You don't really understand how the GPL works, do you?
They can't decide that the GPL only applies to certain people. The GPL itself prohibits that, and there's no "take-backs" on licensing your code. As long as your code conforms to one of the GPL-compatible licenses, they cannot prevent you from using the code they licensed under the GPL.
Furthermore, you don't really seem to understand why dual-licensing exists.
Trolltech cannot prevent people who write GPL-compatible (and thus Open Source) applications with the code it already released under those licensing conditions. However, people writing closed-source, proprietary applications cannot link to GPL code under the terms of the GPL. Therefore, Trolltech has to provide them with code under a different license if they want to write closed-source Qt apps. Trolltech, as the copywrite owner, has the full right to license their own code however they want to. This allows Trolltech to also provide Qt under a different license, which requires a licensing fee to use. Providing the source code under a different license does nothing to affect the license under which it was previously released. Once again, since the GPL has no termination clause for the original copywrite holder, they can't take it back.
Wasn't it a Fox exec who commented that not watching the commercials was theft?
No, but I'm not surprised that the company that owns Fox News is blasting the research.
Conservative Organization Blasts Research Which Hits Its Business Model! Vows to Fund Own Research to Prove Liberally-Biased Researchers Wrong! News at 11:00!
Seriously, the only threat that Qt provides to the Free status of Linux is thanks to non-Free code built on top of it. If you build GPL code with Qt, then you can always from now until the end of days use the GPL version of Qt. The only products that can be screwed by an about-face attitude from Trolltech are the ones that Free Software advocates AREN'T USING IN THE FIRST PLACE. If Trolltech turns into a monster, the GPL Qt libraries can be forked and Trolltech can be told to go hang themselves.
I maintain that Clasic Mac OS is the target that OSS should be chasing -- an operating system that HAD to have a useable GUI because it didn't have a CLI. The spatially aware Finder in the Classic Mas OS was child's play to use, with batch renaming of files and piping of application input and output being the only two things I can think of that it suffered from a lack of.
Mac OS X tossed all that out the window with a shoddy Finder implementation and a constantly changing, inconvenient desktop environment. I tell you, if I could count my icons staying in the same place, my windows staying the same size, and my menu items staying in the same place, and if I could reduce clutter, use the four corners of the screen properly, and easily access my files like I could in Mac OS 9, I wouldn't spend all my time in a Terminal on Mac OS X.
At this rate, I'm seriously considering a permanent switch to Linux since all the UI advantages of the Mac have been pissed away by Apple. It's why I put up with my horrid Performa 5200 for all those years. Now, I'm just not seeing much of an advantage anymore since the golden age of GUI usability is over.
We have "tamed the atom."...but even a loyal, trained dog can snap if deliberately abused.
What the idiots are Chernobyl was "poking it with a stick" and "saying bad things about its mother." They ran the reactor with all the safeties turned off in a deliberately unsafe mode and neglected all the warning signs.
What's next? If someone blows up a city block by sloshing around a gas pump while smoking and trying to huff the fumes, will you talk about "the depraved hubris in thinking we've 'tamed the oil wells?'"
*Sigh* The parent never said that there was no connection, but that the goals and technologies are completely different. This is referring to the fact that nuclear reactors are designed NOT to go critical, while nuclear weapons are explicitly designed to go critical in the worst way possible.
A german study found that EVERY german power plant would suffer a meltdown if attacked by a commercial airliner with half a tank of kerosine.
I call bullshit. Provide a link, English or German. All nuclear power plants were designed with bomb attacks in mind in the US, the UK, France, and the former USSR. I doubt that the Germans were stupid enough to not build a good concrete shield over their reactors.
Perhaps you should go back to high school. Governments have no rights, only powers granted by those who hold all rights inherently.
*Sigh* I should've disregarded your entire post right after reading this sentence, but your gross miseducation and lack of civics bothers me.
Governments have whatever rights the people vote to give them. Your loony rant about them "having no rights" is semantic handwaving. If the people of a town voted to make a municipal utility within the framework of their town charter and within the that of the state and federal Constitutions, then the government has that right. The question of this case is whether or not the state has a right to deny a local government the right to self-determination with regards to building their own utility.
In our Republic, these state that any powers not specifically granted are off-limits.
Reading comprehension skills would give you the ability to realize that Amendment X explicitly gives the states all rights not specifically granted to the federal government. Unless the state constitutions of Texas, etc. explicitly grant the rights not in their state constitution to the local governments, then this is, in your own terms, patently false.
Once again, the power is in the hands of the people to decide. If the people of these communities want to do it, then they can. You are the one that says that the government has no right to do what should be done by "private citicens," which is utterly incorrect because of how understand how democracies work. In this case, the power of the states trumps the power of the local governments because the states here are republics whose Congressmen have decided to vote against letting communities decide for themselves.
(FYI, before you even start your semantic handwaving, democratic republics are a form of democracy.)
If it was done with purely voluntary funds, it wouldn't be done by the government.
Look, do you know what a municipal bond is? I guess not.
A bond is essential a request for money to be loaned to a government, corporation, etc. with the intent of having its value and accrued interest paid off by a certain date. Governments can issue these, and private citizens can willingly invest in them to give governments the capital to begin public works projects. Most municipal bonds -- bonds issued by local governments -- are tax-free. FYI, this is where Ross Perot keeps most of his money. California recently voted to issue bonds to help cover its burgeoning debt until it can get its taxes/spending ratio under control.
If nothing else, the startup capital would be tax funds, which are never voluntary.
Do you know where taxes come from? Taxes are voted upon by government, which is elected by the people. Futhermore, there are many special taxes for locally funded projects that are put to the ballot for citizens to directly vote for. For example, when my hometown decided to build a stadium for a minor league baseball team, the citizens were allowed to vote for or against a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (or SPLOST) to fund it. The vote passed, and the stadium was built. That's democracy in action. Also, did you know that on your federal taxes, there's a box to check to voluntarily donate money to federal election campaign funds? That's a directly voluntary tax.
If you don't pay taxes, the bottom line is that they can and will kill you if you don't cooperate at some point.
No, the most they'll do is seize your assets and throw you in prison. To get killed you have to more than not cooperate; you have to threaten the lives of the agents come to enforce the law. Your problem seems to be a desire to live without being bound by the decisions of your fellow men. That's anarchy, and it never works out.
This was a straight-forward states' right case as per Amendment X. It falls straight to the state to regulate internally its own division of government power. Local governments have no explicit rights over the state governments, so the Supreme Court ruled (quite correctly) that the States had unlimited jurisdiction over this issue.
Of course, it's isn't great for the customers, but it's up to them to get vociferous with the state assembly about the savings that they were previously enjoying.
The government has no place competing with private citicens in the telecom industry, and today's decision by the Supreme Court, was the right one.
Governments have every right to compete in the same marketspace if they can do a superior job for less money and do it with purely volunatary funds, such as through municipal bonds. Non-profit organizations such as governments and co-ops can often provide superior service that the big companies aren't interested in. Plus, if the people of the town didn't want their government to set up a telco, then they could've voted it out of existence. Citizens are the shareholders in a muncipal utility, and they have the right to directly agitate for positive change, whereas customers of the big cable/telco companies have NO vote WHATSOEVER -- especially if there's a monopoly!
(I wish I had that kind power over the Comcast monopoly where I live and their awful, awful service. It would be nice to have a cable modem without having to deal with them.)
This decision was the right one, but only because it preserved states' rights, not because of some fanatical "all government is bad" hate-fest logic. For the buyer of telecom services, it will only mean higher rates and poorer service, as many posters here attest has already happened.
The one caviat to that statement requires that the government do its job by enforcing anti-trust laws...
Anti-trust laws are opposed to the concept of a free market. They are part and parcel of a regulated market. Truly free markets are an extreme end of the spectrum.
You're a [member of some group]. [One that doesn't meet my hateful stereotype], even. Congrats.
Why should that make you, and every other [person who I will mockingly name by the way they claim to violate my preconceived notions of your group], [do something that matches my stereotype for you], [do something else that matches a stereotype] ([example other group "you people" all fit into], usually), or [do something ignorant that yet again matches a stereotype (and I will ellucidate further a description of my bias against you)]?
There doesn't seem to be [any reason or source material for you all acting like], so [why do you all act alike]?
1) You take on the burden of society's failure to instill basic virtues in children like respect, patience, discipline, etc. 6) The administration often kowtows to pushy parents - changing grades, not supporting disciplinary measures, etc.
Both my parents are school teachers and these are very serious contributions to my mother's unhappiness. Bad parenting isn't your fault as a teacher, nor is it anything that you can truly correct, but it comes back to bite you constantly. Little Mikey might be a total terror in the classroom -- biting other kids, tearing up the books that you provide out of your own pocket money for the kids to read, talking loudly and distracting other kids when they're supposed to be working, and other wild nonsense -- but if so much as look at him wrong, Mikey's Mom will be in the principle's office or the board of education screaming that you should be fired for persecuting her "little angel who never, ever acts up at home."
That and the low pay are the number one reasons that I told my parents, "NO!" when they asked me if I wanted to be a teacher when I grew up. I knew that the job stunk.
I wouldn't advocate going to back to the 1950s with [...] switches.
Oh, I would; the end of corporal punishment was the end of the American public school system in my opinion. Kids have no reason to listen to teachers because they have no real reason to fear doing wrong in the classroom. You just can't teach in an environment where kids have no reason to obey, and I credit getting a paddling every now and then with being the only thing that kept me from being a totally unbearable little snot when I was a kid. I can't imagine what it would've been like to be my teacher without some ability to keep me in line.
Now what can you do? You can't even give a kid a limp-wristed time-out without a parent screaming at you.
A while back, I bought myself an Archos Jukebox Multimedia 20 because I let myself get caught up in a whiz-bang feature list (and a promised but never delivered Firewire add-on) when all I wanted was an MP3 recorder capable of taking 6+ hours of dictation in a single stretch. After using it for the first time, I learned that the device had a terrible limitation -- despite claims of 7 hours MP3 playback before needing recharging, I found out that it lasts no more than 90 minutes when recording unless you tether it to an outlet. Mea culpa -- I should've realized that encoding uses more CPU and thus more power than decoding.
However, the 7 hours claim is total BS. I've never seen it make it past 4-5 hours when using it as an MP3 player.
I've never actually tried to see what its battery life would be like when playing movies, but I do know that letting the screen come on while recording MP3s makes a noticeable drop in battery life. According to the specs of the latest model on their website, the AV380, battery life for MP3 playback is 10 hours, but only 3 1/2 hours for video playback. I seriously doubt that the newer models are going to be that much superior nor that they will actually live up to any of their claims for battery life.
(On the other hand, when it does have enough power to run it, the thing works like a champ. The screens on the newer models are really good looking. Just don't expect to get to enjoy it for long streches at a time without an AC adapter.)
Maybe you should look at other players. On the other hand, if you've got a Neuros player, then you might want to just wait until they include it in the firmware like they've hinted numerous times that they might do.
God willing, it will be released in America with subtitles, but it will never be released in theaters because it won't have any popular success -- only to niche hobbyists. Even if you dubbed it, I doubt that mainstream moviegoers would appreciate it. That's why Japanese movies don't get release in America like out movies do over there.
Right. Now that I've tossed aside most of these questions as they're pretty irrelevant, I'm going to get to the point. Casshern is yet another movie remake of the classic 70s Japanese anime series Shinzo Ningen Kyasshan (or Kyasshan the Newly Made Man). You can find a previous, not-so-great, anime release in the US as Casshan: Robot Hunter. It's not-so-great primarily because it condensces a 35-episode series down to less than two hours without introducing most of the backstory.
The plot of the last anime remake is basically that humanity made robot caretakers to protect the planet from environmental damage, but one of the robots went rogue and decided that humanity was the greatest threat to the environment and led a robot rebellion against mankind. This has reduced humanity to ruins, and now Casshan, son of the creator of the robots, has to tear down and destroy his father's works. Fortunately, he's been enhanced by some of his father's techniques into a nearly-unstoppable fighting machine.
I expect that the new live-action movie will be in a similar vein, only with really cool special effects. I don't expect the plot to be coherent as it's assumed most of the target Japanese audience will have an idea of where the movie's comming from.
Show me where I said punish instead of just refusal to change
What do you consider war and imprisonment in Guantanimo Bay to be if not punishment? A nice pat on the back?
I do not tolerate poeple who lie about me.
I don't easily tolerate people who ignore large swaths of counterargument to their own message to focus on a single sentence and then accuse their opponents of being liars / commies / terrorist sympathizers / or whatever other demonizing terms they feel fits the situation. Did you even read any of the rest of the message, or do you have nothing to say other than to accuse me of lying for suggesting that you support punishing those who resent you?
Stubborn refusal to change is the safest long-term response to terrorism.
Something tells me that you will be a great parent someday. When your kid rebels against you, your solution will be to avoid change and to visit punishment for the rebellion. Nations work like teenage kids that way -- they're never going to see you as right if visit nothing but pain on them. Terrorism is as much a lashing out in frustration as it is a political tool. Changing your behavior is not necessarily (the much demonized) appeasement so long as it's not exactly what they want you to do.
Remember, Al-Qaeda's primary goal is the abolishment of corrupt Middle Eastern governments and the establishment of a borderless Middle East under the rule of sharia. Getting rid of US interference in the region is a key goal for that. The current problem is our form of interference, which breeds or supports the ability of the regional governments to foster hatred, oppression, death, and poverty.
If we want to get rid of terrorism, then we must get rid of hatred and desperation, for terrorism is the last act of the desperate. "Shock and Awe," the industrialized, government-backed form of terrorism will not rid the Middle East of hatred and fear of the US -- it will reinforce it and give justification to the poisonous litany of Al Qaeda and its supporters. Terrorism only works if it has support. Support comes from hate.
We must make the Middle East love (or at least respect) us, and anyone can see that our policy of unpopular overthrows and sloppy nation-building does nothing to further that end. I fear that the war in Iraq and other policy decisions have set this back for 20 years or more. We must make strides to end poverty and ignorance in the Middle East because a content populace does not support terror, and an educated one does not suffer tyrants and fundamentalists well. We must make genuine gestures to promote democracy in the Middle East by cutting the flow of money to despots like the Saud royal family. (Note that those the goals of ending poverty and ending support of tyranny are often in opposition and require careful balance.) We must pluck out the thorn in the side of the Arab world and negotiate a real Israel-Palestine peace accord that puts an end to suicide bombing, to military attacks on civillian targets, and to the economic stagnation that has ground down the Palestinians' hopes. Arabs all support the Palestinian cause, and ending their anger and misery in a supportive way would go a long way to ending a source of anger at the US.
Terrorism should have been a warning sign that something is desperately wrong about our foreign policy -- not a lash to drive it forward faster and deeping into the wilderness. It is a lesson lost on a half of America that would prefer to "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" about the actions of the country that they love. God help us all, because self-critique has long been abandoned as an American trait, and we've come a long way since having a leader that would recognize that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" instead of calling Orange Alerts and restricting the Freedom while mouthing support for the concept in press releases.
What possible reason could you have for hating Trolltech over making a commercial version of a product on closed-source Windows that they give away for free to Free Software users? Isn't that just savvy business? Why do you want the core QT developers to go out of business? Someone's got to earn a living somehow keeping the software maintained. Besides, they didn't "burrow so far" into the heart of KDE -- KDE built itself on top of their foundation. They're not invaders; they're the bedrock because they were the best available solution at the time.
What the grandparent was complaining about was independently developed but equivalent projects are free on Linux and shareware on Windows. It has NOTHING to do with QT.
What, for daring to criticize a bad business that treats all of its customers like potential criminals and misappropriates their funds while having one of the longest, most arcane, and most fuck you usage agreeements that I've ever seen?
Hell, add me to your foes list too. You're a fucking moron, and I collect them.
* I've heard virii is now passe' -- any confirmation?
It's not just passe, it's grammatically nonsensical. Pluralize it as if it was English. "Virii" would require the nonexistant "virius" to be correct, and "viri" is the plural of "vir" already. Some scholars think that virus had no plural form and should be treated like "fructus" and just use the same word for singular and plural.
No. You can't land a LEO sat for repairs and refueling of the chemically-pumped lasers. Plus, the launch costs are exponentially higher than the slow lift-off of an airship. This idea is cheaper by far.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't really understand how the GPL works, do you?
They can't decide that the GPL only applies to certain people. The GPL itself prohibits that, and there's no "take-backs" on licensing your code. As long as your code conforms to one of the GPL-compatible licenses, they cannot prevent you from using the code they licensed under the GPL.
Furthermore, you don't really seem to understand why dual-licensing exists.
Trolltech cannot prevent people who write GPL-compatible (and thus Open Source) applications with the code it already released under those licensing conditions. However, people writing closed-source, proprietary applications cannot link to GPL code under the terms of the GPL. Therefore, Trolltech has to provide them with code under a different license if they want to write closed-source Qt apps. Trolltech, as the copywrite owner, has the full right to license their own code however they want to. This allows Trolltech to also provide Qt under a different license, which requires a licensing fee to use. Providing the source code under a different license does nothing to affect the license under which it was previously released. Once again, since the GPL has no termination clause for the original copywrite holder, they can't take it back.
Use your own noggin and RTFL.
Wasn't it a Fox exec who commented that not watching the commercials was theft?
No, but I'm not surprised that the company that owns Fox News is blasting the research.
Conservative Organization Blasts Research Which Hits Its Business Model!
Vows to Fund Own Research to Prove Liberally-Biased Researchers Wrong!
News at 11:00!
News at 11:00!
Seriously, the only threat that Qt provides to the Free status of Linux is thanks to non-Free code built on top of it. If you build GPL code with Qt, then you can always from now until the end of days use the GPL version of Qt. The only products that can be screwed by an about-face attitude from Trolltech are the ones that Free Software advocates AREN'T USING IN THE FIRST PLACE. If Trolltech turns into a monster, the GPL Qt libraries can be forked and Trolltech can be told to go hang themselves.
I maintain that Clasic Mac OS is the target that OSS should be chasing -- an operating system that HAD to have a useable GUI because it didn't have a CLI. The spatially aware Finder in the Classic Mas OS was child's play to use, with batch renaming of files and piping of application input and output being the only two things I can think of that it suffered from a lack of.
Mac OS X tossed all that out the window with a shoddy Finder implementation and a constantly changing, inconvenient desktop environment. I tell you, if I could count my icons staying in the same place, my windows staying the same size, and my menu items staying in the same place, and if I could reduce clutter, use the four corners of the screen properly, and easily access my files like I could in Mac OS 9, I wouldn't spend all my time in a Terminal on Mac OS X.
At this rate, I'm seriously considering a permanent switch to Linux since all the UI advantages of the Mac have been pissed away by Apple. It's why I put up with my horrid Performa 5200 for all those years. Now, I'm just not seeing much of an advantage anymore since the golden age of GUI usability is over.
We have "tamed the atom." ...but even a loyal, trained dog can snap if deliberately abused.
What the idiots are Chernobyl was "poking it with a stick" and "saying bad things about its mother." They ran the reactor with all the safeties turned off in a deliberately unsafe mode and neglected all the warning signs.
What's next? If someone blows up a city block by sloshing around a gas pump while smoking and trying to huff the fumes, will you talk about "the depraved hubris in thinking we've 'tamed the oil wells?'"
The Atomic Energy Act pretty much makes it impossible for me to give you any real numbers ...
I'm curious -- why?
Laws the prevent public disclosure always bother me, so I'd like to know.
So much for "no connection".
*Sigh* The parent never said that there was no connection, but that the goals and technologies are completely different. This is referring to the fact that nuclear reactors are designed NOT to go critical, while nuclear weapons are explicitly designed to go critical in the worst way possible.
A german study found that EVERY german power plant would suffer a meltdown if attacked by a commercial airliner with half a tank of kerosine.
I call bullshit. Provide a link, English or German. All nuclear power plants were designed with bomb attacks in mind in the US, the UK, France, and the former USSR. I doubt that the Germans were stupid enough to not build a good concrete shield over their reactors.
Perhaps you should go back to high school. Governments have no rights, only powers granted by those who hold all rights inherently.
*Sigh* I should've disregarded your entire post right after reading this sentence, but your gross miseducation and lack of civics bothers me.
Governments have whatever rights the people vote to give them. Your loony rant about them "having no rights" is semantic handwaving. If the people of a town voted to make a municipal utility within the framework of their town charter and within the that of the state and federal Constitutions, then the government has that right. The question of this case is whether or not the state has a right to deny a local government the right to self-determination with regards to building their own utility.
In our Republic, these state that any powers not specifically granted are off-limits.
Reading comprehension skills would give you the ability to realize that Amendment X explicitly gives the states all rights not specifically granted to the federal government. Unless the state constitutions of Texas, etc. explicitly grant the rights not in their state constitution to the local governments, then this is, in your own terms, patently false.
Once again, the power is in the hands of the people to decide. If the people of these communities want to do it, then they can. You are the one that says that the government has no right to do what should be done by "private citicens," which is utterly incorrect because of how understand how democracies work. In this case, the power of the states trumps the power of the local governments because the states here are republics whose Congressmen have decided to vote against letting communities decide for themselves.
(FYI, before you even start your semantic handwaving, democratic republics are a form of democracy.)
If it was done with purely voluntary funds, it wouldn't be done by the government.
Look, do you know what a municipal bond is? I guess not.
A bond is essential a request for money to be loaned to a government, corporation, etc. with the intent of having its value and accrued interest paid off by a certain date. Governments can issue these, and private citizens can willingly invest in them to give governments the capital to begin public works projects. Most municipal bonds -- bonds issued by local governments -- are tax-free. FYI, this is where Ross Perot keeps most of his money. California recently voted to issue bonds to help cover its burgeoning debt until it can get its taxes/spending ratio under control.
If nothing else, the startup capital would be tax funds, which are never voluntary.
Do you know where taxes come from? Taxes are voted upon by government, which is elected by the people. Futhermore, there are many special taxes for locally funded projects that are put to the ballot for citizens to directly vote for. For example, when my hometown decided to build a stadium for a minor league baseball team, the citizens were allowed to vote for or against a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (or SPLOST) to fund it. The vote passed, and the stadium was built. That's democracy in action. Also, did you know that on your federal taxes, there's a box to check to voluntarily donate money to federal election campaign funds? That's a directly voluntary tax.
If you don't pay taxes, the bottom line is that they can and will kill you if you don't cooperate at some point.
No, the most they'll do is seize your assets and throw you in prison. To get killed you have to more than not cooperate; you have to threaten the lives of the agents come to enforce the law. Your problem seems to be a desire to live without being bound by the decisions of your fellow men. That's anarchy, and it never works out.
Explain exactly what influence corporate interests have over Supreme Court justices.
This was a straight-forward states' right case as per Amendment X. It falls straight to the state to regulate internally its own division of government power. Local governments have no explicit rights over the state governments, so the Supreme Court ruled (quite correctly) that the States had unlimited jurisdiction over this issue.
Of course, it's isn't great for the customers, but it's up to them to get vociferous with the state assembly about the savings that they were previously enjoying.
The government has no place competing with private citicens in the telecom industry, and today's decision by the Supreme Court, was the right one.
Governments have every right to compete in the same marketspace if they can do a superior job for less money and do it with purely volunatary funds, such as through municipal bonds. Non-profit organizations such as governments and co-ops can often provide superior service that the big companies aren't interested in. Plus, if the people of the town didn't want their government to set up a telco, then they could've voted it out of existence. Citizens are the shareholders in a muncipal utility, and they have the right to directly agitate for positive change, whereas customers of the big cable/telco companies have NO vote WHATSOEVER -- especially if there's a monopoly!
(I wish I had that kind power over the Comcast monopoly where I live and their awful, awful service. It would be nice to have a cable modem without having to deal with them.)
This decision was the right one, but only because it preserved states' rights, not because of some fanatical "all government is bad" hate-fest logic. For the buyer of telecom services, it will only mean higher rates and poorer service, as many posters here attest has already happened.
The one caviat to that statement requires that the government do its job by enforcing anti-trust laws ...
Anti-trust laws are opposed to the concept of a free market.
They are part and parcel of a regulated market.
Truly free markets are an extreme end of the spectrum.
I've never understood this.
You're a [member of some group]. [One that doesn't meet my hateful stereotype], even. Congrats.
Why should that make you, and every other [person who I will mockingly name by the way they claim to violate my preconceived notions of your group], [do something that matches my stereotype for you], [do something else that matches a stereotype] ([example other group "you people" all fit into], usually), or [do something ignorant that yet again matches a stereotype (and I will ellucidate further a description of my bias against you)]?
There doesn't seem to be [any reason or source material for you all acting like], so [why do you all act alike]?
So how much profit does Sun make from something they give away for free?
1) You take on the burden of society's failure to instill basic virtues in children like respect, patience, discipline, etc.
6) The administration often kowtows to pushy parents - changing grades, not supporting disciplinary measures, etc.
Both my parents are school teachers and these are very serious contributions to my mother's unhappiness. Bad parenting isn't your fault as a teacher, nor is it anything that you can truly correct, but it comes back to bite you constantly. Little Mikey might be a total terror in the classroom -- biting other kids, tearing up the books that you provide out of your own pocket money for the kids to read, talking loudly and distracting other kids when they're supposed to be working, and other wild nonsense -- but if so much as look at him wrong, Mikey's Mom will be in the principle's office or the board of education screaming that you should be fired for persecuting her "little angel who never, ever acts up at home."
That and the low pay are the number one reasons that I told my parents, "NO!" when they asked me if I wanted to be a teacher when I grew up. I knew that the job stunk.
I wouldn't advocate going to back to the 1950s with [...] switches.
Oh, I would; the end of corporal punishment was the end of the American public school system in my opinion. Kids have no reason to listen to teachers because they have no real reason to fear doing wrong in the classroom. You just can't teach in an environment where kids have no reason to obey, and I credit getting a paddling every now and then with being the only thing that kept me from being a totally unbearable little snot when I was a kid. I can't imagine what it would've been like to be my teacher without some ability to keep me in line.
Now what can you do? You can't even give a kid a limp-wristed time-out without a parent screaming at you.
Another 'PDA' with no battery life.
A while back, I bought myself an Archos Jukebox Multimedia 20 because I let myself get caught up in a whiz-bang feature list (and a promised but never delivered Firewire add-on) when all I wanted was an MP3 recorder capable of taking 6+ hours of dictation in a single stretch. After using it for the first time, I learned that the device had a terrible limitation -- despite claims of 7 hours MP3 playback before needing recharging, I found out that it lasts no more than 90 minutes when recording unless you tether it to an outlet. Mea culpa -- I should've realized that encoding uses more CPU and thus more power than decoding.
However, the 7 hours claim is total BS. I've never seen it make it past 4-5 hours when using it as an MP3 player.
I've never actually tried to see what its battery life would be like when playing movies, but I do know that letting the screen come on while recording MP3s makes a noticeable drop in battery life. According to the specs of the latest model on their website, the AV380, battery life for MP3 playback is 10 hours, but only 3 1/2 hours for video playback. I seriously doubt that the newer models are going to be that much superior nor that they will actually live up to any of their claims for battery life.
(On the other hand, when it does have enough power to run it, the thing works like a champ. The screens on the newer models are really good looking. Just don't expect to get to enjoy it for long streches at a time without an AC adapter.)
Maybe you should look at other players.
On the other hand, if you've got a Neuros player, then you might want to just wait until they include it in the firmware like they've hinted numerous times that they might do.
God willing, it will be released in America with subtitles, but it will never be released in theaters because it won't have any popular success -- only to niche hobbyists. Even if you dubbed it, I doubt that mainstream moviegoers would appreciate it. That's why Japanese movies don't get release in America like out movies do over there.
Right. Now that I've tossed aside most of these questions as they're pretty irrelevant, I'm going to get to the point. Casshern is yet another movie remake of the classic 70s Japanese anime series Shinzo Ningen Kyasshan (or Kyasshan the Newly Made Man). You can find a previous, not-so-great, anime release in the US as Casshan: Robot Hunter. It's not-so-great primarily because it condensces a 35-episode series down to less than two hours without introducing most of the backstory.
The plot of the last anime remake is basically that humanity made robot caretakers to protect the planet from environmental damage, but one of the robots went rogue and decided that humanity was the greatest threat to the environment and led a robot rebellion against mankind. This has reduced humanity to ruins, and now Casshan, son of the creator of the robots, has to tear down and destroy his father's works. Fortunately, he's been enhanced by some of his father's techniques into a nearly-unstoppable fighting machine.
I expect that the new live-action movie will be in a similar vein, only with really cool special effects. I don't expect the plot to be coherent as it's assumed most of the target Japanese audience will have an idea of where the movie's comming from.
Dib: You'll never... get away with this...
ZIM: You speak craziness, Earth boy. More organs means more human. It WILL work.
-- Invader ZIM, episode 7
Show me where I said punish instead of just refusal to change
What do you consider war and imprisonment in Guantanimo Bay to be if not punishment?
A nice pat on the back?
I do not tolerate poeple who lie about me.
I don't easily tolerate people who ignore large swaths of counterargument to their own message to focus on a single sentence and then accuse their opponents of being liars / commies / terrorist sympathizers / or whatever other demonizing terms they feel fits the situation. Did you even read any of the rest of the message, or do you have nothing to say other than to accuse me of lying for suggesting that you support punishing those who resent you?
Stubborn refusal to change is the safest long-term response to terrorism.
Something tells me that you will be a great parent someday. When your kid rebels against you, your solution will be to avoid change and to visit punishment for the rebellion. Nations work like teenage kids that way -- they're never going to see you as right if visit nothing but pain on them. Terrorism is as much a lashing out in frustration as it is a political tool. Changing your behavior is not necessarily (the much demonized) appeasement so long as it's not exactly what they want you to do.
Remember, Al-Qaeda's primary goal is the abolishment of corrupt Middle Eastern governments and the establishment of a borderless Middle East under the rule of sharia. Getting rid of US interference in the region is a key goal for that. The current problem is our form of interference, which breeds or supports the ability of the regional governments to foster hatred, oppression, death, and poverty.
If we want to get rid of terrorism, then we must get rid of hatred and desperation, for terrorism is the last act of the desperate. "Shock and Awe," the industrialized, government-backed form of terrorism will not rid the Middle East of hatred and fear of the US -- it will reinforce it and give justification to the poisonous litany of Al Qaeda and its supporters. Terrorism only works if it has support. Support comes from hate.
We must make the Middle East love (or at least respect) us, and anyone can see that our policy of unpopular overthrows and sloppy nation-building does nothing to further that end. I fear that the war in Iraq and other policy decisions have set this back for 20 years or more. We must make strides to end poverty and ignorance in the Middle East because a content populace does not support terror, and an educated one does not suffer tyrants and fundamentalists well. We must make genuine gestures to promote democracy in the Middle East by cutting the flow of money to despots like the Saud royal family. (Note that those the goals of ending poverty and ending support of tyranny are often in opposition and require careful balance.) We must pluck out the thorn in the side of the Arab world and negotiate a real Israel-Palestine peace accord that puts an end to suicide bombing, to military attacks on civillian targets, and to the economic stagnation that has ground down the Palestinians' hopes. Arabs all support the Palestinian cause, and ending their anger and misery in a supportive way would go a long way to ending a source of anger at the US.
Terrorism should have been a warning sign that something is desperately wrong about our foreign policy -- not a lash to drive it forward faster and deeping into the wilderness. It is a lesson lost on a half of America that would prefer to "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" about the actions of the country that they love. God help us all, because self-critique has long been abandoned as an American trait, and we've come a long way since having a leader that would recognize that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" instead of calling Orange Alerts and restricting the Freedom while mouthing support for the concept in press releases.
What possible reason could you have for hating Trolltech over making a commercial version of a product on closed-source Windows that they give away for free to Free Software users? Isn't that just savvy business? Why do you want the core QT developers to go out of business? Someone's got to earn a living somehow keeping the software maintained. Besides, they didn't "burrow so far" into the heart of KDE -- KDE built itself on top of their foundation. They're not invaders; they're the bedrock because they were the best available solution at the time.
What the grandparent was complaining about was independently developed but equivalent projects are free on Linux and shareware on Windows. It has NOTHING to do with QT.
What, for daring to criticize a bad business that treats all of its customers like potential criminals and misappropriates their funds while having one of the longest, most arcane, and most fuck you usage agreeements that I've ever seen?
Hell, add me to your foes list too. You're a fucking moron, and I collect them.
* I've heard virii is now passe' -- any confirmation?
It's not just passe, it's grammatically nonsensical. Pluralize it as if it was English. "Virii" would require the nonexistant "virius" to be correct, and "viri" is the plural of "vir" already. Some scholars think that virus had no plural form and should be treated like "fructus" and just use the same word for singular and plural.
No. You can't land a LEO sat for repairs and refueling of the chemically-pumped lasers. Plus, the launch costs are exponentially higher than the slow lift-off of an airship. This idea is cheaper by far.