A standardized cable isn't gonna help you much when your mobile phone takes 5 volts to charge and your shaver or laptop takes 9 to 18.
You know, if we were standardizing cables, there's absolutely no reason we can't create a very simple, low-power protocol for a multi-voltage transformer to query what kind of power a device needs. And there'd be no issues with trying to create a one size fits all solution for broadcasting power if you had a straight line between the power server and client.
How exactly does the power go from AC in the wall to the near field without going through a DC converter? How do you ensure that is not just sucking power out of the wall?
If it weren't for giving the small states a handicap in presidential elections, a candidate would only spend time in cities like New York, LA or states like Florida. Basically anywhere with density. They'd completely ignore spending their resources in small states because it wouldn't affect their outcomes.
Like they spend time in Alaska, or Montana, or Maine. Candidates don't spend their time in states based on their inflated electoral college importance -- they spend time in swing states, not small states.
And frankly, why *should* someone from Rhode Island get nearly 3x the vote of someone from California? It's not like people from that part of the country are inherently more valuable than people in California would be if they split the state up into 4 (or 40) smaller states. Why should semi-arbitrary lines on a map determine the say one has in politics?
While there are still advantages to be had by playing the rural & suburban card against the city card, I don't really see why we should. Why shouldn't candidates go to where the people are? What exactly is so awesome about a system that artificially inflates the importance of depopulated parts of the country and dilutes the vote of people who live in states where people *want* to live, like California or Texas as opposed to North Dakota or Nevada?
No, I've thought hard about the electoral college, and I think it's a senseless waste. The only way to salvage it is to completely do away with the winner-take-all system in most states and give candidates are reason to tour the *whole* country instead of just the "battlegrounds." I've live my whole life in non-swing states (both Republican and Democrat, both large and small), and it's BS. No one gives a damn about the parts of the country where I live because they don't have to under the electoral college. And that fact is completely independent of population density in the case of my adopted home states.
It irks me that democracy has become such a buzzword, placed on a pedestal as some sort of basic human allowance. But it's really not the best form of government, and some would argue that it's not even a good one. Most countries that claim to be democratic don't even directly implement it.
There is no good form of government. As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried." Democracy in its purest form is actually pretty terrible. The whole "two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner." But democracy as it's commonly implemented today actually has several, common anti-democratic features, like a prohibition on the right of a majority to decide what speech is acceptable or what race gets to ride on the bus or what religions one is allowed to believe in.
It's mostly those anti-democratic elements of modern democracies that most people praise when they talk about democracy being a fundamental human rights -- the right to dissent, to be different, and to still have equality of opportunities. The right to vote for your leaders is only half of the equation. (It is still important, though, as we have no system to reliably produce enlightened despots instead of the standard god-awful variety.)
I mean, with all the careful thought that goes into our computer programs, still needing patches, how is it possible the constitution was perfect on conception...
It's not, but that's what the courts are for.
The alternative might've seen us issuing a "patch" when the Warren court started enforcing the 14th Amendment.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with the other poster that you've simply missed out on the fact that the Chinese actually do *like* this system. If you had a time machine and took pictures of what happened at Abu Ghraib back to 2000 and asked most Americans what they thought of the events, they would've been horrified. Tell them that these were prisoners of war, and they might have been setting bombs that killed soldiers, and most Americans would have still been appalled.
Fast forward a few years until it's *our* government doing it, and patriotism / nationalism / partisanship or what-have-you has made a bunch of people wrap their brains around the notion that torture is good. Why? Because they love their country / their chosen ideology / their President or whatever, and they rationalize away any negative behavior as good. The Chinese people do the same thing. It seems to be a universal human quality that one takes pride in the group one is in and rationalizes away all bad behavior. So, I'm not surprised that the Chinese like it.
Plus, unlike us, they have been raised from birth with a values system that prioritizes social stability and harmony over individual liberty. 2500 years of Confucian thought doesn't just vanish with the modern age. China would never be the birthplace of democracy. It's just not a natural progression of their dominant social philosophies. Hopefully, they can learn, but they'll have to overcome far more inertia than the early American colonists did. FAR more inertia.
What, so you can't criticize laws from before you were born?
Hell, I can't stand the electoral college or the small states / big states compromise, and they go WAY further back than the 17th Amendment, but I can only imagine what that sentiment would've meant for the Abolition movement.
And this is why I'm for a Constitutional Amendment adding "2 term" term limits for all electable positions. We all know the old saying about power corrupting. Let's not give ANY politician of ANY stripe the amount of time in office needed to consolidate his or her power into anything approaching "absolute". We all know what happens then.
Term limits merely externalize institutional expertise. In other words, it removes all the skilled statesmen and places the knowledge (and thus power) in lobbyists. Who knows how to write the bills? The lobbyists. Who knows how to get people on board with the same plan? Lobbyists. Who knows how to raise funding for elections? Lobbyists, with no politician being able to know how to stand on their own.
Worse, you get nothing but people looking to advance short-term solutions for short-term political gain. Why look for a 10-20 year solution when you'll be out in 4? Why learn to make sensible compromises when the after effects of ideological legislation won't be felt until long after you're gone?
Mandatory term limits are a terrible idea in general. All they do is discourage any kind of personal investment in the future on behalf of politicians. The only place term limits make sense is in very small institutional bodies where there isn't enough natural churn to introduce new ideas, like the Presidency or some independent regulatory agencies.
Politicians don't just oppose term limits out of self-interest (though that *is* a major factor). They also oppose them because they are closer to the problem and know from experience how long it took *them* to get their feet under them.
I kind of imagine that someone from England and someone from Massachusetts have a slightly different approach to absurdity & sarcasm. You have to deliver the line with a big smile to pull it off in the South instead of the surliness Massachusetts is infamous for. It's all about delivery.
Risk of a rickroll? Pansy. Kids these days... In my day, we risked seeing a man with his anus stretched to almost athletic proportions or something even worse.
You kids with your 80s love ballads are so freaking spoiled.
Impeachment isn't supposed to be easy. How else do you minimize the chances the impeachment isn't politically driven, but to make it hard enough that a consensus is reached on both sides of the aisle.
Golf clap for theory, but let's face it, the only times articles of impeachment have ever been voted on in Congress have all been for political reasons and not for actual Constitutional violations.
Andrew Johnson was impeached for a violation of the Tenure of Office Act (which was passed over his veto) which required Senate approval for the sacking of any executive officer -- including the Secretary of War. (Modern Supreme Court jurisprudence would not allow such restrictions on cabinet level positions directly related to the traditional executive powers, like the exercise of war. A 1926 case later noted in dicta that the Act would've been unconstitutional if challenged.)
In other words, Johnson was impeached for breaking an unconstitutional law. Furthermore, the text of the law was vague enough that it's hard to tell whether he actually violated it or not, given that the Secretary of War wasn't appointed during his tenure, and was fired after his one month grace period hold-over.
The real background of the fight was Johnson's headbutting with Congress over the Reconstruction. He favored an easier process for the Southern states to be readmitted. Congress favored a very harsh Reconstruction and passed laws repeatedly over his veto. The real debate was largely over his politics and not his acts.
Similarly, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about getting a blow job. The Constitution limits impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors," but the latter term is undefined. Again, the real question here was not any abuse of power by Clinton but pure power politics and an attempt to tarnish the opposition to the majority party in Congress.
Impeachment cannot happen without an opposing party in majority control and with enough spine to stand up unless the President does something REALLY egregious. Otherwise, if he's just pushing the borders of executive power, as long as he does it in a way that his party likes, then impeachment cannot be triggered.
For instance, saying something like "nice weather today" (when it clearly is not) is an icebreaker that works across socioeconomic lines in a place like MA. However, [in my experience] in the South, uttering something so baldly wrong often earns you the you-are-an-idiot look.
It's not the blatant incorrectness. It's the implied attitude problem. It's one thing to use that line with friends, which would usually get a laugh, but it's another to bring negativity to a perfect stranger in the South. It's not that it's offensive; it just starts the conversation off on the wrong mood in what's generally a place where people are expected to begin contact on a friendlier note.
This is true even though you might be trying to be friendly by showing that you share the same irritations. Hard to explain. I'm a naturally sarcastic person myself, but I'd be hesitant to greet someone new with sarcasm unless I was trying to irritate them or just *knew* that a person was pre-inclined to laugh about the situation. It's just abrasive, even if you don't mean it to be.
Nice of you to jump to the conclusion that a psychiatrist only uses a single factor in testing for a mental illness. 'Cause the DSM IV is just FULL of illness that only have a single symptom which is NEVER a sign of another illness.
Well, he is making fun of someone with a legitimate mental illness who had the courage to stick his neck out there. We all got the joke, but that's kind of like kicking a puppy in terms of basic human decency.
I wouldn't worry so much about the humor-impaired as the humanity-impaired.
Sorry, but tentacle porn and pedophilia is not mainstream in the US.
It isn't in Japan either, despite the wide-spread myths. Otaku and other porn fetishists are not mainstream and are generally looked at with contempt by the general public.
Neither is overblown, formulaic animation.
You haven't really watched cartoons since you were too young to remember, have you? Find me an American made cartoon being put out today that isn't just as overblown and formulaic in its animation, and I'll give you three that are.
Besides, anime in Japan has two separate audiences that encourages formula for different reasons: 1) Kids shows (mainstream). 2) Adult shows (otaku oriented). Most the "edgy" stuff you see is made for a very limited, very geeky audience that is not the mainstream of Japanese culture.
Formula is common in kids shows because it's cheap, easy, and kids aren't old enough to be tired of it yet. (Same reason it's widespread in American animation.) Formula is common in adult geek shows because geeks eat up repetition and familiar territory (and haven't grown up out of childish ways). Sorry to offend, but that's the truth. (Endless Monty Python jokes and trolling memes, anyone?)
A lot of Japano-philes don't understand that there is a segregation between the shows shown on afternoon prime-time on public broadcast and the shows that only come out direct to video or are shown on premium cable channels, often late at night. And a lot of the sneering types are just as ignorant, as you yourself demonstrate. It's not all porn, and it's not all mainstream. Those are completely separate markets.
Japan isn't THAT alien compared to America, and they aren't all anime freaks who love weird sexual fetishes like people think. (And we're not all arrogant gun-toting cowboy maniacs with blond hair and blue eyes, like they seem to think we are.) People just play this crap up. Japan has no shortage of people hitting the bully pulpit about degrading public morals nor of people who think total nerds are repellent.
Do you even read American comics? Not dissing Manga, but there are TONS of really great comics that are made in the US and Europe(as wells as elsewhere) that are far from "juvenile". You fanboys do need to get your head out of manga once in a while.....
And when comic shops start promoting those comics up front instead of catering to the spandex and superpowers crowd, American comics might actually *earn* a reputation as something other than juvenile.
Let's face it, "mainstream" comics do not cater to a mainstream crowd. Not that manga deserves its Western reputation as an everyman format (there is a presumption that you will read less as you go from middle school to high school graduate), but most American comics *are* juvenile.
The outliers in both formats, like "The Sandman" or the book reviewed here aren't really indicative of either.
Compare it to DVD-A, a format with similar advantages, which succeeded to displace CDs.
You know you've been boycotting the RIAA for maybe "too" long when you get drawn in hook, line, and sinker like that. I was honestly wondering if I'd somehow missed a shift in the marketplace.
Resource intensive is such a relative thing. I think the parent poster is showing his age. Back in the day when you had a few main servers shared for the whole campus's business & acadmemic use with less computing power than a modern graphing calculator at a cost of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, even the few percentage points of CPU dedicated to text-only games was enough to raise ire.
Linux fortune files are rife with references to old, primitive games like xtrek that used to draw the wrath of sysadmins that are almost impossible to find now.
A more reasonable solution is for everyone to support their own parents with the increased money they'll have from not dumping their money into the social security black hole.
If we could rely on people to do what's right in the real world, we wouldn't need government in the first place.
Michael Griffin is the best thing to happen to NASA since the Apollo program. If Obama cans his ass, he will have lied about everything he said about maintaining the space program.
Well, I will say that Obama has been quite vague on whether he'll keep NASA well funded. It seems like something he's not inclined to do on his own without pressure from the public. On the other hand, the transition team not only asked how much would be saved if the program was canned but also asked how much it would cost to accelerate it, so it looks like they're looking at all options.
That aside, I can't really say that this kind of behavior that should be rewarded or even tolerated in a subordinate. The whole hiding of information and acting like double checking his figures suggests that he's lying about something makes it look like he genuinely has something bad to hide too. I mean, can you imagine keeping *your* job after telling your incoming boss the same thing (and even pressuring business partners to withhold info from him too)?
Even if Obama keeps the program, which I hope he does, Griffin does need to "Go." Right out the door.
You may disagree.. but so far you've completely defaulted on making an argument to convince me otherwise. Maybe you're not interested. That's fine. I couldn't be bothered convincing you of my opinion either..
Well, originally, I thought you were being kind of funny since infanticide was a pretty common practice in pre-agrarian cultures up until contact with the West mostly stamped it out. But if you're serious, then no, I really don't care to get in an argument about it.
Your beliefs are frankly too marginal in modern society for me to work up enough interest to be offended. It's not like anything I hold dear is honestly threatened by you believing that, so why argue with someone who is acting very hot tempered in defense of an ideal that society largely finds abhorrent? It's not like I'm going to be the sudden voice of reason that changes your opinion, and it's not like you're going to stand much of a change of swaying people in your favor. What would I gain from arguing except limited amusement?
but don't go calling me names as a substitute.
Where did I call you names at? I said your joke was in poor taste. If it had actually been a joke, I would be right as most people consider baby killing to be a somewhat taboo subject for humor, and taste is entirely a subjective, societal more.
Slashdot Mirror
A standardized cable isn't gonna help you much when your mobile phone takes 5 volts to charge and your shaver or laptop takes 9 to 18.
You know, if we were standardizing cables, there's absolutely no reason we can't create a very simple, low-power protocol for a multi-voltage transformer to query what kind of power a device needs. And there'd be no issues with trying to create a one size fits all solution for broadcasting power if you had a straight line between the power server and client.
How exactly does the power go from AC in the wall to the near field without going through a DC converter? How do you ensure that is not just sucking power out of the wall?
Yeah I'm pretty sure O.J. holds the Biggest Athletic Asshole award now.
Hey, what happens in Vegas...
I'm sure he'll have plenty of time to practice.
If it weren't for giving the small states a handicap in presidential elections, a candidate would only spend time in cities like New York, LA or states like Florida. Basically anywhere with density. They'd completely ignore spending their resources in small states because it wouldn't affect their outcomes.
Like they spend time in Alaska, or Montana, or Maine. Candidates don't spend their time in states based on their inflated electoral college importance -- they spend time in swing states, not small states.
And frankly, why *should* someone from Rhode Island get nearly 3x the vote of someone from California? It's not like people from that part of the country are inherently more valuable than people in California would be if they split the state up into 4 (or 40) smaller states. Why should semi-arbitrary lines on a map determine the say one has in politics?
While there are still advantages to be had by playing the rural & suburban card against the city card, I don't really see why we should. Why shouldn't candidates go to where the people are? What exactly is so awesome about a system that artificially inflates the importance of depopulated parts of the country and dilutes the vote of people who live in states where people *want* to live, like California or Texas as opposed to North Dakota or Nevada?
No, I've thought hard about the electoral college, and I think it's a senseless waste. The only way to salvage it is to completely do away with the winner-take-all system in most states and give candidates are reason to tour the *whole* country instead of just the "battlegrounds." I've live my whole life in non-swing states (both Republican and Democrat, both large and small), and it's BS. No one gives a damn about the parts of the country where I live because they don't have to under the electoral college. And that fact is completely independent of population density in the case of my adopted home states.
It irks me that democracy has become such a buzzword, placed on a pedestal as some sort of basic human allowance. But it's really not the best form of government, and some would argue that it's not even a good one. Most countries that claim to be democratic don't even directly implement it.
There is no good form of government. As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried." Democracy in its purest form is actually pretty terrible. The whole "two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner." But democracy as it's commonly implemented today actually has several, common anti-democratic features, like a prohibition on the right of a majority to decide what speech is acceptable or what race gets to ride on the bus or what religions one is allowed to believe in.
It's mostly those anti-democratic elements of modern democracies that most people praise when they talk about democracy being a fundamental human rights -- the right to dissent, to be different, and to still have equality of opportunities. The right to vote for your leaders is only half of the equation. (It is still important, though, as we have no system to reliably produce enlightened despots instead of the standard god-awful variety.)
I mean, with all the careful thought that goes into our computer programs, still needing patches, how is it possible the constitution was perfect on conception...
It's not, but that's what the courts are for.
The alternative might've seen us issuing a "patch" when the Warren court started enforcing the 14th Amendment.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with the other poster that you've simply missed out on the fact that the Chinese actually do *like* this system. If you had a time machine and took pictures of what happened at Abu Ghraib back to 2000 and asked most Americans what they thought of the events, they would've been horrified. Tell them that these were prisoners of war, and they might have been setting bombs that killed soldiers, and most Americans would have still been appalled.
Fast forward a few years until it's *our* government doing it, and patriotism / nationalism / partisanship or what-have-you has made a bunch of people wrap their brains around the notion that torture is good. Why? Because they love their country / their chosen ideology / their President or whatever, and they rationalize away any negative behavior as good. The Chinese people do the same thing. It seems to be a universal human quality that one takes pride in the group one is in and rationalizes away all bad behavior. So, I'm not surprised that the Chinese like it.
Plus, unlike us, they have been raised from birth with a values system that prioritizes social stability and harmony over individual liberty. 2500 years of Confucian thought doesn't just vanish with the modern age. China would never be the birthplace of democracy. It's just not a natural progression of their dominant social philosophies. Hopefully, they can learn, but they'll have to overcome far more inertia than the early American colonists did. FAR more inertia.
What, so you can't criticize laws from before you were born?
Hell, I can't stand the electoral college or the small states / big states compromise, and they go WAY further back than the 17th Amendment, but I can only imagine what that sentiment would've meant for the Abolition movement.
And this is why I'm for a Constitutional Amendment adding "2 term" term limits for all electable positions. We all know the old saying about power corrupting. Let's not give ANY politician of ANY stripe the amount of time in office needed to consolidate his or her power into anything approaching "absolute". We all know what happens then.
Term limits merely externalize institutional expertise. In other words, it removes all the skilled statesmen and places the knowledge (and thus power) in lobbyists. Who knows how to write the bills? The lobbyists. Who knows how to get people on board with the same plan? Lobbyists. Who knows how to raise funding for elections? Lobbyists, with no politician being able to know how to stand on their own.
Worse, you get nothing but people looking to advance short-term solutions for short-term political gain. Why look for a 10-20 year solution when you'll be out in 4? Why learn to make sensible compromises when the after effects of ideological legislation won't be felt until long after you're gone?
Mandatory term limits are a terrible idea in general. All they do is discourage any kind of personal investment in the future on behalf of politicians. The only place term limits make sense is in very small institutional bodies where there isn't enough natural churn to introduce new ideas, like the Presidency or some independent regulatory agencies.
Politicians don't just oppose term limits out of self-interest (though that *is* a major factor). They also oppose them because they are closer to the problem and know from experience how long it took *them* to get their feet under them.
I kind of imagine that someone from England and someone from Massachusetts have a slightly different approach to absurdity & sarcasm. You have to deliver the line with a big smile to pull it off in the South instead of the surliness Massachusetts is infamous for. It's all about delivery.
Risk of a rickroll? Pansy. Kids these days... In my day, we risked seeing a man with his anus stretched to almost athletic proportions or something even worse.
You kids with your 80s love ballads are so freaking spoiled.
iBeleaguered?
Impeachment isn't supposed to be easy. How else do you minimize the chances the impeachment isn't politically driven, but to make it hard enough that a consensus is reached on both sides of the aisle.
Golf clap for theory, but let's face it, the only times articles of impeachment have ever been voted on in Congress have all been for political reasons and not for actual Constitutional violations.
Andrew Johnson was impeached for a violation of the Tenure of Office Act (which was passed over his veto) which required Senate approval for the sacking of any executive officer -- including the Secretary of War. (Modern Supreme Court jurisprudence would not allow such restrictions on cabinet level positions directly related to the traditional executive powers, like the exercise of war. A 1926 case later noted in dicta that the Act would've been unconstitutional if challenged.)
In other words, Johnson was impeached for breaking an unconstitutional law. Furthermore, the text of the law was vague enough that it's hard to tell whether he actually violated it or not, given that the Secretary of War wasn't appointed during his tenure, and was fired after his one month grace period hold-over.
The real background of the fight was Johnson's headbutting with Congress over the Reconstruction. He favored an easier process for the Southern states to be readmitted. Congress favored a very harsh Reconstruction and passed laws repeatedly over his veto. The real debate was largely over his politics and not his acts.
Similarly, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about getting a blow job. The Constitution limits impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors," but the latter term is undefined. Again, the real question here was not any abuse of power by Clinton but pure power politics and an attempt to tarnish the opposition to the majority party in Congress.
Impeachment cannot happen without an opposing party in majority control and with enough spine to stand up unless the President does something REALLY egregious. Otherwise, if he's just pushing the borders of executive power, as long as he does it in a way that his party likes, then impeachment cannot be triggered.
For instance, saying something like "nice weather today" (when it clearly is not) is an icebreaker that works across socioeconomic lines in a place like MA. However, [in my experience] in the South, uttering something so baldly wrong often earns you the you-are-an-idiot look.
It's not the blatant incorrectness. It's the implied attitude problem. It's one thing to use that line with friends, which would usually get a laugh, but it's another to bring negativity to a perfect stranger in the South. It's not that it's offensive; it just starts the conversation off on the wrong mood in what's generally a place where people are expected to begin contact on a friendlier note.
This is true even though you might be trying to be friendly by showing that you share the same irritations. Hard to explain. I'm a naturally sarcastic person myself, but I'd be hesitant to greet someone new with sarcasm unless I was trying to irritate them or just *knew* that a person was pre-inclined to laugh about the situation. It's just abrasive, even if you don't mean it to be.
Nice of you to jump to the conclusion that a psychiatrist only uses a single factor in testing for a mental illness. 'Cause the DSM IV is just FULL of illness that only have a single symptom which is NEVER a sign of another illness.
Well, he is making fun of someone with a legitimate mental illness who had the courage to stick his neck out there. We all got the joke, but that's kind of like kicking a puppy in terms of basic human decency.
I wouldn't worry so much about the humor-impaired as the humanity-impaired.
Sorry, but tentacle porn and pedophilia is not mainstream in the US.
It isn't in Japan either, despite the wide-spread myths. Otaku and other porn fetishists are not mainstream and are generally looked at with contempt by the general public.
Neither is overblown, formulaic animation.
You haven't really watched cartoons since you were too young to remember, have you? Find me an American made cartoon being put out today that isn't just as overblown and formulaic in its animation, and I'll give you three that are.
Besides, anime in Japan has two separate audiences that encourages formula for different reasons:
1) Kids shows (mainstream).
2) Adult shows (otaku oriented). Most the "edgy" stuff you see is made for a very limited, very geeky audience that is not the mainstream of Japanese culture.
Formula is common in kids shows because it's cheap, easy, and kids aren't old enough to be tired of it yet. (Same reason it's widespread in American animation.) Formula is common in adult geek shows because geeks eat up repetition and familiar territory (and haven't grown up out of childish ways). Sorry to offend, but that's the truth. (Endless Monty Python jokes and trolling memes, anyone?)
A lot of Japano-philes don't understand that there is a segregation between the shows shown on afternoon prime-time on public broadcast and the shows that only come out direct to video or are shown on premium cable channels, often late at night. And a lot of the sneering types are just as ignorant, as you yourself demonstrate. It's not all porn, and it's not all mainstream. Those are completely separate markets.
Japan isn't THAT alien compared to America, and they aren't all anime freaks who love weird sexual fetishes like people think. (And we're not all arrogant gun-toting cowboy maniacs with blond hair and blue eyes, like they seem to think we are.) People just play this crap up. Japan has no shortage of people hitting the bully pulpit about degrading public morals nor of people who think total nerds are repellent.
Do you even read American comics? Not dissing Manga, but there are TONS of really great comics that are made in the US and Europe(as wells as elsewhere) that are far from "juvenile". You fanboys do need to get your head out of manga once in a while.....
And when comic shops start promoting those comics up front instead of catering to the spandex and superpowers crowd, American comics might actually *earn* a reputation as something other than juvenile.
Let's face it, "mainstream" comics do not cater to a mainstream crowd. Not that manga deserves its Western reputation as an everyman format (there is a presumption that you will read less as you go from middle school to high school graduate), but most American comics *are* juvenile.
The outliers in both formats, like "The Sandman" or the book reviewed here aren't really indicative of either.
It seems we have already succumbed to Global Fattening.
Strange how Texas always seems to be the epicenter for these things.
Honestly, Intel didn't have much choice, the NT kernel can't exactly be obtained, modified and distributed for free ...
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
You think nobody writes userspace drivers in the Windows world?
Compare it to DVD-A, a format with similar advantages, which succeeded to displace CDs.
You know you've been boycotting the RIAA for maybe "too" long when you get drawn in hook, line, and sinker like that. I was honestly wondering if I'd somehow missed a shift in the marketplace.
*sigh*
Resource intensive is such a relative thing. I think the parent poster is showing his age. Back in the day when you had a few main servers shared for the whole campus's business & acadmemic use with less computing power than a modern graphing calculator at a cost of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, even the few percentage points of CPU dedicated to text-only games was enough to raise ire.
Linux fortune files are rife with references to old, primitive games like xtrek that used to draw the wrath of sysadmins that are almost impossible to find now.
A more reasonable solution is for everyone to support their own parents with the increased money they'll have from not dumping their money into the social security black hole.
If we could rely on people to do what's right in the real world, we wouldn't need government in the first place.
Michael Griffin is the best thing to happen to NASA since the Apollo program. If Obama cans his ass, he will have lied about everything he said about maintaining the space program.
Well, I will say that Obama has been quite vague on whether he'll keep NASA well funded. It seems like something he's not inclined to do on his own without pressure from the public. On the other hand, the transition team not only asked how much would be saved if the program was canned but also asked how much it would cost to accelerate it, so it looks like they're looking at all options.
That aside, I can't really say that this kind of behavior that should be rewarded or even tolerated in a subordinate. The whole hiding of information and acting like double checking his figures suggests that he's lying about something makes it look like he genuinely has something bad to hide too. I mean, can you imagine keeping *your* job after telling your incoming boss the same thing (and even pressuring business partners to withhold info from him too)?
Even if Obama keeps the program, which I hope he does, Griffin does need to "Go." Right out the door.
You may disagree.. but so far you've completely defaulted on making an argument to convince me otherwise. Maybe you're not interested. That's fine. I couldn't be bothered convincing you of my opinion either..
Well, originally, I thought you were being kind of funny since infanticide was a pretty common practice in pre-agrarian cultures up until contact with the West mostly stamped it out. But if you're serious, then no, I really don't care to get in an argument about it.
Your beliefs are frankly too marginal in modern society for me to work up enough interest to be offended. It's not like anything I hold dear is honestly threatened by you believing that, so why argue with someone who is acting very hot tempered in defense of an ideal that society largely finds abhorrent? It's not like I'm going to be the sudden voice of reason that changes your opinion, and it's not like you're going to stand much of a change of swaying people in your favor. What would I gain from arguing except limited amusement?
but don't go calling me names as a substitute.
Where did I call you names at? I said your joke was in poor taste. If it had actually been a joke, I would be right as most people consider baby killing to be a somewhat taboo subject for humor, and taste is entirely a subjective, societal more.