dBase and/or Paradox were a very big deal, when it came to developing desktop applications that required anything approaching the functionality of a "real" relational database. No, they're were not client/server systems (not initially, at least) but they brought big change to the PC.
OH, that is why the Senate voted 98-0 to reject the Kyoto accords, because a small group of Republican lawmakers opposed it./s
Well, no. The treaty was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Senate did vote on the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (98-0 or 95-0, depending on what source you'd like to cite). It was that vote that rendered merely symbolic the U.S's signature on the treaty. The issue that compelled both sides of the aisle to adopt the resolution was that "developing countries" were to be largely exempt from the treaty's restrictions. Never mind that fact that their combined impact on climate change was minimal, it was the corporate profits that were threatened by the treaty that made every single Senator sit up and bark for their masters.
I don't know. How much time do you have to waste in an attempt to get antique software (Windows 3.1 and an old version of Photoshop) running on a platform that is almost entirely unsuited to the task the software was designed for. I mean, I could make a dump-trunk out of 1964 Volkswagen Beetle, but it would pretty much suck at all that hauling and dumping stuff.
IANAL, but if you believe your IP is being violated, wouldn't it look pretty bad in court if you just let damages accrue, and only filed a case after the defendant had made a bunch of money?
Clearly not. It's part of the RIAA business model.
Enlightened, as in "no longer a slave to superstitious fears, much less to the notion that one must punish those who don't subscribe to the same set of superstitious fears."
Religious fundamentalists = "damage". I like that. Of course I'm sad that such damage exists and must be "routed around", but the whole idea of the "damage" metaphor applied to fundamentalists nut-jobs in the context of an enlightened world is just so deliciously apropos. Mind you, this is not a rant against religion, per se, but it is a forthright statement, blunt and loud, about anti-social fuck-wits who think that their religious beliefs justify their behavior.
In China? Do you proofread what you post, or are you simply programmed to think "free market == bad"?
China participates in mythical "global free market". They routinely and deliberately foist inferior or outright dangerous products on unsuspecting consumers. Those consumers, being ignorant of those defects, and having no reasonable means to educate themselves other than after-the-fact, can not participate in a "free market". So, no. I am not programmed to think "free market ==bad". I know, for a fact, that "free market == impossible".
A guy in China ate a bowl of spicy soup that burned a hole though his stomach because the restaurant was able to shave a few pennies off of the more expensive chili paste by buying a cheap chemical substitute, that just turned out to be lethal.
That's the free market at work, pal. All the Rand fan-boys here on/. will thank you to stop suggesting that the real world doesn't really work the way that their messiah envisioned it, you insensitive clod.
That's because they never managed to separate religion from politics.
The U.S.A. tried that, once. It didn't take. Nice idea, but certain factions still feel the need to make their beliefs into laws that everybody else must follow, "jes' lahk in all them "Islamo-facist Kuhntries".
From: Overlordian Technology Think Tank Staff
Re: "embedded finger ring technology"
Maybe now we have the right combination of convenience and social climate to get those sheep to consent to being chipped or at least bar-code-tattooed.
... Their plan involves authenticating just once, to a single device, and then using that to unlock all of your other accounts....
That certainly makes it much, much easier for google to track you as you go around the web.
This.
"Password-based authentication has weaknesses, therefore you should be afraid. But fear not. We, Google, the giver of all things not evil, have a solution for you. Just don't look under the cover at what it's actually doing."
The injustice here is that he's being imprisoned for expressing an opinion that involves the King and his role in politics. That's rotten.
And all too common in east Asian countries where, for reasons that escape me, the more common notions of human rights, justice, and simple logic, seem difficult for the locals to grasp. We have a word for that; "backward".
Correct, mostly. In the U.S., at least, structural firefighting gear is Nomex or Kevlar, or similar. Wildland firefighting gear is typically Nomex, but I believe that there are still a lot of wool trousers out there.
...Facebook gives me yet another reason to raise my middle finger at them. The sad part is that a big lot of Facebook users will think that this new "service" is just swell.
Rather than resorting to ad hominem, how about you counter some of my arguments? If I'm wrong, that's the only way I'll learn. And if I'm not, you'll learn something by trying to refute me.
Did that. Pointed out the broken logic in your original post. You've ignored that, so I'll join the ad hominem... You're an ignorant tool who knows nothing about that which he rants.
I don't see any way to interpret this but to conclude that psychiatry for depression is almost entirely a scam.
That conclusion is not supported by your premises. On the contrary...
Pharmacological treatment of severe depression is effective. If we lump such treatment into "psychiatry", your conclusion is patently false.
You have presented no evidence documenting the efficacy of psychiatry in general (without regard to specific treatment modalities), hence your conclusion is unsupported. Furthermore, I'll hazard to guess that there are treatments used by psychiatrists for their moderately depressed patients which are effective, and for which long-standing clinical research results exist.
Bottom line, calling psychiatry "a scam" is the kind of irresponsible, bat-shit crazy talk that Mr. Cruise is now famous for. Welcome to his club.
Slashdot Mirror
dBase and/or Paradox were a very big deal, when it came to developing desktop applications that required anything approaching the functionality of a "real" relational database. No, they're were not client/server systems (not initially, at least) but they brought big change to the PC.
OH, that is why the Senate voted 98-0 to reject the Kyoto accords, because a small group of Republican lawmakers opposed it. /s
Well, no. The treaty was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Senate did vote on the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (98-0 or 95-0, depending on what source you'd like to cite). It was that vote that rendered merely symbolic the U.S's signature on the treaty. The issue that compelled both sides of the aisle to adopt the resolution was that "developing countries" were to be largely exempt from the treaty's restrictions. Never mind that fact that their combined impact on climate change was minimal, it was the corporate profits that were threatened by the treaty that made every single Senator sit up and bark for their masters.
I don't know. How much time do you have to waste in an attempt to get antique software (Windows 3.1 and an old version of Photoshop) running on a platform that is almost entirely unsuited to the task the software was designed for. I mean, I could make a dump-trunk out of 1964 Volkswagen Beetle, but it would pretty much suck at all that hauling and dumping stuff.
IANAL, but if you believe your IP is being violated, wouldn't it look pretty bad in court if you just let damages accrue, and only filed a case after the defendant had made a bunch of money?
Clearly not. It's part of the RIAA business model.
Enlightened, as in "no longer a slave to superstitious fears, much less to the notion that one must punish those who don't subscribe to the same set of superstitious fears."
You don't even know what the word "citation" means. Do you? You poor thing.
Yeah, except mainstream Christians stopped killing people who disagreed with them hundreds of years ago. Mainstream Islam still does.
[citation needed]
Please...
The exact same can be said for any so-called Christian who claims that we (the world) should be bound by their book.
Religious fundamentalists = "damage". I like that. Of course I'm sad that such damage exists and must be "routed around", but the whole idea of the "damage" metaphor applied to fundamentalists nut-jobs in the context of an enlightened world is just so deliciously apropos. Mind you, this is not a rant against religion, per se, but it is a forthright statement, blunt and loud, about anti-social fuck-wits who think that their religious beliefs justify their behavior.
In China? Do you proofread what you post, or are you simply programmed to think "free market == bad"?
China participates in mythical "global free market". They routinely and deliberately foist inferior or outright dangerous products on unsuspecting consumers. Those consumers, being ignorant of those defects, and having no reasonable means to educate themselves other than after-the-fact, can not participate in a "free market". So, no. I am not programmed to think "free market ==bad". I know, for a fact, that "free market == impossible".
Wow. Never thought I'd get to witness the elusive "triple whoosh", but there it is.
For example, banning fracking would protect our water supply, but doom our energy supply.
[citation needed]
A guy in China ate a bowl of spicy soup that burned a hole though his stomach because the restaurant was able to shave a few pennies off of the more expensive chili paste by buying a cheap chemical substitute, that just turned out to be lethal.
That's the free market at work, pal. All the Rand fan-boys here on /. will thank you to stop suggesting that the real world doesn't really work the way that their messiah envisioned it, you insensitive clod.
This is genius, provided of course, that at least some of the revenues are funneled into the enforcement of privacy.
an scientists will find a fix and then get caned
for testing it out.
So, uhm... Does this scientist live in Singapore?
That's because they never managed to separate religion from politics.
The U.S.A. tried that, once. It didn't take. Nice idea, but certain factions still feel the need to make their beliefs into laws that everybody else must follow, "jes' lahk in all them "Islamo-facist Kuhntries".
From: Overlordian Technology Think Tank Staff Re: "embedded finger ring technology" Maybe now we have the right combination of convenience and social climate to get those sheep to consent to being chipped or at least bar-code-tattooed.
... Their plan involves authenticating just once, to a single device, and then using that to unlock all of your other accounts. ...
That certainly makes it much, much easier for google to track you as you go around the web.
This.
"Password-based authentication has weaknesses, therefore you should be afraid. But fear not. We, Google, the giver of all things not evil, have a solution for you. Just don't look under the cover at what it's actually doing."
The injustice here is that he's being imprisoned for expressing an opinion that involves the King and his role in politics. That's rotten.
And all too common in east Asian countries where, for reasons that escape me, the more common notions of human rights, justice, and simple logic, seem difficult for the locals to grasp. We have a word for that; "backward".
Correct, mostly. In the U.S., at least, structural firefighting gear is Nomex or Kevlar, or similar. Wildland firefighting gear is typically Nomex, but I believe that there are still a lot of wool trousers out there.
...Facebook gives me yet another reason to raise my middle finger at them. The sad part is that a big lot of Facebook users will think that this new "service" is just swell.
If you fool yourself into believing your scam is real, it's still a scam.
The implication being that psychiatrists do this. Please cite you sources supporting this remarkable assertion or STFU.
Rather than resorting to ad hominem, how about you counter some of my arguments? If I'm wrong, that's the only way I'll learn. And if I'm not, you'll learn something by trying to refute me.
Did that. Pointed out the broken logic in your original post. You've ignored that, so I'll join the ad hominem... You're an ignorant tool who knows nothing about that which he rants.
I don't see any way to interpret this but to conclude that psychiatry for depression is almost entirely a scam.
That conclusion is not supported by your premises. On the contrary...
Pharmacological treatment of severe depression is effective. If we lump such treatment into "psychiatry", your conclusion is patently false.
You have presented no evidence documenting the efficacy of psychiatry in general (without regard to specific treatment modalities), hence your conclusion is unsupported. Furthermore, I'll hazard to guess that there are treatments used by psychiatrists for their moderately depressed patients which are effective, and for which long-standing clinical research results exist.
Bottom line, calling psychiatry "a scam" is the kind of irresponsible, bat-shit crazy talk that Mr. Cruise is now famous for. Welcome to his club.
What "really lucrative fiction" were you referring to, followuper?
mark
Scientology, of course.