True for the steering, but not for the brakes. Most cars have a pressure reserver for just such an occaision. It's enough to do 1, maybe 2 full stops. Additionally, just because the power assist is dead does not mean that the brakes stop working, they just require much more effort. Now if the steering wheel locks when you kill the engine, then yes, you are fscked.
If you use login scripts, you can just drop the patch in the script and have it install automagically. I do this all the time with our non-MS applications. Works pretty well, but if the patch doesn't have a silent mode, you will need to let your users know to expect it at login.
Um, are you even paying attention? The article said that liberals tend to want less restrictive IP laws. Clinton, a liberal (as am I), signed the DMCA. I was simply pointing out that the article may be misguided/wrong. You seem to be the one attacking people that are proposing an argument. Perhaps you should take a step back and think before you post.
Actually, I had the color sidekick for about a year or so, and it was pretty good at everything. It especially excelled at data. IM, SMS, email, web, all worked really well. The worst part about the sidekick is the control aspect. But that's more to blame on t-mobile (who, by the way, suck ass). Why the hell they won't just let me upload my own apps has always bugged me. Same with ringtones. I understand they want me to buy them from them, but if I want to make my own and play them, who the hell are they to tell me otherwise?
Don't they? Most people support the war on terrorism, oblivous to the fact that it has done little to hurt terrorists, and a lot to hurt innocents. And yet they feel justified. Killing is wrong, yet people that do it are put to death themselves. Our society seems to think that a wrong action in response to a wrong action is appropriate. Isn't a wrong action in response to a wrong action the very definition of justice? I do something bad to you, so you are justified in doing, or having done through the courts, something bad to me?
Realistically, though, silencing their website does nothing to actually silence them, they still have FOX news, CNN, etc, etc. It might, however, make the point that if you try to silence me, I have the right to try to silence you. Then again, they may just be a bunch of kiddi3z out to "get the man" (probably, in fact).
As an aside, I don't necessarily believe the above statement, I just like to play devil's advocate.
Bullshit. Simple bullshit. The last time I checked, this whole country was a "Free Speech Zone". You may not be able to stand in the middle of the road, because that would be stupid and dangerous. But that's illegal because of traffic laws, nothing at all to do with free speech. What the government is doing is a simple, calculated move intended to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with them by treating them like caged animals and removing them from the very event that they are protesting. How is this any different than silencing their voice online? My point is that it is perfectly fair to treat the government the way they treat you. If they silence you and marginalize you, it is your right, it is your DUTY to speak out by whatever non-violent means you have.
Is it really that unfair for them to do this? When the government (both parties, mind you) silences protestors by sticking them in "Free Speech Zones" that are so isolated from the event as to be irrelevant, what other alternatives are there? I think, in this case, this is fair play.
Don't discount the online schools so quickly. I have been a programmer for about 10 years, and did not have a degree. To advance into management, a degree was pretty much a requirement. For somebody like me, Phoenix was ideal. I don't have the time to go to a campus (not to mention that there isn't a good school near me), and I really have no interest in doing so. At the same time, I needed to finish my degree to advance my career. University of Phoenix fit the bill nicely. I am about to complete a degree in MIS, and that, coupled with a decade of hard software development experience puts me in a good position for the future. While I agree that simply having a degree doesn't qualify you for "IT Management", I don't think that it is fair to single out online programs. Traditional 4 year brick and mortar institutions turn out just as many (more, probably) clueless wanabees.
How uncompassionate of him to have record breaking increases in education, perscription drug programs, allowing people to keep more of thier own money, etc.
This is the typical spin a Bush apologist puts on the issue. Lets take this one step at a time:
Increases in education - His "No Child Left Behind" initiative is so woefully underfunded that it is completely irrelevant. If anything, the extra testing requirements divert resources away from teaching, with no funds to replace them.
Prescription Drug Programs - This is a joke. There is a clause in the prescription drug bill that PROHIBITS the government from negotiating better prices on drugs for medicare patients, thus opening the door for price gouging at taxpayer expense. Explain how that is an improvement.
Allowing people to keep more of their own money - This is only partially true. The average tax reduction for American families works out to about 300 dollars this year. If you make 30K/Year, that is a 1% reduction in tax. Compare that to the tax break that the richest Americans get. Somebody that pulls in 1 Million a year will now pay almost 95,000 less in taxes than before. That is almost a 10% reduction. Please explain to me why the group that can most afford the taxes gets a HUGE break, while the 40% of this country that doesn't have any health insurance gets a measly 1%???
You can try to spin it however you like, but George W. Bush is just another corrupt, elitist politician. Certainly the word compassionate has no place in any description of him.
Huh? He has not banned the research, just the government funding.
Not only did he remove the government funding, but he also restricted research to the small handful of genetic lines that were being used at the time. This restriction applies to public AND private labs and SEVERELY hampers research. That was the real damage Bush has done to modern medicine.
Fine. So you don't like pornography or lewd speech. That is YOUR view. YOUR morality. It might not be mine. Even if I am in the minority, it gives you no right to censor me. If it is OK to censor the views and speech of the minority, would it be OK to censor people campaigning for civil rights? Once upon a time, their view were in the minority. Is it OK to censor people speaking out against the government? Apparently they are in the minority, since officials are (usually) elected by majority vote.
Filthy languages inspire filthy thoughts
So now you don't only want to censor what people say, but what they think? Have you ever READ 1984?
My point is that NO censorship is ever acceptable, under ANY circumstances. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Change the channel, turn off the radio, don't buy that girlie magazine. But whatever you do, don't propose that YOUR morality is one size fits all.
The reason I mentioned the "God-Says-So" argument is that 99% of the time people that view morality as black and white, like you, derive that opinion from some idea of religion or higher power. If you fall into the 1% that can separate morality from faith, congratulations.
Let's set something straight. I don't support censoring ANYBODY. EVER. FOR ANY REASON. I may not like what you say, but I will defend until my last breath your right to say it. That being said, your right to say it doesn't mean I have to listen.
The reason I don't debate religious neocons is simple. They have, what is in their eyes, an unassailable fallback position: God Says So. When you are going to debate somebody willing to trot out that argument, there is no point in starting.
Rather than debate the issues, let's just moderate opposing viewpoints as "troll"!
I learned a long time ago that there is no point in "discussing" anything with a neoconservative christian. There fervor in defending an untenable position is matched only by AK-47 waving islamic fundamentalists. Anybody who disagrees is automatically wrong and "un-american".
the liability is on YOU if people can't get their work done
Now I call FUD on you. MS's EULA clearly states that they aren't liable for ANYTHING that their software does or does not do. Face the facts, IE is broken by design, and the only realistic alternative is to switch to another browser.
Slashdot Mirror
So, will the Slashdot collective make fun of them again when their latest platform du jour fails to live up to its hype?
;-)
They ALWAYS do
Another one to check is PGMFI.org. Very good DIY ECU hacking for Hondas. Covers most ODB0 and ODB1 chipping, reprogramming, adding boost, whatever.
And yes, moates.net is awesome. I have one of his pocket USB EEPROM programmers and haven't had a lick of trouble out of it.
True for the steering, but not for the brakes. Most cars have a pressure reserver for just such an occaision. It's enough to do 1, maybe 2 full stops. Additionally, just because the power assist is dead does not mean that the brakes stop working, they just require much more effort. Now if the steering wheel locks when you kill the engine, then yes, you are fscked.
I don't take anybody that doesn't know the difference between lose and loose seriously.
If you use login scripts, you can just drop the patch in the script and have it install automagically. I do this all the time with our non-MS applications. Works pretty well, but if the patch doesn't have a silent mode, you will need to let your users know to expect it at login.
The current mozilla/firefox releases are also beta or prerelease. It's normal to find these kinds of things, that's kind of the point of a beta ;-)
Microsoft likes to front and say that IE is production ready, but I think the last several years have proven that to be false.
Um, are you even paying attention? The article said that liberals tend to want less restrictive IP laws. Clinton, a liberal (as am I), signed the DMCA. I was simply pointing out that the article may be misguided/wrong. You seem to be the one attacking people that are proposing an argument. Perhaps you should take a step back and think before you post.
Sorry, but he could have refused to sign it. In my mind, that makes him just as responsible as the people that wrote it.
I'm not buying the liberal/conservative bit. Wasn't Clinton's administration responsible for bringing us the DMCA?
Actually, I had the color sidekick for about a year or so, and it was pretty good at everything. It especially excelled at data. IM, SMS, email, web, all worked really well. The worst part about the sidekick is the control aspect. But that's more to blame on t-mobile (who, by the way, suck ass). Why the hell they won't just let me upload my own apps has always bugged me. Same with ringtones. I understand they want me to buy them from them, but if I want to make my own and play them, who the hell are they to tell me otherwise?
Here you go
but there are no rights guarenteeing you a spot on my lawn to shout it
No, there aren't, but I can stand on the sidewalk, or the streetcorner all day long.
For the record the CITY setup the free speech zones and forced the protestors in there for "safty."
And since when is the city not the government?
Don't they? Most people support the war on terrorism, oblivous to the fact that it has done little to hurt terrorists, and a lot to hurt innocents. And yet they feel justified. Killing is wrong, yet people that do it are put to death themselves. Our society seems to think that a wrong action in response to a wrong action is appropriate. Isn't a wrong action in response to a wrong action the very definition of justice? I do something bad to you, so you are justified in doing, or having done through the courts, something bad to me?
Realistically, though, silencing their website does nothing to actually silence them, they still have FOX news, CNN, etc, etc. It might, however, make the point that if you try to silence me, I have the right to try to silence you. Then again, they may just be a bunch of kiddi3z out to "get the man" (probably, in fact).
As an aside, I don't necessarily believe the above statement, I just like to play devil's advocate.
Our government thinks otherwise.
I'm not a lawyer. Never claimed to be. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Bullshit. Simple bullshit. The last time I checked, this whole country was a "Free Speech Zone". You may not be able to stand in the middle of the road, because that would be stupid and dangerous. But that's illegal because of traffic laws, nothing at all to do with free speech. What the government is doing is a simple, calculated move intended to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with them by treating them like caged animals and removing them from the very event that they are protesting. How is this any different than silencing their voice online? My point is that it is perfectly fair to treat the government the way they treat you. If they silence you and marginalize you, it is your right, it is your DUTY to speak out by whatever non-violent means you have.
Is it really that unfair for them to do this? When the government (both parties, mind you) silences protestors by sticking them in "Free Speech Zones" that are so isolated from the event as to be irrelevant, what other alternatives are there? I think, in this case, this is fair play.
Don't discount the online schools so quickly. I have been a programmer for about 10 years, and did not have a degree. To advance into management, a degree was pretty much a requirement. For somebody like me, Phoenix was ideal. I don't have the time to go to a campus (not to mention that there isn't a good school near me), and I really have no interest in doing so. At the same time, I needed to finish my degree to advance my career. University of Phoenix fit the bill nicely. I am about to complete a degree in MIS, and that, coupled with a decade of hard software development experience puts me in a good position for the future. While I agree that simply having a degree doesn't qualify you for "IT Management", I don't think that it is fair to single out online programs. Traditional 4 year brick and mortar institutions turn out just as many (more, probably) clueless wanabees.
This is the typical spin a Bush apologist puts on the issue. Lets take this one step at a time:
You can try to spin it however you like, but George W. Bush is just another corrupt, elitist politician. Certainly the word compassionate has no place in any description of him.
Huh? He has not banned the research, just the government funding.
Not only did he remove the government funding, but he also restricted research to the small handful of genetic lines that were being used at the time. This restriction applies to public AND private labs and SEVERELY hampers research. That was the real damage Bush has done to modern medicine.
11, that would make it perfect for spinal tap's new tour plane.....
Fine. So you don't like pornography or lewd speech. That is YOUR view. YOUR morality. It might not be mine. Even if I am in the minority, it gives you no right to censor me. If it is OK to censor the views and speech of the minority, would it be OK to censor people campaigning for civil rights? Once upon a time, their view were in the minority. Is it OK to censor people speaking out against the government? Apparently they are in the minority, since officials are (usually) elected by majority vote.
Filthy languages inspire filthy thoughts
So now you don't only want to censor what people say, but what they think? Have you ever READ 1984?
My point is that NO censorship is ever acceptable, under ANY circumstances. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Change the channel, turn off the radio, don't buy that girlie magazine. But whatever you do, don't propose that YOUR morality is one size fits all.
The reason I mentioned the "God-Says-So" argument is that 99% of the time people that view morality as black and white, like you, derive that opinion from some idea of religion or higher power. If you fall into the 1% that can separate morality from faith, congratulations.
Let's set something straight. I don't support censoring ANYBODY. EVER. FOR ANY REASON. I may not like what you say, but I will defend until my last breath your right to say it. That being said, your right to say it doesn't mean I have to listen.
The reason I don't debate religious neocons is simple. They have, what is in their eyes, an unassailable fallback position: God Says So. When you are going to debate somebody willing to trot out that argument, there is no point in starting.
Now do you understand?
Rather than debate the issues, let's just moderate opposing viewpoints as "troll"!
I learned a long time ago that there is no point in "discussing" anything with a neoconservative christian. There fervor in defending an untenable position is matched only by AK-47 waving islamic fundamentalists. Anybody who disagrees is automatically wrong and "un-american".
So pardon me if I pass.
the liability is on YOU if people can't get their work done
Now I call FUD on you. MS's EULA clearly states that they aren't liable for ANYTHING that their software does or does not do. Face the facts, IE is broken by design, and the only realistic alternative is to switch to another browser.