They always factor in the original purchase price in the payout. You will never be saddled with mortgage costs after they seize the house (as far as I know).
The problem is that there is a *market* value to the property, which fluctuates, and is hard to quantify. They use tax assessments to help determine that value, and they're usually lower that what the house can actually get (if it had two years to be shopped around).
Eminent domain means you're going to lose "potential" value of the property, not actual equity. So I stick an 20% loss on FUTURE value. I don't feel comfortable saying the gov't gets it better than 95% right when cashing out a homeowner, even though I'm sure the gov't will claim they pay better than what the market would produce.
The point is that you're not going to be homeless on the street after an eminent domain seizure. You will be burned by the gov't, the question by how much in dollar terms. Are you going to murder a rent-a-cop over $30K of perceived value, and then leave your children orphans or broke after you pay the legal costs and civil suit payments?
I shouldn't even waste my time pointing out the "obvious" to blowhards. If they're adults, they're going to bend over. If they actually have balls, nothing I say is going to change that. My only suggestion is that if you're going to kill someone, you shouldn't be killing flunky gov't employees. Killing the politicians will cause a tiny stir, but even then, its not going to deter the people who only profit by henchmen getting killed.
It also helps to study recent history. You don't want to dwell on what dead guys did 200 years ago. You want to be checking out the history of U.S. terrorist groups in the '70's, like the SLA, and basic guerrilla strategy. You know, Mao; though what the Algerian Arabs did in the '60's would probably be more useful.
People are just too lazy & apathetic now, unless it is directly affecting them.
Don't forget stupid, ignorant, materialistic, and following a slave mentality. This is a country that loves to tote guns. But if enough of them are stupid enough to beleive the gov't is protecting them, and allow them to violate the Constitution, this is the result. Before you spit on politician, make sure you save some saliva for the citizen.
Yes, but you're getting ~80% of your money from the forced sale. You're not killing people over theft of your property, you're killing people because they are stealing money and possibly heritage from you.
Yes, you will be compensated but what if you are RENTING? Huh?
Then you are SOL. Renters aren't property owners. Their rights are limited to what is delinated by the Constitution (which is nothing beyond any random citizen) and state laws (which vary).
Gawd, you gun nuts are delusional. Who do you think OWNS the news crew? What message do you think they will be putting out on the 11PM news? "Two policemen lose their lives protecting the community from a a gun nut. Gun Nut was despondent from recently losing his house..."
Seriously, do you look at the Weathermen as heroes against the gov't? How about the Symbionese Liberation Front? How about the Black Panthers? How about Ted Kaczinsky? How about Al Queda? (They beleive they're fighting for their "rights")
Hell isn't going to break loose, anymore than it did in the '70's. Its not the act of killing that makes an individual free. Its only something which can dissuade a bully to continue bullying. If you're killing the wrong bully, you're not dissuading the bully pulling the strings. Killing is not making places like Iraq a better place for muslim fundamentalists. The most potent weapon of the free man is not your firearm, gun nut, its what's between your ears. Okay, maybe I'm mistaken in your case...
And while you're at it, how about redefining your three strikes laws to apply only to specifically defined violent felonies? I don't see much point in passing legislation to protect your property from eminent domain, when you'll lose it trying to keep incarcerated a plague of 3-strike pot-heads.
How about not booting out your elected Governor to put in a actor who then abetted the theft of YOUR money by Enron in an electrical shortage fraud?
I'm not even Californian, and I have a better clue about how you idiots screw up your own state.
Cut your retarded propaganda crap. 3 of the judges in the majority opinion were Republican.
What liberal fights for a Federalist model of gov't? Would they even know what Federalism means?
Where the HELL were your "Conservatives" when they decided the SCOTUS could hijack the election procedure in Florida in 2000??? Where were they fighting for the little man, when they decided the federal gov't could imprison a person for growing an illegal plant in his home for medicinal purposes? (Okay, Thomas was down wid dat, but...)
Dude, you live in the ideological propaganda foisted by your public school education. Conservatives don't support individual's rights when they vote in favor of corporations. The only people who make decisions based on ideological concerns are the libertarians, and you can see how far they get politically. There is not an ounce of ideological integrity in any professional politician today. Don't go blaming this on liberals, you disgenuous sack of excrement.
Basic property rights shouldn't have to be defined 50 times in 50 different constitutions and fought in the courts of 50 different states.
Why not? Powers that aren't explicitly assigned to the federal gov't fall to the purview of the state gov't. The constitution never implied the federal gov't was to regulate everything. It was only to define what specific powers were possessed by the federal gov't. (raise armies, conduct foreign diplomacy, regulate interstate commerce, etc.) You can't more get more local than property ownership. Its not really in the federal purview.
The federal gov't isn't really even about protecting the rights of individual US citizens. Its only about protecting the rights of citizens WHERE ENUMERATED in the Constitutional Amendments. The only reason the federal gov't started mucking around in the South during the 1950's was because of the 14th amendment. The same goes with Florida 2000, except the Supremes there decided the federal gov't had the right to hijack the state election process if they perceived they didn't have their act together. You didn't see many Republicans grousing about that one.
But powerful multinational corporations didn't really exist back then, and the Supremes are supposed to show some discretion when making judgements. Defining a corporation as a person, the Constitution certainly isn't supposed to support, even by the absence to act, an individual seizing another individual's property if the richer guy could buy the Mayor into enforcing the transaction.
FUNNY THOUGH, how the Supremes think the federal gov't has the duty to imprison an individual growing medicinal herb on their property when it isn't being sold out of state.
I guess those homeowners should start using the 2nd amendment and start shooting their locally elected officials and some shareholders.
And what are you going to do when Walmart is the one taking your house? Shoot 100K share holders? Or more likely, the rent-a-cop, or the CEO corporate flunky? As long as you're making a blood sacrifice, that will even the books? Are you willing to destroy your family's economic survival to prove a point?
The minority opinion of today's decision is pretty much the group I normally harbor such incredible contempt. And YET, today it is so obvious they were the ones making the correct decision. I am stroking out just trying to grasp this contradiction to my world view.
How do you go to a citizen, a property owner, someone who as poured his sweat and portion of his life into obtaining and maintaining his land, and then tell him he is to be evicted because some rich guy, or some soulless corporation has decided to take his property over???
I'm not sure if the year 1992 has any significance. But in the early age of consumer computing, software used to be built with schemes to make it "impossible" to copy/install/use the software without validating that you had purchased the product.
Usually, this was done by being forced to physically lookup a phrase in the physical documentation and then feed it back to program before it would start/continue work.
This was annoying as hell, particularly to the paying customers. "crackers" would usually located the protection routine in the binary code, and patch it to skip the check. The practice was discontinued because the "protection" scheme would not protect non-purchased use of its product, (the savvier users would merely apply the publicised crack) and would reduce its marketshare by annoying its purchasing customers. Ultimately, software companies just factored piracy rates into its pricing structure.
The post was meant to be humorous, but you may have started using computers after the practice stopped, and thus your question.
...people who are barely able to understand the concept of good programming practices having access to a tool which supports none of these. Then let them produce, with ease, the shoddy, buggy programs to enable Linux to challenge Microsoft for the honor of crappiest computing platform.
Face it, business analysts and venture capitalists: Programming, if not an art, is certainly a skill which takes a certain level of talent and expertise to be competent. If you're competent, you'll learn it. If not, you shouldn't have any business producing defective applications. Any more than having a non-electrician do electrical wiring. Certainly, there is no reason to help propagate a crutch, designed before the concept of procedural programming (another dinosaur), just so that incompetents are better able to plague users with shoddy programs.
At this point in the game, with environments like java, mono, and python, there is no reason to introduce a flawed language like BASIC into the mainstream. The ones capable of learning BASIC, are capable of learning one of the above. If they don't want to, it probably means they're too stupid to, and should be culled out of developing applications.
Good question. As other people pointed out, its to test out the "Quiet & Cool" technology built into the CPU. Long term goal would be to have the 64-bit behemoth available, but run it underpowered for daily tasks most of the time, supposedly for the power savings & quieter fan.
Note that the CPU is a 64 bit CPU. You could address >4GB of RAM, and still run under lower power, which you couldn't do with a cheaper 32 bit CPU. (*Whoopdeedoo*)
I do something similar right now. I run an Athlon XP-M 2200+ at spec. At that point, I'm only burning 35W. Its quite good for 98% of my tasks. When I want the extra oomph, I then boost the CPU voltage, clock multiplier, and bandwidth to get ~25% faster CPU. (I could push it higher, but I need better RAM, and a better variable CPU heatsink.) And it makes a significant noticable difference when doing md5sum checks on DVD, or processing that alt.binaries.dvd newsgroup.
What makes it a royal pain in the ass is that I have to reboot, make many setting changes in the BIOS (wish I could save profiles), and change it back afterwards. This article suggests a lot of pain could be saved (but I doubt much electricity). It kills me. I want the 64bits and faster clocks, like everyone else. I'll probably end up buying the box, but almost never run it, except for high load tasks or the occasional game.
When faced with a genetically engineered madman with ten times his strength, Kirk evened the odds with a pipe.
Khan? Damn, don't remember that scene. (Time to turn over the official geek identification card...)
I don't think you meant Spock. Funny, that's one of my favorite scenes too, in "This Side of Paradise". Kirk, noting in his log before confronting Spock, how Spock could kick his ass. And then during the fight, Spock whacks the pipe Kirk uses to block and crushes it, illustrating just how screwed Kirk was. Kirk was a master at evaluating a tactical situation. Picard had to study Kirk, not vice versa.
And remember, Kirk took out a Gorn as well! (My only quibble with the "Mirror Enterprise" episode. They made the Gorn look like a skinny gekko, rather than the slowassed, meat ripping machine...)
I don't think it's fair to compare the two in the way that you have, in the same way you can't compare Kennedy to Lincoln to determine who was the better President.
Oh come on! Lincoln was a much better President than Kennedy! Lincoln sucessfully presided over a major war. He persevered despite having significantly less competent generals than the South. Politically, he was constantly threatened by his opposition. He helped unite a fractured country.
What did Kennedy do? Lost his nerve invading a 3rd world island. Prevailed in a nuclear chicken session with Kruschev. Banged Hollywood starlets and Eastern bloc spies.
But poor Terry Farrell was totally, totally wasted in DS9. I never even though of her as attractive until DS9 did the Tribble episode. And seeing her in that ST:TOS uniform... WHOA! And she got extra points for having the hots for Spock over Kirk.
Damn, I'm gonna stroke out trying to nail down the favorite.
Inner Light was incredibly great. But I think I liked Tapestry a bit more; it actually had a message at the end of the story that I could apply to real life. And Q was my favorite character in TNG (the good episodes, that is). And the series finale I liked better than Inner Light as well.
And yet, there were still TOS episodes I liked even more. Amok Time, Balance of Terror, with honorable mentions to City on the Edge of Forever, and The Trouble With Tribbles. (...Devil in the Dark, on and on...)
I liked DS9 better than TNG, but only because I feel there was less of a mediocrity factor to it than TNG. (Thus, I could better stand watching every DS9 episode more than every TNG episode.) DS9 did not have an episode, IMHO, that alone stood out over the "best" TNG or TOS episode.
I thought the series finale was the epitome of Enterprise and the Star Trek franchise. Incredibly crappy episode with "time-travelling" in a holodeck.
Am I the only one utterly disgusted at how Archer was directed to be more concerned with his dumbassed ceremony rather than his actions resulting in croaking his friend and chief engineer?
Ah, it was *her* fault, for taking the job with the paycheck. She should have held up film production, while she singlehandedly rewrote scripts to better develop her character and her lines. I'm sure Braga and Paramount would have had no problem with that.
Or, do you resent her just because as a latent or not-so-latent homosexual male, you resented gratuitous displays of the female form?
Tragically, the only actor that saved their reputation on that show (besides the Doctor) had to be Hoshii. Man, I hated her in every episode up to the Mirror Universe one.
90 Kilos!?!? You can keep your 90Kg Soviet beauties! (That's 198 lbs!) In Kapitalist Amerika, we don't need backup propulsion for our SUVs... they just work! No wonder you've given up on going to Mars. No rocket could send one of your "Soviet beauties" with enough life support to survive the trip. (Not that you Commies were ever overly preoccupied with your Cosmonauts returning...)
And take Anna Nicole Smith with you, you Commie chubby chaser! I'll take your scrawny, corrupt, effete, counter-revolutionary devotchkas
Yes, I suggest further examination of the insidious West infecting the pure revolutionary heart with their subversive, expatriate ideas. Long live the Czar! Long live the Counter-Revolution!
Perot stole Bush Sr. voters and Nader stole Gore voters.
Stole? You mean they rigged the voting machines? Impersonated eligible voters? Are suggesting they did not have the right to seek the Office of the POTUS? How DARE they decide to run!
Their campaigns were frustration campaigns. They absolutely WERE wasted votes.
Funny, I didn't see any "winnable" third party candidates in this go around. And YET, never before have I felt my vote was so WASTED. Granted, I have a contempt for GWB bordering on hatred, so I did end up voting for Kerry. But I really did not see how it was much of a choice. Tweedledee is not much different than Tweedledum.
Voting is a form of expression. And life rarely can be boiled down to a Republican choice or a Democrat choice. I feel so "betrayed" by the Democratic Party, I have been a registered Independent for two decades. So, when I don't have the benefit of a 3rd party candidate to vote for, I am stuck with filthy and filthier. They both suck. They really aren't much different. One starts an invasion of a oil-rich Middle East nation, the other one says he would have invaded too, but done it smarter. One demonstrates he's all about favoring the rich and sticking it to the middle class, the other guy would never say it, but votes in that manner. (Just like Clinton with the Welfare Reform Act and NAFTA.)
The current political system is designed to do that. Select two candidates that will act as favorably as possible to the special interest groups. The Republican/Democrat thing is just for show. The only US Presidential races with ideological differences (in modern history) was Carter/Reagan and Mondale/Reagan. Well, guess what? I'm not rich, so I'm not getting to choose my Presidential candidate.
When I can vote for a 3rd party candidate, I get to say: "You are both assholes, and this guy I'm supporting at least represents a difference.". When Bush loses because of Perot, it doesn't mean conservatives were robbed. It means, "Dumbass, I got a ton of people here who feel strongly enough about our issues that if you don't address them, you won't win.". Dole didn't learn from the 1992 election. Bush Jr. learned from his Dad's loss, and courted the fundamentalist and "conservative" voters.
When Gore lost Florida and Nader's supporters could have tipped it his way, its saying, "Dumbass, I got a ton of people here who feel strongly enough about our issues that if you don't address them, you won't win.". And lord knows, Gore did not give a crap about Democratic working class, or the Progressives, or the 30K disenfranchised voters that easily would have swung Florida his way. The fact that the unions tepidly supported Gore only showed how they have caved to the system.
Voting for a 3rd party candidate that probably won't win in evolutionary terms is a "spite" strategy. If you can't support and defend MY issues, then you can't win. If someone I dislike more gets elected, at least it holds hope that the next election cycle will have to make some movement towards my positions. When I don't have a 3rd party spoiler, that only means the rich win. (which they were going to anyway. But at least the other side has to better respond to those 3rd party issues.)
The burden of proof is on anyone to demonstrate how there is a significant difference between a mainstream party candidate and a fringe candidate on the same side other than an increase in radicalism.
No, the burden of proof is to demonstrate how any R/D presidential races has candidates that have genuine ideological differences.
And might I add that I am offended that you think 3rd party candidates are "theives". They aren't the filth, you are, you fascist. You are not "entitled" to my vote. Just because you're a bitch willing to chose between two pimps, doesn't mean I have to support your choice of pimp.
There isn't. My arguments aren't limited to freight. Passenger trains need to be high speed to connect cities. Otherwise, they will be so consumer undesirable, there would be no point in attempting a rail line that spans across the country (for passenger service). But this is moot anyway, since you can't maintain high speed if you're stopping every 10 mins.
If the freight line doesn't go to Long Island it's probably not worth the money.
Freight can't go to Long Island because there is no track connecting (NJ to) Manhattan to LI. No single private interest has the money to attempt the new tunneling between LI through Manhattan (to NJ). This is what's known as public sector works project, an investment in infrastructure. Its supposed to be for the benefit of the locality. In this case, it could allow for the removal (or VAST reduction) of tractor trailer traffic from the bridges and expressways. Less fuel consumed, more manageable traffic, less group fatalities. (You don't see private sector interests making water tunnels in NYC and then charging through the nose for the water.) As an added paranoiac benefit, transit can still occur if there is a bomb threat at a tunnel/bridge or on the CX Bronx Expressway, or terrorists shutting down airports.
But in this case you could make the argument cars would be much more expensive if drivers actually paid all the costs associated with their driving, so the train subsidy balances the ledger.
That's the crux of my argument. People think cars/trucks are inherently cheap, but they don't realize the costs because the infrastructure is heavily subsidized. Basically taxpayers are shelling out money for more fuel consumption and more pollution.
It always is, on paper, but somehow when they actually build it only areas with extremely high density can support a self-sustaining rail service.
Yup. But bureaucratic incompetence is pretty evident when you can't maintain a breakeven high speed line from Boston to NYC to Washington, DC. That has to be the most densely populated sector of the country. BTW, I'm not a big proponent for subsidizing passenger operation from the East Coast to the West Coast. If its cost effective, sure. Otherwise, I don't care. But I think a cost effective passenger rail line going from Boston to Florida is feasible, as would a line going from Chicago to NYC. Or even a line going from LA to Seattle. Its just that politicians, special interests, and poor management prevents its realization.
I think passenger rail would have a hard time competing even in Europe if gas taxes weren't prohibitively high.
I agree. But who cares? Europe has a redundant transportation structure, it doesn't reward inefficient individual consumption, and its better designed to ride out a fuel shortage than the U.S. They aren't so beholden to fuel consumption that they have to invade the Middle East to secure their supply.
id you ever wonder why no serious school of philosophy ever came from the US? Oh, unless you want to count objectivism or pragmatism.
Actually, objectivism was founded by a "foreigner", Ayn Rand. Never heard of pragmatism as a label for a political or ideological philosophy.
That puts United States' culture as a big zero for original philosophic thought. Though I'm sure if I expended enough effort, I could probably come up with something. You're just jealous that we own the entertainment media, which tells people what to think. What value is your philosophic originality when you have to pass laws to keep cultural propaganda away from your citizens?
Slashdot Mirror
They always factor in the original purchase price in the payout. You will never be saddled with mortgage costs after they seize the house (as far as I know).
The problem is that there is a *market* value to the property, which fluctuates, and is hard to quantify. They use tax assessments to help determine that value, and they're usually lower that what the house can actually get (if it had two years to be shopped around).
Eminent domain means you're going to lose "potential" value of the property, not actual equity. So I stick an 20% loss on FUTURE value. I don't feel comfortable saying the gov't gets it better than 95% right when cashing out a homeowner, even though I'm sure the gov't will claim they pay better than what the market would produce.
The point is that you're not going to be homeless on the street after an eminent domain seizure. You will be burned by the gov't, the question by how much in dollar terms. Are you going to murder a rent-a-cop over $30K of perceived value, and then leave your children orphans or broke after you pay the legal costs and civil suit payments?
I shouldn't even waste my time pointing out the "obvious" to blowhards. If they're adults, they're going to bend over. If they actually have balls, nothing I say is going to change that. My only suggestion is that if you're going to kill someone, you shouldn't be killing flunky gov't employees. Killing the politicians will cause a tiny stir, but even then, its not going to deter the people who only profit by henchmen getting killed.
It also helps to study recent history. You don't want to dwell on what dead guys did 200 years ago. You want to be checking out the history of U.S. terrorist groups in the '70's, like the SLA, and basic guerrilla strategy. You know, Mao; though what the Algerian Arabs did in the '60's would probably be more useful.
Don't forget stupid, ignorant, materialistic, and following a slave mentality. This is a country that loves to tote guns. But if enough of them are stupid enough to beleive the gov't is protecting them, and allow them to violate the Constitution, this is the result. Before you spit on politician, make sure you save some saliva for the citizen.
Yes, but you're getting ~80% of your money from the forced sale. You're not killing people over theft of your property, you're killing people because they are stealing money and possibly heritage from you.
Then you are SOL. Renters aren't property owners. Their rights are limited to what is delinated by the Constitution (which is nothing beyond any random citizen) and state laws (which vary).
Gawd, you gun nuts are delusional. Who do you think OWNS the news crew? What message do you think they will be putting out on the 11PM news? "Two policemen lose their lives protecting the community from a a gun nut. Gun Nut was despondent from recently losing his house..."
Seriously, do you look at the Weathermen as heroes against the gov't? How about the Symbionese Liberation Front? How about the Black Panthers? How about Ted Kaczinsky? How about Al Queda? (They beleive they're fighting for their "rights")
Hell isn't going to break loose, anymore than it did in the '70's. Its not the act of killing that makes an individual free. Its only something which can dissuade a bully to continue bullying. If you're killing the wrong bully, you're not dissuading the bully pulling the strings. Killing is not making places like Iraq a better place for muslim fundamentalists. The most potent weapon of the free man is not your firearm, gun nut, its what's between your ears. Okay, maybe I'm mistaken in your case...
And while you're at it, how about redefining your three strikes laws to apply only to specifically defined violent felonies? I don't see much point in passing legislation to protect your property from eminent domain, when you'll lose it trying to keep incarcerated a plague of 3-strike pot-heads.
How about not booting out your elected Governor to put in a actor who then abetted the theft of YOUR money by Enron in an electrical shortage fraud?
I'm not even Californian, and I have a better clue about how you idiots screw up your own state.
Cut your retarded propaganda crap. 3 of the judges in the majority opinion were Republican. What liberal fights for a Federalist model of gov't? Would they even know what Federalism means? Where the HELL were your "Conservatives" when they decided the SCOTUS could hijack the election procedure in Florida in 2000??? Where were they fighting for the little man, when they decided the federal gov't could imprison a person for growing an illegal plant in his home for medicinal purposes? (Okay, Thomas was down wid dat, but...) Dude, you live in the ideological propaganda foisted by your public school education. Conservatives don't support individual's rights when they vote in favor of corporations. The only people who make decisions based on ideological concerns are the libertarians, and you can see how far they get politically. There is not an ounce of ideological integrity in any professional politician today. Don't go blaming this on liberals, you disgenuous sack of excrement.
Why not? Powers that aren't explicitly assigned to the federal gov't fall to the purview of the state gov't. The constitution never implied the federal gov't was to regulate everything. It was only to define what specific powers were possessed by the federal gov't. (raise armies, conduct foreign diplomacy, regulate interstate commerce, etc.) You can't more get more local than property ownership. Its not really in the federal purview.
The federal gov't isn't really even about protecting the rights of individual US citizens. Its only about protecting the rights of citizens WHERE ENUMERATED in the Constitutional Amendments. The only reason the federal gov't started mucking around in the South during the 1950's was because of the 14th amendment. The same goes with Florida 2000, except the Supremes there decided the federal gov't had the right to hijack the state election process if they perceived they didn't have their act together. You didn't see many Republicans grousing about that one.
But powerful multinational corporations didn't really exist back then, and the Supremes are supposed to show some discretion when making judgements. Defining a corporation as a person, the Constitution certainly isn't supposed to support, even by the absence to act, an individual seizing another individual's property if the richer guy could buy the Mayor into enforcing the transaction.
FUNNY THOUGH, how the Supremes think the federal gov't has the duty to imprison an individual growing medicinal herb on their property when it isn't being sold out of state. I guess those homeowners should start using the 2nd amendment and start shooting their locally elected officials and some shareholders.
And what are you going to do when Walmart is the one taking your house? Shoot 100K share holders? Or more likely, the rent-a-cop, or the CEO corporate flunky? As long as you're making a blood sacrifice, that will even the books? Are you willing to destroy your family's economic survival to prove a point?
You may be thinking a little too small view here.
Un-freaking-believable.
The minority opinion of today's decision is pretty much the group I normally harbor such incredible contempt. And YET, today it is so obvious they were the ones making the correct decision. I am stroking out just trying to grasp this contradiction to my world view.
How do you go to a citizen, a property owner, someone who as poured his sweat and portion of his life into obtaining and maintaining his land, and then tell him he is to be evicted because some rich guy, or some soulless corporation has decided to take his property over???
I'm not sure if the year 1992 has any significance. But in the early age of consumer computing, software used to be built with schemes to make it "impossible" to copy/install/use the software without validating that you had purchased the product.
Usually, this was done by being forced to physically lookup a phrase in the physical documentation and then feed it back to program before it would start/continue work.
This was annoying as hell, particularly to the paying customers. "crackers" would usually located the protection routine in the binary code, and patch it to skip the check. The practice was discontinued because the "protection" scheme would not protect non-purchased use of its product, (the savvier users would merely apply the publicised crack) and would reduce its marketshare by annoying its purchasing customers. Ultimately, software companies just factored piracy rates into its pricing structure.
The post was meant to be humorous, but you may have started using computers after the practice stopped, and thus your question.
...people who are barely able to understand the concept of good programming practices having access to a tool which supports none of these. Then let them produce, with ease, the shoddy, buggy programs to enable Linux to challenge Microsoft for the honor of crappiest computing platform.
Face it, business analysts and venture capitalists: Programming, if not an art, is certainly a skill which takes a certain level of talent and expertise to be competent. If you're competent, you'll learn it. If not, you shouldn't have any business producing defective applications. Any more than having a non-electrician do electrical wiring. Certainly, there is no reason to help propagate a crutch, designed before the concept of procedural programming (another dinosaur), just so that incompetents are better able to plague users with shoddy programs.
At this point in the game, with environments like java, mono, and python, there is no reason to introduce a flawed language like BASIC into the mainstream. The ones capable of learning BASIC, are capable of learning one of the above. If they don't want to, it probably means they're too stupid to, and should be culled out of developing applications.
The blame for this outrage should be put on Berman & Enterprise.
Good question. As other people pointed out, its to test out the "Quiet & Cool" technology built into the CPU. Long term goal would be to have the 64-bit behemoth available, but run it underpowered for daily tasks most of the time, supposedly for the power savings & quieter fan.
Note that the CPU is a 64 bit CPU. You could address >4GB of RAM, and still run under lower power, which you couldn't do with a cheaper 32 bit CPU. (*Whoopdeedoo*)
I do something similar right now. I run an Athlon XP-M 2200+ at spec. At that point, I'm only burning 35W. Its quite good for 98% of my tasks. When I want the extra oomph, I then boost the CPU voltage, clock multiplier, and bandwidth to get ~25% faster CPU. (I could push it higher, but I need better RAM, and a better variable CPU heatsink.) And it makes a significant noticable difference when doing md5sum checks on DVD, or processing that alt.binaries.dvd newsgroup.
What makes it a royal pain in the ass is that I have to reboot, make many setting changes in the BIOS (wish I could save profiles), and change it back afterwards. This article suggests a lot of pain could be saved (but I doubt much electricity). It kills me. I want the 64bits and faster clocks, like everyone else. I'll probably end up buying the box, but almost never run it, except for high load tasks or the occasional game.
Khan? Damn, don't remember that scene. (Time to turn over the official geek identification card...)
I don't think you meant Spock. Funny, that's one of my favorite scenes too, in "This Side of Paradise". Kirk, noting in his log before confronting Spock, how Spock could kick his ass. And then during the fight, Spock whacks the pipe Kirk uses to block and crushes it, illustrating just how screwed Kirk was. Kirk was a master at evaluating a tactical situation. Picard had to study Kirk, not vice versa.
And remember, Kirk took out a Gorn as well! (My only quibble with the "Mirror Enterprise" episode. They made the Gorn look like a skinny gekko, rather than the slowassed, meat ripping machine...)
Nope. 7 of 9, aka 10 of 10, aka 38 of D.
But poor Terry Farrell was totally, totally wasted in DS9. I never even though of her as attractive until DS9 did the Tribble episode. And seeing her in that ST:TOS uniform... WHOA! And she got extra points for having the hots for Spock over Kirk.
Damn, I'm gonna stroke out trying to nail down the favorite.
Inner Light was incredibly great. But I think I liked Tapestry a bit more; it actually had a message at the end of the story that I could apply to real life. And Q was my favorite character in TNG (the good episodes, that is). And the series finale I liked better than Inner Light as well.
And yet, there were still TOS episodes I liked even more. Amok Time, Balance of Terror, with honorable mentions to City on the Edge of Forever, and The Trouble With Tribbles. (...Devil in the Dark, on and on...)
I liked DS9 better than TNG, but only because I feel there was less of a mediocrity factor to it than TNG. (Thus, I could better stand watching every DS9 episode more than every TNG episode.)
DS9 did not have an episode, IMHO, that alone stood out over the "best" TNG or TOS episode.
I thought the series finale was the epitome of Enterprise and the Star Trek franchise. Incredibly crappy episode with "time-travelling" in a holodeck.
Am I the only one utterly disgusted at how Archer was directed to be more concerned with his dumbassed ceremony rather than his actions resulting in croaking his friend and chief engineer?
Ah, it was *her* fault, for taking the job with the paycheck. She should have held up film production, while she singlehandedly rewrote scripts to better develop her character and her lines. I'm sure Braga and Paramount would have had no problem with that.
Or, do you resent her just because as a latent or not-so-latent homosexual male, you resented gratuitous displays of the female form?
Tragically, the only actor that saved their reputation on that show (besides the Doctor) had to be Hoshii. Man, I hated her in every episode up to the Mirror Universe one.
There are quite a few co-workers I can think of that could use a brain transplant even if from a human/sheep chimera...
hmmm....
90 Kilos!?!? You can keep your 90Kg Soviet beauties! (That's 198 lbs!) In Kapitalist Amerika, we don't need backup propulsion for our SUVs... they just work! No wonder you've given up on going to Mars. No rocket could send one of your "Soviet beauties" with enough life support to survive the trip. (Not that you Commies were ever overly preoccupied with your Cosmonauts returning...)
And take Anna Nicole Smith with you, you Commie chubby chaser! I'll take your scrawny, corrupt, effete, counter-revolutionary devotchkas
Yes, I suggest further examination of the insidious West infecting the pure revolutionary heart with their subversive, expatriate ideas. Long live the Czar! Long live the Counter-Revolution!
Stole? You mean they rigged the voting machines? Impersonated eligible voters? Are suggesting they did not have the right to seek the Office of the POTUS? How DARE they decide to run!
Funny, I didn't see any "winnable" third party candidates in this go around. And YET, never before have I felt my vote was so WASTED. Granted, I have a contempt for GWB bordering on hatred, so I did end up voting for Kerry. But I really did not see how it was much of a choice. Tweedledee is not much different than Tweedledum.
Voting is a form of expression. And life rarely can be boiled down to a Republican choice or a Democrat choice. I feel so "betrayed" by the Democratic Party, I have been a registered Independent for two decades. So, when I don't have the benefit of a 3rd party candidate to vote for, I am stuck with filthy and filthier. They both suck. They really aren't much different. One starts an invasion of a oil-rich Middle East nation, the other one says he would have invaded too, but done it smarter. One demonstrates he's all about favoring the rich and sticking it to the middle class, the other guy would never say it, but votes in that manner. (Just like Clinton with the Welfare Reform Act and NAFTA.)
The current political system is designed to do that. Select two candidates that will act as favorably as possible to the special interest groups. The Republican/Democrat thing is just for show. The only US Presidential races with ideological differences (in modern history) was Carter/Reagan and Mondale/Reagan. Well, guess what? I'm not rich, so I'm not getting to choose my Presidential candidate.
When I can vote for a 3rd party candidate, I get to say: "You are both assholes, and this guy I'm supporting at least represents a difference.". When Bush loses because of Perot, it doesn't mean conservatives were robbed. It means, "Dumbass, I got a ton of people here who feel strongly enough about our issues that if you don't address them, you won't win.". Dole didn't learn from the 1992 election. Bush Jr. learned from his Dad's loss, and courted the fundamentalist and "conservative" voters.
When Gore lost Florida and Nader's supporters could have tipped it his way, its saying, "Dumbass, I got a ton of people here who feel strongly enough about our issues that if you don't address them, you won't win.". And lord knows, Gore did not give a crap about Democratic working class, or the Progressives, or the 30K disenfranchised voters that easily would have swung Florida his way. The fact that the unions tepidly supported Gore only showed how they have caved to the system.
Voting for a 3rd party candidate that probably won't win in evolutionary terms is a "spite" strategy. If you can't support and defend MY issues, then you can't win. If someone I dislike more gets elected, at least it holds hope that the next election cycle will have to make some movement towards my positions. When I don't have a 3rd party spoiler, that only means the rich win. (which they were going to anyway. But at least the other side has to better respond to those 3rd party issues.)
No, the burden of proof is to demonstrate how any R/D presidential races has candidates that have genuine ideological differences.
And might I add that I am offended that you think 3rd party candidates are "theives". They aren't the filth, you are, you fascist. You are not "entitled" to my vote. Just because you're a bitch willing to chose between two pimps, doesn't mean I have to support your choice of pimp.
There isn't. My arguments aren't limited to freight. Passenger trains need to be high speed to connect cities. Otherwise, they will be so consumer undesirable, there would be no point in attempting a rail line that spans across the country (for passenger service). But this is moot anyway, since you can't maintain high speed if you're stopping every 10 mins.
Freight can't go to Long Island because there is no track connecting (NJ to) Manhattan to LI. No single private interest has the money to attempt the new tunneling between LI through Manhattan (to NJ). This is what's known as public sector works project, an investment in infrastructure. Its supposed to be for the benefit of the locality. In this case, it could allow for the removal (or VAST reduction) of tractor trailer traffic from the bridges and expressways. Less fuel consumed, more manageable traffic, less group fatalities. (You don't see private sector interests making water tunnels in NYC and then charging through the nose for the water.) As an added paranoiac benefit, transit can still occur if there is a bomb threat at a tunnel/bridge or on the CX Bronx Expressway, or terrorists shutting down airports.
That's the crux of my argument. People think cars/trucks are inherently cheap, but they don't realize the costs because the infrastructure is heavily subsidized. Basically taxpayers are shelling out money for more fuel consumption and more pollution.
Yup. But bureaucratic incompetence is pretty evident when you can't maintain a breakeven high speed line from Boston to NYC to Washington, DC. That has to be the most densely populated sector of the country. BTW, I'm not a big proponent for subsidizing passenger operation from the East Coast to the West Coast. If its cost effective, sure. Otherwise, I don't care. But I think a cost effective passenger rail line going from Boston to Florida is feasible, as would a line going from Chicago to NYC. Or even a line going from LA to Seattle. Its just that politicians, special interests, and poor management prevents its realization.
I agree. But who cares? Europe has a redundant transportation structure, it doesn't reward inefficient individual consumption, and its better designed to ride out a fuel shortage than the U.S. They aren't so beholden to fuel consumption that they have to invade the Middle East to secure their supply.
Actually, objectivism was founded by a "foreigner", Ayn Rand. Never heard of pragmatism as a label for a political or ideological philosophy.
That puts United States' culture as a big zero for original philosophic thought. Though I'm sure if I expended enough effort, I could probably come up with something. You're just jealous that we own the entertainment media, which tells people what to think. What value is your philosophic originality when you have to pass laws to keep cultural propaganda away from your citizens?