pal: I don't have any responsibility whatsoever to anyone as to what Free Software I write in my spare time. No-one is paying me, I'm just creating stuff for fun which I'm sharing with others on very generous terms. If it's good and it works, it might get used by others and incorporated into something bigger. If not, then I still had fun and learned something. This is how Linux got going: people hacking away on stuff for fun and sharing. But in case you still don't get it, I'll say it again with added emphasis. Ready? Here we go:
Nearly all Free and Open Source Software developers DO NOT CARE whether what they do competes with some proprietary project. I am one of those developers.
You're either trolling or a sharecropper or both.
There's your problem right there. No wonder Gimp is so hard to use.
I've always found it very straighforward but then I've never used Photoshop.
No user interface designer or software developer should be afraid to use a competing product.
Here's a heads-up: a large number of Gimp users and developers do not care if Gimp competes with PS or not for all sorts of reasons:
Gimp will continue along just fine, competing with previous versions of itself, being written for its users by its developers with feedback from its users. It's already incorporated some good ideas from PS. If Windows users want to compare it to Photoshop then fine, but if the Win32 port comes to a screaming halt and never advances again, that won't stop it getting better on other platforms.
It's your responsibility to know Photoshop cold before trying to write something that competes with it. Many of the users you're trying to win over certainly do.
Gimp was not written as a competitor to Photoshop. And Gimp for Windows is just a port of the Linux version which may work or may not. Anyway, think of how utterly stupid your comment sounds when you replace "Photoshop" with "Linux" - or any other popular free-as-in-freedom program. Do you really think Linus bothered to "learn Windows cold" before he tried to write a competitor?
Pretty much every guy I know who's got married (and who isn't rich) had it ruin his life.
Again, I'm really sorry to hear that. But marriage is hard work. You have to work at keeping your relationship going. Love isn't a nice mushy feeling that lasts for ever (that's the freshness of intimacy which only lasts about three years) - it's an act of the will which says "I will love my partner no matter what."
When you do that that's when the feelings come and they just get better and better over time like a good wine.
Oh, sure, they won't admit it. Even to themselves. It's taboo to do so, because heaven forbid you admit you didn't want children.
Children are wonderful, frustrating, joyous, nerve-wracking and all-consuming little creatures. But you really really have to be ready for them, both you yourself and your relationship with your partner. I would say having children is a decision you need to make even before you get married or even jump in the hay. How many, when, why and so on. That's just common sense. Many people seem to know this, which could explain the looks your brother is getting.
Haha - touche. Now that I read my post again it sounds as silly as you describe. What I meant (and didn't make clear) was that both the aforementioned works are descriptions of real experiences by real people. Naturally the gp isn't going to put any stock in that since he then has to rely on written records but that's his problem...
The directing, especially the camera work, is pretty bad. For instance, far too much time is spent in the beginning showing off those mechanical cargo-moving whatevers.
:)
The first time I saw the dang thing, I was saying to myself why are they showing me this? Oh, that must be what she kills the last alien with. The point gets over-established.
Mmm, yeah all 30 seconds of a scene which establishes a) Ripley did in fact have a job as a loader in the docks b) she's as strong and independent as ever c) she's going to play more than just an adviser later on d) Hicks and Apone have a good working relationship and e) yeah this beastie might come in handy somewhere near the end. All without bringing the movie to a screeching halt in the process. So how would you have done it Mr Director?
The acting is pretty bad. 'Game-over man!' The Marines are, to me, complete stereotypes. Comic book figures driven completely by machismo.
Just like all those other space marine movies before! Er, except this was the first really...
You know immediately the one with the toughest mouth is going to die first, screaming. Another example of overestablishing the point.
She doesn't
Memorable quotes? Sure, I guess so. So are advertising slogans.
It's not any kind of measure of a film in my book.
It's actually a very subtle and effective measure of a film if you think about it. When people talk about Scent of a Woman they always refer back to the great speech at the end. Similarly Aliens and its fistful of good lines. Or hundreds of other great films.
It's only recent that the quaint notion of love had any force beyond poems and books.
May I point you to the poems of Catullus (for the down side of love) or perhaps the Song of Solomon (for the up side), both thousands of years old.
But take everything I say with a grain of salt. As someone who has watched his brother methodically destroyed by an unwanted child and a scheming woman, I'm a tad bitter.
I'm sorry to hear that. But your brother made a mistake and now marriage and your strange definition of love are to blame?
that became the avalanche of Linux in movie CGI, and employer of Darryl Strauss,
:)
Bah - this should say DD was the employer of Daryll Strauss although I'm sure he felt like the film was his employer for a while
Yeah - go DD. Titanic was the first small rattling of stones in 1996 that became the avalanche of Linux in movie CGI, and employer of Darryl Strauss, the man who brought 3d hardware acceleration to Linux users. He also wrote relevant rebuttals to NT fanboys. Titanic is quite a nasty thorn in SCO's side since the 100-odd Alpha boxes used for rendering were most certainly an enterprise-class use of Linux before IBM came long.
Well, it's not a very popular opinion.
It is a very popular opinion and with good reason.
The original was a creepy, atmospheric, suspense/horror movie. The audience never even gets to see the alien through most of the movie, just quick flashes that leave the impression or something horrible lurking just slightly out of sight.
Agreed 100%.
By comparison, the sequels - all of 'em - were run-of-the-mill action flicks.
I disagree about Aliens. Aliens not only is a worthy sequel precisely because it didn't try to remake the original, but is probably one of the finest action films ever made. Here are some of my reasons:
It's no accident that its rating is so high on IMDB nor that its technology and memorable quotes have had such a lasting influence on fans.
The suspense that made the original so great was gone, and in its place was buckets of gore.
Aliens has far less gore than the two that followed it. Also remember the first Alien has two of the most gory scenes of all.
I suppose it was inevitable - the original was a *very* tough act to follow, and splatter flicks were making big bank at the time.
I don't know where you get this from. And anyway, Cameron's intent was most certainly not to make a splatter flick and he succeeded.
I see. As magefile has pointed out most non-Europeans think of your country as Eastern Europe for historical reasons, not exactly where you are on the map. I imagine the next couple of generations who don't remember the Berlin Wall or the Cold War will start referring to it as central rather than Eastern.
its Czech clone called Danix
Wait - its Czech clone is called Danix? So the Hungarian clone is called Norwix and the Bulgarian one Swedix? What's the pattern (for those of us not living in Eastern Europe)?
I thought it was readin', rightin', ritalin...
While the book offers encouragement to those who (think they) can't draw, it does not address the not-so-encouraging point that spatial intelligence can't really be taught (but maybe simulated).
:)
Spacial intelligence is just practice like everything else...
In the visual arts, observation requires more than just the sense of sight, and even the vital criteria of awareness, sensitivity, presence of mind, and technical ability don't inherently translate to the ability to transcode your sensory input into something personal, meaningful, powerful, and coherent; the ability to do so is "skill at art".
And yet some of the great artists describe their own "hit rate" as being somewhere around one in five. So for every memorable piece they were happy with, there were four turkeys. This says to me that transcoding your sensory input into something personal, meaningful, powerful and coherent isn't guaranteed - even if you're great.
It's quite easy to see this in action in other artistic disciplines like filmmaking and music composition. Hitchcock had his off days, some of Mozart's piano concertos are less than inspiring but that doesn't take away from their best works.
Hmmm - I'm not sure whether I'm now disagreeing with you or not
You can teach technique, allowing someone to draw a passable Neo (for example).
:) Look at some of the others too!
Ouch that hurts
You can't teach art; nothing will ever teach someone to be able to create original work on the level of the Sistine Chapel, Adam's photos, or some of The Designer's Republic's better works.
I disagree - van Gogh, Michaelangelo and Leonardo, all taught themselves technique and then got to where they were through relentless practice and perseverance. Figure studies, copies, sketches, early drafts, training - none of these artists works just suddenly appeared. You can compare van Gogh's Carpenter (which is crap) to his Woman in Mourning (which is a masterpiece) and see how he taught himself technique and thus improved the quality of his work.
But it depends on your definition of art I suppose. I'm obviously in the "can be taught" camp but I have a good decade of practice still to do before I can branch out and do more original work.
Personal skill at art is something that is teachable and can be learned. Objects look the way they do because of where they are in relation to the viewer and what their dimensions are. Similarly light has rules which you can learn if you are to duplicate the illusion of light in a 2d representation like a drawing. Textures also have rules and so on. It's all about drawing what you see and not what you think is there. Sure there are people who have this ability from early on but the rest of us can learn very quickly.
I'd suggest getting Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain if the submitter wants to learn for himself. And let me shamelessly plug my Deviant Art site so I can get a few more views. I must finish that Neo drawing sometime...
You buy a hotel, and you pocket $50 per room per night.
That's only if the other players land on your hotel often enough...
so beta beta beta beta beta?
mushroom mushroom?
I've done it when installing qmail under the gun at a very large company. Instead of (not exact syntax - too lazy to look it up):
/usr/bin/qmail-inject
/usr/bin/qmail-inject
echo "This is a test mail" |
I did:
echo "This is a test mail" >
whereupon I confidently proclaimed that all was done and so left for a well-earned long weekend. The following Monday morning was not enjoyable. At least the incident taught me several very sharp lessons which I haven't forgotten...
If it comes back to you, it's yours :)
Huh? Someone sets fire to a car in a "difficult suburb" (read ghetto) and all of a sudden it's "militants"?
There was a hilarious Onion story a few months ago headlined something like "Vandalism in quiet town is either the work of Al-Qaida cell or bored teenagers, says Sherrif." In the article the "sherrif" said "you just can't be too careful."
I don't know if you've heard it or not but if you have then I'd like to know the truth of it.
:)
Once upon a time a very bright young lad decided he wanted to work for a young startup in Cape Town. The Internet was getting big and he thought the company was going places. Ultimately he didn't because his parents talked him out of it - too risky, too far to travel, this startup looked dodgy, blah blah blah.
However this career move (or lack thereof) deprived him of the million dollar bonus that you paid to your employees when the sale to Verisign went through since Thawte was the startup! I hear it left his relations with his parents quite strained.
Keep it up with Go OSS and Ubuntu and tell Craig he needs to work harder
I've heard lots of accusations of Harris disenfranchising, etc... but never that ChoicePoint had "close ties to the GOP". You cite Greg Palast. Could you find a less biased source? Noam Chomsky Perhaps?
I assume you're being sarcastic. It takes very little work to find that many directors of ChoicePoint and DBT were big fat Republican donors. And I'm also amused at the accusation of bias. I am not American (although I have travelled widely there), I am just an outsider looking in. I hold no brief for either of the two main parties and prefer to see how the evidence speaks for itself. Which is why I enjoy Greg Palast's work. He asks questions, he spends years looking for documents that some want kept secret, he causes paroxysms with his stories, and most importantly of all, he's not owned by anyone.
From the article, 57,700 "felons" were struck from the voter list. These people were all contacted (although I assume it is reasonable that many of these people were not reached)
Still looking for more info on this section...
Now lets go after that last bullet: None of the names on the list were Hispanic. Greg Palast has this screenshot on his website of a segment of the list. (Ignore for the moment that he apparently uses Windows, AOL, and has 16 non-standard icons in his system tray.)
Thanks - I will. It's an ad-hominem attack which has got sod-all to do with his reputation as a reporter and the quality of the information we're discussing. I use Gentoo (got to get an unrelated plug in somewhere!). Does that have absolutely anything to do with the quality of the research I did this morning on South African innovation?
While I don't dispute that ChoicePoint used poor methods to determine matches,
Yeah, and they were forced to admit that in court.
what else can we glean from the spreadsheet? For one thing, there are no "Hispanics" in the race column, despite there being two names that appear to be hispanic in origin. One is listed as unknown, and one as white. So, the argument that "hispanics have been removed because they tend to vote Republican" is probably bunk. Much more likely, ChoicePoint correctly identified Hispanics as an "ethinic group" and not a race. This would very reasonably explain why there are no "hispanics" on the list.
Right. Given a screenshot with twenty names on it, let's extrapolate to 57000-odd. So far you're not impressing me.