Thanks for the info. Since I tend to use STL vectors over arrays (and thus get bounds checking), I use boost.org's smart pointers for most of my heap-based memory management (which isn't much, comparatively), and if I'm integrating w/ C++ code not written to use exceptions, you lose C#'s gain in that area anyway, it appears that C# offers me very little over C++ with decent libraries. Thanks again.
Why should people use C++ if they don't like and and no one is paying them to use it? Well, I must ask, if you don't like C++, why would you use Java or C#? Yes, every language can be used to solve the same problems as every other language, but what innovative improvements over C++ did Java or C# make that should convince someone who does like C++ to use them? (Honestly, I'm asking because I'm debating whether or not to try out C#/Mono.)
Or, from another perspective, whoever wants to change someone's mind always has the burden of proof. That's what I said! You want to change the mind of the majority, so the burden of proof is on you. The anti-equality people don't care if they change your mind because they already have their way. Furthermore, I was merely commenting on the logical and rhetorical issue and not the actual discussion. I don't really care because I know that the changes I want implemented are virtually impossible to convince anyone in power to implement.
No, it isn't. The burden is on advocates of unequal political privilege to defend their position. No, the burden is on advocates of change to promote their position and convince others to change from the status quo. Someone defending the status quo simply has to point out flaws in the challenger's argument and convince others not to accept the proposal. Therefore, please explain to us why the President should be elected by a majority -- or plurality, your choice if you can defend it -- of the popular vote.
First of all, a slippery slope argument does not imply a slippery slope fallacy. Some slopes are slippery. Furthermore, the argument is that a redefinition of marriage alters the institution and makes it easier to further redefine the institution in the future (by setting the precedent). It's not about the actual relation between same-sex marriage and poly-marriage but about the redefinition of legal "marriage" required to institute either.
Since when did the republicans become federalists? Actually, you seem to be misusing the term. Federalism is the aspect of our government which grants necessary powers to the national government but reserves all others to the lower levels of government. A federalist would say, "this is not a national government issue," and let the states decide. This used to be the Republican position, but many Republicans are as bad as Democrats about limiting the national government to its delegated powers. Power corrupts and all that.
There is actually a big difference though. Aside from the fact that Jackson announced before the first DVD release that he was going to be releasing the extended editions, his changes are also just recuts. That is, scenes were added, removed, and cut together differently. Lucas actually changed scenes, such as the wonderful "Greedo Shoots First" debacle, whereas Jackson is only adding scenes. If Lucas were just adding things, I, for one, and I'm sure many others, would have no problems with the new editions. For that matter, replacing the dewbacs with CJ so they could move, digital touchups of a lot of the battle scenes, and general technical improvements, are also okay. It's just changing the actual content of a scene that really makes a lot of us mad at Lucas. Plus, since Jackson told us ahead of time about the extended editions of LotR, I've always seen the theatrical releases as previews of the "real" movie which is straight-to-DVD. Then again, that's because having read the books, viewing the theatrical releases as the "real" movies would make me extremely angry.
the verb always last comes. Last the verb always comes. To English-speakers, inverted it seems. First the object is, for in the middle the subject will you find.
In June or July of 2002, I flew from Atlanta, GA to Cancun, Mexico via commercial airline. I technically exited the country after a layover in Houston, TX. My ID and boarding pass were checked at security in Atlanta, boarding the plane in Atlanta, and boarding the plane in Houston. My ID was also checked with a birth cirtificate for entrance into Mexico. Aside from the TSA guy at airport security in Atlanta who checked my ID and made sure that I had a boarding pass, no US government official checked my ID.
In June or July of 2003, I flew from Atlanta, GA to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico via commercial airline. The flight was direct from Atlanta to Mexico City with a layover there. Again, ID was checked along with a boarding pass by a TSA guy at airport security in Atlanta, but it wasn't checked by any other US government officials. Again, a flight attendant checked my ID and boarding pass before boarding the plane in Atlanta and also in Mexico City after the layover.
Pre-9/11, however, ID was always checked at checkin at the terminal to pick up your tickets, and since the TSA people may not even know your final destination, airport ID checks have to be done by the airlines anyway for the government to stop you from leaving the country.
What you are actually saying is that you favor Government by Robin Hood - you propose to confiscate wealth from those who justly acquired it to provide goods and services for those who didn't. Actually, just to put things in a bit of perspective here, Robin Hood confiscated wealth from the government who unjustly acquired it from the governed in order to return it to the governed who could then procure goods and services for themselves. Robin Hood was a vigilante tax cutter, not a socialist.
And, according to the Russians, the Islamo-fascist terrorists who invaded that school recieved training from al-Quaeda training camps. Ergo, yes, they are the same "Islamic radicals" responsible for 9/11 by virtue of the al-Quaeda connection.
Bush has already made it clear that he doesn't play well with others, with his tired declaration of "your either with us or against us". Could you please explain how this quoted declaration is false?
In the global war on terror, either you are on our side against the terrorists, or you're on the other side. If you claim to be ambivalent and and not really care either way, that still puts you against us in a passive way. It's not a false dichotomy when there are only two possible positions.
The correct action, right after the 2nd plane hit, would have been an order for the Air Force to intercept and establish contact with all airliners currently on radar with their transponders turned off. Actually, the correct action would've been for this to be standing policy since the invention of the transponder, but I digress. Given the circumstances, yes, the President should've given that order.
As a pilot himself, he should have known that was the correct course of action. If this were the case, it should've been standing policy for decades, since the Air Force has lots of pilots who have worked up through the ranks into positions of influence within the Pentagon. However, since it wasn't policy, I'd wager that Bush was never taught this course of action in his pilot training. If he was, I'm going to be a lot less happy with every President since the birth of commercial aviation for dropping the ball (and yeah, that does mean W, too).
In addition, he should have appologised to the children, told them to go home and hug their parents, and left the school to find a communications center so that he could get in contact with the chain of command. For the most part, I do agree with this; however, the President of the United States has duties other than that of Commander-in-Chief. He had to be extremely careful not to do anything that could be construed as panic in front of the cameras because that would create panic in the rest of the country. I see no problem with taking a few minutes to make sure you don't do anything hasty or scare anyone. Then again, I think the chain of command should be able to act at least in a preliminary way to defend us against an attack without talking to the President. Sending up planes to intercept airliners with their transponders off would've definitely been within this authority that I think they should have, but I would say the President should be consulted before firing in most cases.
The next day, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, followed quickly by Afghanistan. Every illegal alien in the country should have been rounded up and either deported or held for questioning. Mecca should have been a radioactive ruin. Are these still the correct actions today? If yes, would John Kerry carry them out upon election? If no to either question, what's really the point?
My personal opinion is that nuking Mecca would've been overkill, but I have absolutely no problem with an attack on Saudi Arabia which has never been our friend, and attacking Afghanistan was clearly the right course of action. Every illegal alien in the country should be rounded up and either deported or held for questioning anyway because they have no right to be here (by definition of illegal alien). On the other hand, I doubt that Kerry would do them any sooner than Bush would, and as Kang and Kodos put it: it's a two party system; we have to vote for one of them (no, we don't, but until we convince a lot of people of that, we basically do).
Not taking these actions proves W to be a coward- a puppet of the corporate interests who can't think for himself. Uh.. sure.. ok. How about, "Not taking these actions proves W to be a less-than-optimal decison-maker"? I see no connection between these actions and being a puppet of corporate interests, and I don't really see anything indicating he can't think for himself. Frankly, I think most corporate interests would've preferred that we conquer Saudi Arabia and take their oil rather than going to Iraq. I would say the he certainly thinks for himself. He may not agree with you, and he certainly doesn't always agree with me, but that doesn't make him a corporate puppet by any means.
It's illegal in most (all?) states to use bobby traps to protect your home. The funny thing is that while that's true, it's generally legal to shoot the burglar in the chest (under a self-defense defense) claiming that you thought he was an immediate threat to yourself or your family. Is it just the automation that makes it illegal?
And contracts cannot be used to justify illegal activity. I'm not so sure in this case. I can always sign a contract that allows a firm to securely delete my data through some given means (shredding companies are a good physical counterpart), so why can't I agree to a contract that a program can delete my data if given the proper input (an invalid serial)?
Costly? No more so than buying a copy of a Linux distro Buying a copy of Slackware 10.0, from Slackware mind you, costs about thirty bucks. Maybe your favorite distro is just too expensive?
Often, "assault" is defined as making one in fear of imminent bodily harm, while inflicting that harm is a separate charge of battery, so a push is probably assault but not battery.
The fundamental flaw with this (techological limitations notwithstanding) is the notion that kids under the age of 13 or so should be left alone to browse the net. To me, the best use of a filter is to make sure something I don't know will be a porn site doesn't pop up while I'm standing there. I mean, I'm not sure whitehouse.com would register to me that the kid typed.com instead of.gov before she pressed enter, and at that point, on a decent speed connection, it's already too late. The filter is to help with parenting, not to replace it.
My theory is, if my kids want the porn bad enough to disable/bypass the filter, it's time to have that talk and move to another security measure. I figure, once they learn to break through one layer of security, it's probably no longer relevant anyway (like a filter to prevent accidental porn viewing... it's no longer accidental once they break it).
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info. Since I tend to use STL vectors over arrays (and thus get bounds checking), I use boost.org's smart pointers for most of my heap-based memory management (which isn't much, comparatively), and if I'm integrating w/ C++ code not written to use exceptions, you lose C#'s gain in that area anyway, it appears that C# offers me very little over C++ with decent libraries. Thanks again.
Why should people use C++ if they don't like and and no one is paying them to use it?
Well, I must ask, if you don't like C++, why would you use Java or C#? Yes, every language can be used to solve the same problems as every other language, but what innovative improvements over C++ did Java or C# make that should convince someone who does like C++ to use them? (Honestly, I'm asking because I'm debating whether or not to try out C#/Mono.)
Or, from another perspective, whoever wants to change someone's mind always has the burden of proof.
That's what I said! You want to change the mind of the majority, so the burden of proof is on you. The anti-equality people don't care if they change your mind because they already have their way. Furthermore, I was merely commenting on the logical and rhetorical issue and not the actual discussion. I don't really care because I know that the changes I want implemented are virtually impossible to convince anyone in power to implement.
No, it isn't. The burden is on advocates of unequal political privilege to defend their position.
No, the burden is on advocates of change to promote their position and convince others to change from the status quo. Someone defending the status quo simply has to point out flaws in the challenger's argument and convince others not to accept the proposal. Therefore, please explain to us why the President should be elected by a majority -- or plurality, your choice if you can defend it -- of the popular vote.
First of all, a slippery slope argument does not imply a slippery slope fallacy. Some slopes are slippery. Furthermore, the argument is that a redefinition of marriage alters the institution and makes it easier to further redefine the institution in the future (by setting the precedent). It's not about the actual relation between same-sex marriage and poly-marriage but about the redefinition of legal "marriage" required to institute either.
Since when did the republicans become federalists?
Actually, you seem to be misusing the term. Federalism is the aspect of our government which grants necessary powers to the national government but reserves all others to the lower levels of government. A federalist would say, "this is not a national government issue," and let the states decide. This used to be the Republican position, but many Republicans are as bad as Democrats about limiting the national government to its delegated powers. Power corrupts and all that.
There is actually a big difference though. Aside from the fact that Jackson announced before the first DVD release that he was going to be releasing the extended editions, his changes are also just recuts. That is, scenes were added, removed, and cut together differently. Lucas actually changed scenes, such as the wonderful "Greedo Shoots First" debacle, whereas Jackson is only adding scenes. If Lucas were just adding things, I, for one, and I'm sure many others, would have no problems with the new editions. For that matter, replacing the dewbacs with CJ so they could move, digital touchups of a lot of the battle scenes, and general technical improvements, are also okay. It's just changing the actual content of a scene that really makes a lot of us mad at Lucas. Plus, since Jackson told us ahead of time about the extended editions of LotR, I've always seen the theatrical releases as previews of the "real" movie which is straight-to-DVD. Then again, that's because having read the books, viewing the theatrical releases as the "real" movies would make me extremely angry.
the verb always last comes.
Last the verb always comes. To English-speakers, inverted it seems. First the object is, for in the middle the subject will you find.
Please note that Kennedy said "country", not "government".
In June or July of 2002, I flew from Atlanta, GA to Cancun, Mexico via commercial airline. I technically exited the country after a layover in Houston, TX. My ID and boarding pass were checked at security in Atlanta, boarding the plane in Atlanta, and boarding the plane in Houston. My ID was also checked with a birth cirtificate for entrance into Mexico. Aside from the TSA guy at airport security in Atlanta who checked my ID and made sure that I had a boarding pass, no US government official checked my ID.
In June or July of 2003, I flew from Atlanta, GA to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico via commercial airline. The flight was direct from Atlanta to Mexico City with a layover there. Again, ID was checked along with a boarding pass by a TSA guy at airport security in Atlanta, but it wasn't checked by any other US government officials. Again, a flight attendant checked my ID and boarding pass before boarding the plane in Atlanta and also in Mexico City after the layover.
Pre-9/11, however, ID was always checked at checkin at the terminal to pick up your tickets, and since the TSA people may not even know your final destination, airport ID checks have to be done by the airlines anyway for the government to stop you from leaving the country.
Hope that helps..
What you are actually saying is that you favor Government by Robin Hood - you propose to confiscate wealth from those who justly acquired it to provide goods and services for those who didn't.
Actually, just to put things in a bit of perspective here, Robin Hood confiscated wealth from the government who unjustly acquired it from the governed in order to return it to the governed who could then procure goods and services for themselves. Robin Hood was a vigilante tax cutter, not a socialist.
How about charging a flat fee to everyone who's a beneficiary of the service?
And that would be...?
Thus, the law is asinine and the government doesn't need the money at all.
And, according to the Russians, the Islamo-fascist terrorists who invaded that school recieved training from al-Quaeda training camps. Ergo, yes, they are the same "Islamic radicals" responsible for 9/11 by virtue of the al-Quaeda connection.
Bush has already made it clear that he doesn't play well with others, with his tired declaration of "your either with us or against us".
Could you please explain how this quoted declaration is false?
In the global war on terror, either you are on our side against the terrorists, or you're on the other side. If you claim to be ambivalent and and not really care either way, that still puts you against us in a passive way. It's not a false dichotomy when there are only two possible positions.
The correct action, right after the 2nd plane hit, would have been an order for the Air Force to intercept and establish contact with all airliners currently on radar with their transponders turned off.
Actually, the correct action would've been for this to be standing policy since the invention of the transponder, but I digress. Given the circumstances, yes, the President should've given that order.
As a pilot himself, he should have known that was the correct course of action.
If this were the case, it should've been standing policy for decades, since the Air Force has lots of pilots who have worked up through the ranks into positions of influence within the Pentagon. However, since it wasn't policy, I'd wager that Bush was never taught this course of action in his pilot training. If he was, I'm going to be a lot less happy with every President since the birth of commercial aviation for dropping the ball (and yeah, that does mean W, too).
In addition, he should have appologised to the children, told them to go home and hug their parents, and left the school to find a communications center so that he could get in contact with the chain of command.
For the most part, I do agree with this; however, the President of the United States has duties other than that of Commander-in-Chief. He had to be extremely careful not to do anything that could be construed as panic in front of the cameras because that would create panic in the rest of the country. I see no problem with taking a few minutes to make sure you don't do anything hasty or scare anyone. Then again, I think the chain of command should be able to act at least in a preliminary way to defend us against an attack without talking to the President. Sending up planes to intercept airliners with their transponders off would've definitely been within this authority that I think they should have, but I would say the President should be consulted before firing in most cases.
The next day, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, followed quickly by Afghanistan. Every illegal alien in the country should have been rounded up and either deported or held for questioning. Mecca should have been a radioactive ruin.
Are these still the correct actions today?
If yes, would John Kerry carry them out upon election?
If no to either question, what's really the point?
My personal opinion is that nuking Mecca would've been overkill, but I have absolutely no problem with an attack on Saudi Arabia which has never been our friend, and attacking Afghanistan was clearly the right course of action. Every illegal alien in the country should be rounded up and either deported or held for questioning anyway because they have no right to be here (by definition of illegal alien). On the other hand, I doubt that Kerry would do them any sooner than Bush would, and as Kang and Kodos put it: it's a two party system; we have to vote for one of them (no, we don't, but until we convince a lot of people of that, we basically do).
Not taking these actions proves W to be a coward- a puppet of the corporate interests who can't think for himself.
Uh.. sure.. ok. How about, "Not taking these actions proves W to be a less-than-optimal decison-maker"? I see no connection between these actions and being a puppet of corporate interests, and I don't really see anything indicating he can't think for himself. Frankly, I think most corporate interests would've preferred that we conquer Saudi Arabia and take their oil rather than going to Iraq. I would say the he certainly thinks for himself. He may not agree with you, and he certainly doesn't always agree with me, but that doesn't make him a corporate puppet by any means.
It's illegal in most (all?) states to use bobby traps to protect your home.
The funny thing is that while that's true, it's generally legal to shoot the burglar in the chest (under a self-defense defense) claiming that you thought he was an immediate threat to yourself or your family. Is it just the automation that makes it illegal?
And contracts cannot be used to justify illegal activity.
I'm not so sure in this case. I can always sign a contract that allows a firm to securely delete my data through some given means (shredding companies are a good physical counterpart), so why can't I agree to a contract that a program can delete my data if given the proper input (an invalid serial)?
Costly? No more so than buying a copy of a Linux distro
Buying a copy of Slackware 10.0, from Slackware mind you, costs about thirty bucks. Maybe your favorite distro is just too expensive?
Often, "assault" is defined as making one in fear of imminent bodily harm, while inflicting that harm is a separate charge of battery, so a push is probably assault but not battery.
Sure, fighting words, but when was the last time the Supreme Court held up a conviction based on fighting words?
The fundamental flaw with this (techological limitations notwithstanding) is the notion that kids under the age of 13 or so should be left alone to browse the net. .com instead of .gov before she pressed enter, and at that point, on a decent speed connection, it's already too late. The filter is to help with parenting, not to replace it.
To me, the best use of a filter is to make sure something I don't know will be a porn site doesn't pop up while I'm standing there. I mean, I'm not sure whitehouse.com would register to me that the kid typed
My theory is, if my kids want the porn bad enough to disable/bypass the filter, it's time to have that talk and move to another security measure. I figure, once they learn to break through one layer of security, it's probably no longer relevant anyway (like a filter to prevent accidental porn viewing... it's no longer accidental once they break it).
There are kernal-2.6 packages in testing/, so you can just install them instead of the 2.4 packages.
Damnit. The one time I don't bother to preview, I left out a quotation mark!
Slackware 9.1 ISOs
You should be able to get it from UNC's distro.ibiblio.org (it which was metalab.unc.edu which before that was sunsite.unc.edu).