Windows 7 is fairly reliable and can run on some fairly geriatric hardware (I've gotten to a W7 desktop with both P2/450 and K6-2/500 systems).
Except the published specs for Windows 7 require at least a gigahertz. In fact, that right there is why I'm not using Windows 7 on my netbook; XP does more with less, and it shows.
I find it funny that you suggest an unsupported OS installation as a solution to a lack of support for an application.
I'm going to ignore your continuing Protestant bias and get right to your Biblical quote:
But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
What Jesus does not say:
But to you who are listening I say: Love my enemies, do good to those who hate me, bless those who curse me, pray for those who mistreat me.
After all, nobody in the New Testament ever blessed or forgave Judas, let alone Caiaphas or Annas or Pilate or any of the Herods or...
Jesus says "You should not condemn," but also says "God (i.e. Jesus) condemns." It can very easily be interpreted as "Don't judge, because I've already done all the judging for you; just carry out the prescribed sentences (much like Moses said)."
(a bad tree gives bad fruit; a good tree gives good fruit)
Let's take a closer look at what you're paraphrasing, specifically John 15:6
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Sounds like fire is exactly what is prescribed for those who deny the divinity of Jesus.
You're taking a very Protestant point of view. A great many Christians have an episcopacy that sorts out "what Jesus really meant," who claim authority for determining who is and is not a "true Christian."
And, of course, many (most?) Christian denominations take a "universalist" point of view, whereby "sinning" (up to and including committing murder) need not mean apostasy or result in excommunication.
Thus setting yourself up to play the "No True Scotsman" card. Meanwhile, a certain mosque in Tennessee keeps getting burned down because the folks who use it deny Jesus was the son of God.
You don't need to kill ALL the zombies; just the ones who get too close.
Aside from assuming that you have a good feel for how close "too close" is (on top of the required marksmanship), I believe the idea is not to spend a whole lot of time "that close" to begin with.
So while it may be useless to find zombies, thermal imaging sounds PERFECT for locating other survivors.
That's a long-term goal, and it particularly requires both having properly ensured your own survival as well as having someplace to evacuate those survivors to. The general idea from DHS is to have people be prepared to evacuate themselves on short notice and/or be prepared to dig in for 1-2 weeks, rather than focusing on being Big Damn Heroes.
Secondly, just because they don't need to see doesn't mean you don't.
A flashlight and some D-cells are a hell of a lot cheaper and more useful (e. g. can be used for signalling), leaving you money you can put towards other things, like the aforementioned ammo if you really want to go that route.
Could be airborne. Also, we have no way of knowing how effective various toxic gasses would be against the zombies themselves.
The expense is too great, and would only useful for scenarios that are too specific. You're talking about shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars for the ability to walk around for a few hours at maximum. It's cheaper and more broadly applicable to, for example, store a tankful of gasoline so you can not be stuck in the miasma to begin with.
The premise is to prepare for a zombie attack, correct?
"Suspicious activity" at military surplus stores includes making "bulk purchases" of "weatherproofed ammunition"
There are two constants when it comes to zombies:
You need to shoot them in the head, or it will be ineffective. The vast majority of people who buy ammunition simply aren't that good of a shot.
Regardless, there are always more zombies than bullets. Always.
"night vision devices"
Aside from the specific problem of thermal imaging not working too well on the walking dead (who are likely ambient temperature), passive night-vision technologies are generally intended to be able to see in the dark without being seen yourself. I don't recall many examples of zombies being that reliant on their visual senses (assuming they even still have eyes).
gas masks.
A zombie hoard's main weapons are tenacity and numbers, not mustard gas and sarin. Zombie plagues tend to spread by fluid exchange (e. g. biting) rather than airborne agents.
Homeland Security wants us to prepare for zombies. These items don't seem to prepare one for zombies very well.
And they are fully justified in requiring at least some of the processing being done on Iranian soil.
With supervision or after formally abandoning the NPT, hence the "pick any two" statement.
When the Tehran Research Reactor came up for re-supplying in 2009, the US and NATO refused to supply fuel on the open market as is REQUIRED by the NPT.
This was after Iran confirmed production of Po-210 in 2003, outside of IAEA supervision.
Iran naturally refused this offer and made a counteroffer to exchange the LEU at the time of delivery of the TRR fuel, with the LEU being held in Turkey or elsewhere under IAEA seal.
Waiting until delivery would have allowed Iran more time with a large enough stockpile to begin weapons production.
The US then refused the deal under the spurious notion that since Iran's stockpile of LEU had gotten bigger in the meantime that the deal was no longer acceptable.
The stockpile had grown to the point that using the original fuel swap numbers would still leave Iran with a large enough stockpile of material to begin weapons production.
Iran has every reason to distrust the US because it is clear from the behavior of the US over the years that it has no serious interest in negotiating a genuine resolution of the issue.
P5+1 includes Russia and China, so my original question stands: how would the proposal of a "fuel bank" be different from the status quo?
And why do you keep lumping Russia and China in with "the US" to begin with?
These complicated treaty obligations would go away if Iran formally withdrew from the NPT. And then the Saudis would do the same about two second later, which is exactly why Iran is going through with this charade of non-compliance compliance to begin with.
I've yet to hear of any part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty that would prevent Russia or China from transferring fuel-grade material to Iran. The current international regime is as follows:
Refine fissile material
Decline international oversight
Remain in the NPT
Pick any two.
Iran wants to have their cake and eat it too; it doesn't matter what you call their potential fuel suppliers, they want it in-house regardless.
Republicans will work to guarantee that 'individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties,'
No attempt will be made to ensure you are able to exercise those rights; the Republicans will do nothing to altar any terms of use you come across on the internet, which universally demand you waive those "rights."
'personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach.'
Remember the speaker. Replace "personal data" with "Swiss bank statements" and "government overreach" with "the IRS."
'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.'
Recall the Republican definition of "regulation." They could have simply said "remove regulations" and left it at that. Contrast this statement to the first statement above; a regulation ensuring an individual can control their personal information would "stifle innovation" from Facebook, et al.
It ain't regulation that's letting AT&T charge more for FaceTime.
Nintendo Power has been "just another gaming mag" for too long now. I'm not sure if the shark-jumping point was when publishing shifted away from Nintendo, or when they started publishing advertising, but the copies I've picked up and thumbed through didn't feel like the magazine of yore.
Personally, I'm still more depressed by Nintendo no longer publishing official game guides (I believe the last was for Super Paper Mario) than this news.
What does every Sunday School class in the U.S. have on the wall? The Ten Commandments.
Theologians can't agree on their demarcation and enumeration. Exodus and Deuteronomy don't even agree on the exact wording.
Even the idea that there are exactly Ten Commandments and that they have a primacy over all the other obligations and proscriptions is an exploration and interpretation of context. Jehovah/Moses/the authors/whatever never actually say "These are the Ten Commandments."
They are an icon.
Exactly; they represent something larger than themselves. Even those Sunday schools you mention don't intend them to be the "alpha and omega," as it were, or the students wouldn't be expected to keep attending week after week.
God wanted there to be no ambiguity.
If there was to be "no ambiguity," why is "Thou shalt not kill" (at least in English) written alongside so many laws that carry the death penalty?
I also note that you continue to push an absolutist, fundamentalist interpretation.
Christians can debate the finer points of how far from a village menstruating women must stay that are presented in Leviticus
Actually, mainline Christian denominations tend to agree that that's one of the parts thrown out of the faith by Jesus/Paul/whoever.
but virtually no Christian would argue or debate the Ten Commandments.
Moses said to honor your father and mother, while Jesus said to hate your father and mother in order to follow him. Seems like a wide berth for debate there.
And yet God, if he existed, in His Infinite Wisdom, chose to not include a prohibition against rape as one of the commandments.
Again with the absolutism. Even mainline Judaism accepts that Mosaic law (Ten Commandments and otherwise) is intended as a minimum of acceptable behavior, not as an absolute standard. I don't recall seeing anything else in Mosaic law saying "anything else is fair game, forever and ever."
(And that's without getting into the Islamic interpretation of that whole episode.)
Facts: You present yourself as an atheist. You make atheist statements. You behave in a way that is consistent with atheism.
Truth: You are an atheist.
Note that you cannot conclusively arrive at the above truth using these (or any) facts. After all, Laurence Olivier behaved in a way consistent with a prince of Denmark, but does that make him Hamlet? You cannot factually demonstrate that Laurence Olivier was simply pretending to be Hamlet any more than I can factually demonstrate that he believed himself to be Hamlet and played the role of an imagined Laurence Olivier the rest of the time.
You claim I cannot "use semantics to argue my incorrect beliefs." Can you factually demonstrate that I believe anything, let alone what those beliefs are? Can you factually demonstrate that you believe anything, even to yourself?
Meanwhile, would you have even heard of Hamlet, a work of fiction written centuries ago, if it did not contain any truth about the human condition?
One of many reasons why I am a devout evangelical atheist is because... God chose not to outlaw rape.
The one trait that binds atheist fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism together is a strict, literalist, and absolutist interpretation of scripture.
If instead you consider that the message of the Pentateuch was tailored for its audience (which, for Christians, Jesus flat-out said in the Gospels), and consider that a bunch of Bronze Age pastoral nomads aren't going to have much of an enlightened view on the rights of women, you'll note that the concept of a woman's consent, be it given or withheld, is never mentioned explicitly. Prohibition of rape can be seen in context, however, if you note that an "adulterous" woman is pardoned in cases where there is evidence of non-consent (i. e. she cried out), and is also given the benefit of the doubt in instances where there is no evidence either way (i. e. too far away from town for anyone to hear her cries either way).
But searching for context would require abandoning a strict, black-and-white worldview, and then what would you and the Talibangelicals have to exchange vitriol about?
Note that the law cited in TFSummary was passed just three years later, in response to this incident. The British seem determined not to let extraterritoriality get abused.
They didn't even storm the Libyan Embassy when a Police officer was murdered from the Embassy itself back in (you guessed it) 1984.
And, as TFSummary notes, the embassy-storming law was enacted in 1987, three years later. The extraterritoriality of the Libyan embassy was not violated, and the murder weapon itself left in a diplomatic bag.
Special relativity has not been violated, causality is preserved.
Slashdot Mirror
They are already some of the best paid urban teachers
Why the need for the "urban" qualifier?
Windows 7 is fairly reliable and can run on some fairly geriatric hardware (I've gotten to a W7 desktop with both P2/450 and K6-2/500 systems).
Except the published specs for Windows 7 require at least a gigahertz. In fact, that right there is why I'm not using Windows 7 on my netbook; XP does more with less, and it shows.
I find it funny that you suggest an unsupported OS installation as a solution to a lack of support for an application.
... because it's not an SI unit.
I'm going to ignore your continuing Protestant bias and get right to your Biblical quote:
But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
What Jesus does not say:
But to you who are listening I say: Love my enemies, do good to those who hate me, bless those who curse me, pray for those who mistreat me.
After all, nobody in the New Testament ever blessed or forgave Judas, let alone Caiaphas or Annas or Pilate or any of the Herods or...
Jesus says "You should not condemn," but also says "God (i.e. Jesus) condemns." It can very easily be interpreted as "Don't judge, because I've already done all the judging for you; just carry out the prescribed sentences (much like Moses said)."
(a bad tree gives bad fruit; a good tree gives good fruit)
Let's take a closer look at what you're paraphrasing, specifically John 15:6
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Sounds like fire is exactly what is prescribed for those who deny the divinity of Jesus.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll569.xml
You're taking a very Protestant point of view. A great many Christians have an episcopacy that sorts out "what Jesus really meant," who claim authority for determining who is and is not a "true Christian."
And, of course, many (most?) Christian denominations take a "universalist" point of view, whereby "sinning" (up to and including committing murder) need not mean apostasy or result in excommunication.
Anyone who has actually read the Hadith
Versus people who have read the Qur'an?
and no Christian will kill you.
Thus setting yourself up to play the "No True Scotsman" card. Meanwhile, a certain mosque in Tennessee keeps getting burned down because the folks who use it deny Jesus was the son of God.
You don't need to kill ALL the zombies; just the ones who get too close.
Aside from assuming that you have a good feel for how close "too close" is (on top of the required marksmanship), I believe the idea is not to spend a whole lot of time "that close" to begin with.
So while it may be useless to find zombies, thermal imaging sounds PERFECT for locating other survivors.
That's a long-term goal, and it particularly requires both having properly ensured your own survival as well as having someplace to evacuate those survivors to. The general idea from DHS is to have people be prepared to evacuate themselves on short notice and/or be prepared to dig in for 1-2 weeks, rather than focusing on being Big Damn Heroes.
Secondly, just because they don't need to see doesn't mean you don't.
A flashlight and some D-cells are a hell of a lot cheaper and more useful (e. g. can be used for signalling), leaving you money you can put towards other things, like the aforementioned ammo if you really want to go that route.
Could be airborne. Also, we have no way of knowing how effective various toxic gasses would be against the zombies themselves.
The expense is too great, and would only useful for scenarios that are too specific. You're talking about shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars for the ability to walk around for a few hours at maximum. It's cheaper and more broadly applicable to, for example, store a tankful of gasoline so you can not be stuck in the miasma to begin with.
The premise is to prepare for a zombie attack, correct?
"Suspicious activity" at military surplus stores includes making "bulk purchases" of "weatherproofed ammunition"
There are two constants when it comes to zombies:
"night vision devices"
Aside from the specific problem of thermal imaging not working too well on the walking dead (who are likely ambient temperature), passive night-vision technologies are generally intended to be able to see in the dark without being seen yourself. I don't recall many examples of zombies being that reliant on their visual senses (assuming they even still have eyes).
gas masks.
A zombie hoard's main weapons are tenacity and numbers, not mustard gas and sarin. Zombie plagues tend to spread by fluid exchange (e. g. biting) rather than airborne agents.
Homeland Security wants us to prepare for zombies. These items don't seem to prepare one for zombies very well.
So who gives Israel their... nukes (?)
Not who you think, but that was over 40 years ago.
Who mess up the middle east in the first place?
Muhammad, when he failed to pick his own successor before he died.
Who's alright supporting anyone as long as it fits the current agenda?
Everyone, everywhere, forever.
where does North Korea get its computers from?
Probably from the same place they got their nuclear technology: our dear friend and ally Pakistan.
And they are fully justified in requiring at least some of the processing being done on Iranian soil.
With supervision or after formally abandoning the NPT, hence the "pick any two" statement.
When the Tehran Research Reactor came up for re-supplying in 2009, the US and NATO refused to supply fuel on the open market as is REQUIRED by the NPT.
This was after Iran confirmed production of Po-210 in 2003, outside of IAEA supervision.
Iran naturally refused this offer and made a counteroffer to exchange the LEU at the time of delivery of the TRR fuel, with the LEU being held in Turkey or elsewhere under IAEA seal.
Waiting until delivery would have allowed Iran more time with a large enough stockpile to begin weapons production.
The US then refused the deal under the spurious notion that since Iran's stockpile of LEU had gotten bigger in the meantime that the deal was no longer acceptable.
The stockpile had grown to the point that using the original fuel swap numbers would still leave Iran with a large enough stockpile of material to begin weapons production.
Iran has every reason to distrust the US because it is clear from the behavior of the US over the years that it has no serious interest in negotiating a genuine resolution of the issue.
P5+1 includes Russia and China, so my original question stands: how would the proposal of a "fuel bank" be different from the status quo?
And why do you keep lumping Russia and China in with "the US" to begin with?
These complicated treaty obligations would go away if Iran formally withdrew from the NPT. And then the Saudis would do the same about two second later, which is exactly why Iran is going through with this charade of non-compliance compliance to begin with.
I've yet to hear of any part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty that would prevent Russia or China from transferring fuel-grade material to Iran. The current international regime is as follows:
Pick any two.
Iran wants to have their cake and eat it too; it doesn't matter what you call their potential fuel suppliers, they want it in-house regardless.
but not a requirement. If you don't think a jury can handle it, don't use one.
Better still, the likes of Apple and Samsung could agree to arbitration. After all, if it's good enough to force upon consumers...
Republicans will work to guarantee that 'individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties,'
No attempt will be made to ensure you are able to exercise those rights; the Republicans will do nothing to altar any terms of use you come across on the internet, which universally demand you waive those "rights."
'personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach.'
Remember the speaker. Replace "personal data" with "Swiss bank statements" and "government overreach" with "the IRS."
'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.'
Recall the Republican definition of "regulation." They could have simply said "remove regulations" and left it at that. Contrast this statement to the first statement above; a regulation ensuring an individual can control their personal information would "stifle innovation" from Facebook, et al.
It ain't regulation that's letting AT&T charge more for FaceTime.
Nintendo Power has been "just another gaming mag" for too long now. I'm not sure if the shark-jumping point was when publishing shifted away from Nintendo, or when they started publishing advertising, but the copies I've picked up and thumbed through didn't feel like the magazine of yore.
Personally, I'm still more depressed by Nintendo no longer publishing official game guides (I believe the last was for Super Paper Mario) than this news.
You forgot one:
That crosses the line from "advertisement" to "social engineering attack" in my book.
What does every Sunday School class in the U.S. have on the wall? The Ten Commandments.
Theologians can't agree on their demarcation and enumeration. Exodus and Deuteronomy don't even agree on the exact wording.
Even the idea that there are exactly Ten Commandments and that they have a primacy over all the other obligations and proscriptions is an exploration and interpretation of context. Jehovah/Moses/the authors/whatever never actually say "These are the Ten Commandments."
They are an icon.
Exactly; they represent something larger than themselves. Even those Sunday schools you mention don't intend them to be the "alpha and omega," as it were, or the students wouldn't be expected to keep attending week after week.
God wanted there to be no ambiguity.
If there was to be "no ambiguity," why is "Thou shalt not kill" (at least in English) written alongside so many laws that carry the death penalty?
I also note that you continue to push an absolutist, fundamentalist interpretation.
Christians can debate the finer points of how far from a village menstruating women must stay that are presented in Leviticus
Actually, mainline Christian denominations tend to agree that that's one of the parts thrown out of the faith by Jesus/Paul/whoever.
but virtually no Christian would argue or debate the Ten Commandments.
Moses said to honor your father and mother, while Jesus said to hate your father and mother in order to follow him. Seems like a wide berth for debate there.
And yet God, if he existed, in His Infinite Wisdom, chose to not include a prohibition against rape as one of the commandments.
Again with the absolutism. Even mainline Judaism accepts that Mosaic law (Ten Commandments and otherwise) is intended as a minimum of acceptable behavior, not as an absolute standard. I don't recall seeing anything else in Mosaic law saying "anything else is fair game, forever and ever."
(And that's without getting into the Islamic interpretation of that whole episode.)
Facts: You present yourself as an atheist. You make atheist statements. You behave in a way that is consistent with atheism.
Truth: You are an atheist.
Note that you cannot conclusively arrive at the above truth using these (or any) facts. After all, Laurence Olivier behaved in a way consistent with a prince of Denmark, but does that make him Hamlet? You cannot factually demonstrate that Laurence Olivier was simply pretending to be Hamlet any more than I can factually demonstrate that he believed himself to be Hamlet and played the role of an imagined Laurence Olivier the rest of the time.
You claim I cannot "use semantics to argue my incorrect beliefs." Can you factually demonstrate that I believe anything, let alone what those beliefs are? Can you factually demonstrate that you believe anything, even to yourself?
Meanwhile, would you have even heard of Hamlet, a work of fiction written centuries ago, if it did not contain any truth about the human condition?
Part of of that strict, literalist and absolutist interpretation is the insistence that "fact" and "truth" mean the same thing.
One of many reasons why I am a devout evangelical atheist is because... God chose not to outlaw rape.
The one trait that binds atheist fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism together is a strict, literalist, and absolutist interpretation of scripture.
If instead you consider that the message of the Pentateuch was tailored for its audience (which, for Christians, Jesus flat-out said in the Gospels), and consider that a bunch of Bronze Age pastoral nomads aren't going to have much of an enlightened view on the rights of women, you'll note that the concept of a woman's consent, be it given or withheld, is never mentioned explicitly. Prohibition of rape can be seen in context, however, if you note that an "adulterous" woman is pardoned in cases where there is evidence of non-consent (i. e. she cried out), and is also given the benefit of the doubt in instances where there is no evidence either way (i. e. too far away from town for anyone to hear her cries either way).
But searching for context would require abandoning a strict, black-and-white worldview, and then what would you and the Talibangelicals have to exchange vitriol about?
How, exactly, will this not be a full retail license?
Even TFA says that "full retail" will no longer be offered, which makes this sound a lot like nothing more than a simple name change.
For those talking of "precedent," here's a little history lesson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
Note that the law cited in TFSummary was passed just three years later, in response to this incident. The British seem determined not to let extraterritoriality get abused.
They didn't even storm the Libyan Embassy when a Police officer was murdered from the Embassy itself back in (you guessed it) 1984.
And, as TFSummary notes, the embassy-storming law was enacted in 1987, three years later. The extraterritoriality of the Libyan embassy was not violated, and the murder weapon itself left in a diplomatic bag.
Special relativity has not been violated, causality is preserved.