I've personally caused a single 8.5x11 page to take twenty mintues to come out of a fast laser printer.
Does not take a lot to cause that actually. Just print out a powerpoint presentation with embedded bitmaps and excel graphics to a power point printer.
Here is what I have seen: PPT - about 4MB. PS in the printer queue 700MB. Total time to print was about 3 hours.
I did not think of that. I think the o gets added before certain consonants, or possibly consonant groups.
(notice how in many examples of ko vo so, all the words thatfollow have two consonants. I though that that may be due to lack of pronounciation for such large groups, but I have a counter example. so mnoy and ya smnu. ) BTW I am a native speaker of both English and Russian. Does not necesserily mean that I know what I am talking about though.
Linguistics...it was a great course in college. Easy and interesting. Great filler during sophomore year.
Actually no. The o can appear, but I only have heard it in cases of V and S
Vo chto.... So vsemi
Interestingly enough...those are actually written with the o. but K komu is both written and pronounced without the o, at least in the dialect that I know. There is a pause, which does have a feeling of introduced vowel, but it does not sound like any other vowel -- to short and not defined.
They do not have this problem because they do not change the structures that are exposed.
Windows also does this by not changing the externed interface across service packs...however they do across versions.
I will take a guess that OSX also changes these when major version changes happen. I doubt that the drivers that work with panther will work with tiger, or whatever the names are....If they do, then that means that engineers work very hard to not make everything backwards compatible, and this tends to introduce lots of serious kludges over time.
However, since the mac internals are unchangeable, the only drivers that need to exist are the usb device drivers. I will guess that controlling the interface for those is a bit easier that trying to keep the entire kernel the same.
Linux has that -- everything is open sourced, so you can just recompile it yourself mentality, so they change any structure they feel like. This is why nvidia binary drivers come with an open source wrapper for the kernel. This is also a big source of complaints for the kernel people, but it is the way of the linux.
Do not know much about proprietary unix though. I do not know who supplies the drivers, since I would guess the vendors do.
Even though one driver is stable on 2000, it does not mean that it has to be stable on XP.
Simple -- assume that some kernel structure is the same across version, while in reality it has changed. So the driver reads the wrong field, and dereferences the wrong value. BOOM.
There is a reason why each driver should be recompiled with another SDK before being run. This is also why linux cannot insert a module created for another version.
Hmm. you are right. It is hard to construct anything that ends with them. These can not be made into anything like adverbs, and are prepositions only, which means that something must follow.
However, these appear perfectly fine in the begining, and people do not find them awkward, even if it should be.
Most prepositional endings are not not even prepositions, they are compound verbs. This concept keeps eluding most people who teach English, but is obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit of German. Simple example: Are you coming up?
Up in this case is not a preposition, but either a part of a verb, or an adverb. Stop telling people that this is wrong. It isn't.
As for the split infinitives, I am not sure where they are rooted. Probably in German as well, but I do not care. Splitting infinitives allows a more accurate placements of adverbs such that they continue to be before the verbs. English really hates having single word modifiers after the words they modified.
So the next time you watch STTNG: just imagine Picard saying "To go boldly" instead of "to boldly go". The second one feels more natural to most people.
I would not call XP unstable, but it is now suffering from what linux users have suffered for too long: bad hardware / drivers.
If I put cheap memory into the machine - I should expect it to crash. If I run bad drivers - I should expect it to crash.
I do not believe that 2000 is that much more stable than XP. 2003 I do not know, but I guess all of these have the same level of stability, however XP goes on to more computers made out of crap, and therefore it craps out more.
Windows9x was crappy because it did not implement correct separation of processes from each other and from the kernel.
I hope that you mean this for a corporate production environment.
As for home use, you can simply upgrade, and turn off the firewall. That will allow most programs to work as before.
There are a couple of things that I believe have changed in SP2 that can affect you but are not firewall related: No more raw sockets, and a limit to how many connection can be created per second.
No reason to not install, especially if you are an IE user.
And the reason speech that can kill is prohibited is not because of the speech component, but because of the action component.
Correct, but under the strict interpretation of the constitution, the action would have to have no laws for it as well, since all I have done is uttered a word. I did not personally kill anyone, people who listened to me did.
The content of the speech is irrelevant to the prohibition, which is not on saying certain things, but on saying things that have a certain result.
I understand that, but nowhere in the first amendment does it say that only the speech that causes no harmful action should be protected. It says congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech. So if you interpret constitution very strictly, I should be able to spread libel and tell people there is a fire. I am not harming anyone, I am not doing any action, I am just talking.
What congress and courts have decided is that speech that can cause other people harm directly or indirectly can be considered criminal. That does go directly against the strict interpretation of the constitution.
Simply because they are not absolutely protected does not mean that they are not protected at all. Agree. I just used the term protected to mean absolutely protected.
Yep. You can. Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre some time and pay attention to what you're charged with when they arrest you. Things like disrupting the peace, reckless endangerment, neglegent manslaughter, etc. None of those has anything to do with *what* you said, just the *consiquences* of saying it.
True, but as you yourself pointed out, reckless endangerment is a law against speech. Notice how just for saying a word, I can be charged with something. If I do not yell, but just calmly say fire, I am not disturbing the peace with anything but speech. Manslaughter? How did I kill that person? By speaking a single word? I broke the law by uttering.
Seems that speech that can kill is prohibited. How? Does not constitution say that any speech is protected from law? Apparently not.
And yes, soap operas are censored all the time. Most of them on decency laws. I am sure that soap opera producer will love it if they could insert cursing or some really saucy scenes. This is what they are selling.
But if they did -- no broadcasting for you until after 11. Not even allowed on a public screen.
Sorry, but the court never sayd that soap operas are protected for of speech that superseedes many laws that can apply to it. Of course if the soap operas start spreading political messages, then the messages may not be censored.
And intersting idea would be the political statement of have sex not war, with some graphic imagery. That would have both the precedent of political statements, and the precedent of decency. What the judges rule is hard to say. An interesting idea anyway.
I am sorry, do you attend public performances of any kind? Please be kind to tell me where.
So I can go there and yell FIRE!!!!!! in the middle of it.
Hey! It speech, and is therefore protected by law.
The court has been smart enough to interpret it as a possibly regulated disemination of ideas. Yelling fire and soap operas are not instances of spreading ideas. If you feel that they are, then you can go to court, and they will apply the litmus test set by SCOTUS to your case and tell you if you are right or wrong.
Rebuttal to point 1: Who the hell cares. There is always some dictatorship that always keeps its allies with someone. Notice how I went to say that the only thing that matters is staying there, as leaving in a hurry will result in a civil war and massacre.
Rebuttal to point 2: Apartheid state. I guess so. But why now. Those people have been there for 20 years. Why did they not leave when it was not an apartheid state. I hate to break it to you, but when Gaza will become its own state, poverty is going to rise once again. Remember, anyone living in Gaza will lose a job in Israel. I suspect there are not that many anymore. I would hope that Israel will keep supplying them power and water until they manage to establish their own. I believe that they will. But they will also militarize that border beyond imaginable. And I will very much support them if they do.
As far as the wall is concerned, there are 2 main problems. One: Whoever decided on its location was just begging for controversy. There were better places, especially ones that did not cut through so many palestinian areas. Two: Absuses and delays at checkpoints. Sadly it is hard to keep them in control, and abuses do happen. I wish they did not. Not building the wall is also a choice, but it comes with a security in price.
Personally, I would hope that there will be a solution to the people who live in the west bank and gaza. I hope that they will get their own land, and be able to live in peace. Unfortunately I am not optimistic that this can happen, and there are no easy solutions to the problem.
Rebuttal to 3: You sound like a misguided liberal in this. How does paying more money to the employees make the company more productive. Most of those employees are non-skilled labor. As far as I can see paying more to the employees will only cut into the profits. And as far as a morale argument goes: If there is high unemployment, even a crappy job is good. Yes, I am heartless, but so is the industry. You can argue that the industry should have a heart. Well, this will happen when consumers will grow one, and start buying stuff from companies with a heart. This will never happen, as demonstrated many times.
new jobs created under Bush have been low wage jobs Bush does not create jobs. They keep talking about it like it is their accomplishment. BS. Jobs are created by those making products. If companies are paying minimum wage, that means that there are enough people ready to work for it. That means that to stir more competition, the minimum wage needs to be REDUCED. That way we can take more people off the streets, and put them into PAYING JOBS. And reducing welfare would be a good idea, so it does not compete with pay. Sure it will feel like slavery, but that means that American products will be cheaper, and we can finally compete on the world market. Meanwhile since the product are cheaper, the people who are getting the low salaries can still survive, except now more of them work, and therefore not dying on the street.
Take an economics course for goodness sake's. Minimum wage competes with welfare. The only way to have a minimum wage is to have a part of population not work, and survive off welfare. Unfortunately, US needs to become a lot more socialist to be able to support a minimum wage. Which means that US needs to agree that some x percent of people are going to be unemployed, and still survive. That is the European economic model. Whether it is sustainable has not been seen yet. Remember even russian communism has lasted 50 years before collapsing due to the broken model that it was.
Rebuttal to 4: Yes, US can annihilate anyone. So can EU, Russia, and China. The problem is annihilation is mutual. If you got bitten by a single mosquito, would you nuke everybody, or would you swat the mosquito. The thing is US spends a lot of money to try to get the military to swat just the mosquito. And that costs a lot of money. Smart bombs cost a million a piece. Wiping out an entire city including c
I am an American who dislikes Kerry for his domestic policy. I also dislike Bush for his opinions on science and education. I did not vote for either of them. But a lot of people I know voted (or would have voted, some of them did not) in the Bush camp, and here is what they have to say:
They think that the war in Iraq was started in light of incredibly bad intelligence, and that the president is an idiot to have made the conclusion to go to war this soon. They do not care whether or not abortion is outlawed, since it does not affect any of us directly, and if abortion does become outlawed, it will practically take a constitutional amendment, and a huge court case, etc anyway. Education is a problem that they believe is not solved. All in all they are pretty embarassed over Bushes track record, but they still voted for him.
Why? Mostly because these people (as well as most Americans) do not believe in third parties. And when deciding between Bush and Kerry, Bush is still more appealing. Why do they think so? A couple of things.
getting out of iraq now is very bad for our reputation. If you got involved at least try your best
Bush actually got something done in the israel deal. Not a lot to his credit, but he is actually getting involved, and not simply hosting the talks. Under clinton, talks and promises only escalated the violence.
As much of a spender Bush is and as much as he runs up the debt, and as stupid as tax cuts are wihtout cutting the spending, his economic policy is saner than that of Kerry's. Liberals will yell on me for saying this, and will not reason about it, but here is why. Minimum wage is a worse idea than cutting taxes. If you do not see why, take an economics course. Next up is Kerry's idea on how to fix social security and health insurance: "it needs to be fixed, do not ask my how because I have no clue". As far as I am concerned that is Bush's policy, except Bush might actually try to get out of SS completely, which is a saner policy (yes, it will suck for some, but the whole country might not go down the same hole).
It is unlikely that we will enter another war, unless we aboslutely have to. Even Bush would learn the lesson of checking facts. However, there is a worry that Kerry might realize that he has to go into war too late, especially if he felt his voting base were the peaceniks.
There are more reasons as well, but they become too specific. Note that most of these people are non-christian, and yet they still vote for Bush, not because they are a "moral majority", but because they continued to feel that Bush is still a better candidate to Kerry.
So please do not lump the Bush voters with the heartless, wrestling watching, SUV driving, anything to get cheaper oil crowd. Not all of them are. Some of us hate the "pave the planet" crowd, "redefine pi as 3 crowd", "do not teach evolution" crowd, "only christian prayer and at all events" crowd. However, these people continue to think that Bush is still a better choice, mostly because although he is one of those people, he does not make the country even more so. We still have our freedoms to not follow Bush's ideal, and we speak out against them at any opportunity we have. And yet we still vote for Bush. Because of the two people who could be elected, he represents the least damage.
At least in our opinion. If you say that our opinion is wrong, back up with fact saying why Kerry is a better choice than Bush. I can assure you that has an IQ of the carrot and acts like a chimp argument has already been considered, and deemed irrelevant, as only the decisions that he makes are relevant. Bush does not make much of his own decisions anyway, but the party's (or Cheney's) decisions could still be better than Kerry's.
Oh, and please make your comments about minimum wage being a good idea. I would love to hear them, but so far I have heard only the straw arguments, and people claiming that completely devalued dollar and high unemployment is good for the eco
Next up they'll be overturning the right to vote or own property.
You are an idiot. Owning property is at the core of the beliefs of the middle-aged white men crowd.
It is the liberals who make claims that not all property should be owned, and if you have more property then you should pay more for each piece you own.
If anyone it is the hippies (note this is not a jab at the liberals, I actually mean the hippies) who want to abolish all property.
I've considered switching, but my flatbed scanner is vital to the work I do on my home computer, and SANE lists it as unsupported.
* begin windows hardware rant *
Funny you mention that. I have the opposite problem. My dad has collected a bunch of older equipment. A year old scanner, an older style webcam, and one of the first PCI audio boards.
NONE of them work properly with windows anymore. The scanner does not register as a scanner to anything except the only application that came with it. Not a single program can use the acquire function. The webcam -- the drivers work, but apparently they have some kind of a bug, since the camera produces a much better image quality in linux. The audio board does not have a working microphone or sound out in XP or 2000. He has to change them to get them to work again. THIS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU. This happens much slower in open source since it takes only one interested person with skill to continue the work, and if it there is not enough interest, one can be generated for a price of a beer (for a small enough update). A company can not be persuaded, since it does not care about you, and the only thing it will gain is a lost sale because you would upgrade to a new device.
I would have never thought I would say this in this stage of linux development, but "Windows hardware support sucks totally" to the point where if something is not Windows (your version here, including language specific stuff -- had a device that came with english only drivers, and another language version of windows did not accept it) certified, it can be assumed not to work.
So my advice to you. If the scanner is the only reason you are on windows -- it is not a good enough reason. You will probably end up upgrading your scanner at the next version of windows, unless microsoft is kind enough to get a generic driver for it out. In which case you will lose some kind of an option that the original driver had. Like maybe 600dpi support because the generic driver is not aware of this feature on your version.
The only good thing about this is that I get the hardware.
*end hardware and windows rant *
CartoonNetwork.com's Codename: Kids Next Door game to work
Not a good enough reason. There is no need to couple that with the browser. Either produce a standalone program, or allow something that is actually sandboxed. One can argue that an activex is just like a standalone, but I will disagree if only due to layman's understanding of how software works.
Most of the people you call "masochists" can't afford a one-seat license for Microsoft Visual Studio.
That was a sideways question. They are masochists not because they are using MS Internet Update Explorer for updating the machine, but because they are using the Internet Update Explorer for browsing the net, a thing it does not do well. Luckily there are things actually designed to browse the internet nowdays.
The reason why I mentioned the activex testbox program is not because I wish to avoid IE, but to demonstrate how epsilon its actual involvement is. Actually I think the updater activex uses IE to render some of its interface (via external server), so it can not be run standalone. Furthermore I think that the activex testbox came with the VSS ActiveX developer edition, which IIRC was free.
Summary: Most of the people who use IE, do not do it for the activeX, and those who do are quickly conditioned to answer no. Most things out there use flash or java anyway.
So the answer is a simple one: If I go to an aboriginal island, and show them how to make something they desire using a suboptimal method, they will use that method. No amount of advertisement can ever change their minds. They need to actually be shown a better way. Strangely, the same thing happens, which I call an old fogey syndrome. Basically, people who have used the old method start criticizing the new one. The call everyone whippersnappers, and tell them that real
I am not an expert on this, but I do not believe it is possible to actually have multiple versions of ie installed. I know that the QA group uses virtual machines (vmware or virtualpc or something like that ) to test stuff. Would not be surprised if they have win95 running ie4 on that instead of trying to run ie4 on XP.
I believe that QA people for the website are now considering IE4 and NN4 to be completely dead. Not that it matters since ASP.NET is not really IE4/NN4 compatible anyway.
As far as the Mac IE is concerned, it is a completely different codebase. I doubt that the portable IE would work on a mac. I am guessing that the "portable" ie is nothing more than a VB gui that loads up the IE activex control for rendering.
*begin rant*
But then again. I really do not care. It has been 3.1 years since I made the switch to full time linux, and about 2.3 since I have killed my win32 dual boot partition.
What confuses me is the number of masochists among the windows crowd. Those are the people who know about opera and ff/gecko, and continue to use IE. I never understood them. I guess that one can make the claim that if they are exactly the same, then IE is already installed, and fully functional. But then the same people turn around, and install things like google toolbar and extensions to manage multiple windows better.
AFAIA concerned, the only reason to use IE nowdays is to test compatibility with IE. (and windows update, speaking of which -- can't that be run inside a activex testbox (one that comes with VS) anyway?)
First of all, when you use the controllers joysticks (which is all I am referring to) you only use your thumbs (at least in the controllers that I have used). My thumbs do not have much coordination.
It is much easier to hit a certain key with 4 fingers (all keys are within reach), then it is for me to move the joystick left a third of its complete motion. As for the mouse -- the motions are fairly large so precision is not as much of a requirement.
But as the other people have moved on to, this is really a debate of whether an FPS should be controlled via rate of movement, or the point here method.
Since IE is on every windows computer, and IE does not work on anything else, the thing you were carrying is either the binary -- which is useless by itself (it does not have the renderer, just the UI) or possibly a shortcut.
In light of this new portible Firefox release, I'd like to point out that Portable IE blew goats. It crashed ALL THE TIME, and lacked functional from IE (which lacks functionality anyway!).
ok -- maybe it is ie light. Still the same thing. Why not just carry the iexplore.exe -- it will work anywhere too (assuming versions match, otherwise it will start crashing).
Makes sense. However, since I have played a lot of flight sims, I know what inversion feels like. It is not that. In fact I usually invert, due to my flight sim experience.
My problem is that I constantly bump the stick and do not return it to the middle completely.
Besides, how do you use keys for walking? It makes it hard to vary the rate at which you walk. Especially on Halo, there's a value to walking slowly such that you don't show up on the motion sensor, and changing walking speed can be useful for confusing people to snipe ahead.
This is the best point I have seen yet. No rebuttal.
Slashdot Mirror
I've personally caused a single 8.5x11 page to take twenty mintues to come out of a fast laser printer.
Does not take a lot to cause that actually. Just print out a powerpoint presentation with embedded bitmaps and excel graphics to a power point printer.
Here is what I have seen: PPT - about 4MB. PS in the printer queue 700MB. Total time to print was about 3 hours.
My job was next on the queue. God damn it.
You are right.
I did not think of that. I think the o gets added before certain consonants, or possibly consonant groups.
(notice how in many examples of ko vo so, all the words thatfollow have two consonants. I though that that may be due to lack of pronounciation for such large groups, but I have a counter example. so mnoy and ya smnu. ) BTW I am a native speaker of both English and Russian. Does not necesserily mean that I know what I am talking about though.
Linguistics...it was a great course in college. Easy and interesting. Great filler during sophomore year.
Actually no. The o can appear, but I only have heard it in cases of V and S
Vo chto....
So vsemi
Interestingly enough...those are actually written with the o. but K komu is both written and pronounced without the o, at least in the dialect that I know. There is a pause, which does have a feeling of introduced vowel, but it does not sound like any other vowel -- to short and not defined.
They will just do what nvidia does. I know it is not that easy, but soon they will have no choice.
Either that, or they will start distributing RHAT only packages....which will suck.
They do not have this problem because they do not change the structures that are exposed.
Windows also does this by not changing the externed interface across service packs...however they do across versions.
I will take a guess that OSX also changes these when major version changes happen. I doubt that the drivers that work with panther will work with tiger, or whatever the names are....If they do, then that means that engineers work very hard to not make everything backwards compatible, and this tends to introduce lots of serious kludges over time.
However, since the mac internals are unchangeable, the only drivers that need to exist are the usb device drivers. I will guess that controlling the interface for those is a bit easier that trying to keep the entire kernel the same.
Linux has that -- everything is open sourced, so you can just recompile it yourself mentality, so they change any structure they feel like. This is why nvidia binary drivers come with an open source wrapper for the kernel. This is also a big source of complaints for the kernel people, but it is the way of the linux.
Do not know much about proprietary unix though. I do not know who supplies the drivers, since I would guess the vendors do.
Even though one driver is stable on 2000, it does not mean that it has to be stable on XP.
Simple -- assume that some kernel structure is the same across version, while in reality it has changed. So the driver reads the wrong field, and dereferences the wrong value. BOOM.
There is a reason why each driver should be recompiled with another SDK before being run. This is also why linux cannot insert a module created for another version.
let's see. K V S.
Hmm. you are right. It is hard to construct anything that ends with them. These can not be made into anything like adverbs, and are prepositions only, which means that something must follow.
However, these appear perfectly fine in the begining, and people do not find them awkward, even if it should be.
How about:
K komu ty poshel?
nice double k.
I have heard that the setting is in the registry.
Probably in the same place where the MTU is hiding.
Finally someone who agress with me.
Most prepositional endings are not not even prepositions, they are compound verbs. This concept keeps eluding most people who teach English, but is obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit of German. Simple example:
Are you coming up?
Up in this case is not a preposition, but either a part of a verb, or an adverb. Stop telling people that this is wrong. It isn't.
As for the split infinitives, I am not sure where they are rooted. Probably in German as well, but I do not care. Splitting infinitives allows a more accurate placements of adverbs such that they continue to be before the verbs. English really hates having single word modifiers after the words they modified.
So the next time you watch STTNG: just imagine Picard saying "To go boldly" instead of "to boldly go". The second one feels more natural to most people.
HAND.
I would not call XP unstable, but it is now suffering from what linux users have suffered for too long: bad hardware / drivers.
If I put cheap memory into the machine - I should expect it to crash. If I run bad drivers - I should expect it to crash.
I do not believe that 2000 is that much more stable than XP. 2003 I do not know, but I guess all of these have the same level of stability, however XP goes on to more computers made out of crap, and therefore it craps out more.
Windows9x was crappy because it did not implement correct separation of processes from each other and from the kernel.
I hope that you mean this for a corporate production environment.
As for home use, you can simply upgrade, and turn off the firewall. That will allow most programs to work as before.
There are a couple of things that I believe have changed in SP2 that can affect you but are not firewall related: No more raw sockets, and a limit to how many connection can be created per second.
No reason to not install, especially if you are an IE user.
And the reason speech that can kill is prohibited is not because of the speech component, but because of the action component.
Correct, but under the strict interpretation of the constitution, the action would have to have no laws for it as well, since all I have done is uttered a word. I did not personally kill anyone, people who listened to me did.
The content of the speech is irrelevant to the prohibition, which is not on saying certain things, but on saying things that have a certain result.
I understand that, but nowhere in the first amendment does it say that only the speech that causes no harmful action should be protected. It says congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech. So if you interpret constitution very strictly, I should be able to spread libel and tell people there is a fire. I am not harming anyone, I am not doing any action, I am just talking.
What congress and courts have decided is that speech that can cause other people harm directly or indirectly can be considered criminal. That does go directly against the strict interpretation of the constitution.
Simply because they are not absolutely protected does not mean that they are not protected at all.
Agree. I just used the term protected to mean absolutely protected.
Yep. You can. Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre some time and pay attention to what you're charged with when they arrest you. Things like disrupting the peace, reckless endangerment, neglegent manslaughter, etc. None of those has anything to do with *what* you said, just the *consiquences* of saying it.
True, but as you yourself pointed out, reckless endangerment is a law against speech. Notice how just for saying a word, I can be charged with something. If I do not yell, but just calmly say fire, I am not disturbing the peace with anything but speech. Manslaughter? How did I kill that person? By speaking a single word? I broke the law by uttering.
Seems that speech that can kill is prohibited. How? Does not constitution say that any speech is protected from law? Apparently not.
And yes, soap operas are censored all the time. Most of them on decency laws. I am sure that soap opera producer will love it if they could insert cursing or some really saucy scenes. This is what they are selling.
But if they did -- no broadcasting for you until after 11. Not even allowed on a public screen.
Sorry, but the court never sayd that soap operas are protected for of speech that superseedes many laws that can apply to it. Of course if the soap operas start spreading political messages, then the messages may not be censored.
And intersting idea would be the political statement of have sex not war, with some graphic imagery. That would have both the precedent of political statements, and the precedent of decency. What the judges rule is hard to say. An interesting idea anyway.
I am sorry, do you attend public performances of any kind? Please be kind to tell me where.
So I can go there and yell FIRE!!!!!! in the middle of it.
Hey! It speech, and is therefore protected by law.
The court has been smart enough to interpret it as a possibly regulated disemination of ideas. Yelling fire and soap operas are not instances of spreading ideas. If you feel that they are, then you can go to court, and they will apply the litmus test set by SCOTUS to your case and tell you if you are right or wrong.
Rebuttal to point 1:
Who the hell cares. There is always some dictatorship that always keeps its allies with someone. Notice how I went to say that the only thing that matters is staying there, as leaving in a hurry will result in a civil war and massacre.
Rebuttal to point 2:
Apartheid state. I guess so. But why now. Those people have been there for 20 years. Why did they not leave when it was not an apartheid state. I hate to break it to you, but when Gaza will become its own state, poverty is going to rise once again. Remember, anyone living in Gaza will lose a job in Israel. I suspect there are not that many anymore. I would hope that Israel will keep supplying them power and water until they manage to establish their own. I believe that they will. But they will also militarize that border beyond imaginable. And I will very much support them if they do.
As far as the wall is concerned, there are 2 main problems. One: Whoever decided on its location was just begging for controversy. There were better places, especially ones that did not cut through so many palestinian areas. Two: Absuses and delays at checkpoints. Sadly it is hard to keep them in control, and abuses do happen. I wish they did not. Not building the wall is also a choice, but it comes with a security in price.
Personally, I would hope that there will be a solution to the people who live in the west bank and gaza. I hope that they will get their own land, and be able to live in peace. Unfortunately I am not optimistic that this can happen, and there are no easy solutions to the problem.
Rebuttal to 3:
You sound like a misguided liberal in this. How does paying more money to the employees make the company more productive. Most of those employees are non-skilled labor. As far as I can see paying more to the employees will only cut into the profits. And as far as a morale argument goes: If there is high unemployment, even a crappy job is good. Yes, I am heartless, but so is the industry. You can argue that the industry should have a heart. Well, this will happen when consumers will grow one, and start buying stuff from companies with a heart. This will never happen, as demonstrated many times.
new jobs created under Bush have been low wage jobs
Bush does not create jobs. They keep talking about it like it is their accomplishment. BS. Jobs are created by those making products. If companies are paying minimum wage, that means that there are enough people ready to work for it. That means that to stir more competition, the minimum wage needs to be REDUCED. That way we can take more people off the streets, and put them into PAYING JOBS. And reducing welfare would be a good idea, so it does not compete with pay. Sure it will feel like slavery, but that means that American products will be cheaper, and we can finally compete on the world market. Meanwhile since the product are cheaper, the people who are getting the low salaries can still survive, except now more of them work, and therefore not dying on the street.
Take an economics course for goodness sake's. Minimum wage competes with welfare. The only way to have a minimum wage is to have a part of population not work, and survive off welfare. Unfortunately, US needs to become a lot more socialist to be able to support a minimum wage. Which means that US needs to agree that some x percent of people are going to be unemployed, and still survive. That is the European economic model. Whether it is sustainable has not been seen yet. Remember even russian communism has lasted 50 years before collapsing due to the broken model that it was.
Rebuttal to 4: Yes, US can annihilate anyone. So can EU, Russia, and China. The problem is annihilation is mutual. If you got bitten by a single mosquito, would you nuke everybody, or would you swat the mosquito. The thing is US spends a lot of money to try to get the military to swat just the mosquito. And that costs a lot of money. Smart bombs cost a million a piece. Wiping out an entire city including c
What is your point? How does that contradict or agree with my statement? Does it add to it?
They think that the war in Iraq was started in light of incredibly bad intelligence, and that the president is an idiot to have made the conclusion to go to war this soon. They do not care whether or not abortion is outlawed, since it does not affect any of us directly, and if abortion does become outlawed, it will practically take a constitutional amendment, and a huge court case, etc anyway. Education is a problem that they believe is not solved. All in all they are pretty embarassed over Bushes track record, but they still voted for him.
Why? Mostly because these people (as well as most Americans) do not believe in third parties. And when deciding between Bush and Kerry, Bush is still more appealing. Why do they think so? A couple of things.
There are more reasons as well, but they become too specific. Note that most of these people are non-christian, and yet they still vote for Bush, not because they are a "moral majority", but because they continued to feel that Bush is still a better candidate to Kerry.
So please do not lump the Bush voters with the heartless, wrestling watching, SUV driving, anything to get cheaper oil crowd. Not all of them are. Some of us hate the "pave the planet" crowd, "redefine pi as 3 crowd", "do not teach evolution" crowd, "only christian prayer and at all events" crowd. However, these people continue to think that Bush is still a better choice, mostly because although he is one of those people, he does not make the country even more so. We still have our freedoms to not follow Bush's ideal, and we speak out against them at any opportunity we have. And yet we still vote for Bush. Because of the two people who could be elected, he represents the least damage.
At least in our opinion. If you say that our opinion is wrong, back up with fact saying why Kerry is a better choice than Bush. I can assure you that has an IQ of the carrot and acts like a chimp argument has already been considered, and deemed irrelevant, as only the decisions that he makes are relevant. Bush does not make much of his own decisions anyway, but the party's (or Cheney's) decisions could still be better than Kerry's.
Oh, and please make your comments about minimum wage being a good idea. I would love to hear them, but so far I have heard only the straw arguments, and people claiming that completely devalued dollar and high unemployment is good for the eco
Next up they'll be overturning the right to vote or own property.
You are an idiot. Owning property is at the core of the beliefs of the middle-aged white men crowd.
It is the liberals who make claims that not all property should be owned, and if you have more property then you should pay more for each piece you own.
If anyone it is the hippies (note this is not a jab at the liberals, I actually mean the hippies) who want to abolish all property.
I've considered switching, but my flatbed scanner is vital to the work I do on my home computer, and SANE lists it as unsupported.
* begin windows hardware rant *
Funny you mention that. I have the opposite problem. My dad has collected a bunch of older equipment. A year old scanner, an older style webcam, and one of the first PCI audio boards.
NONE of them work properly with windows anymore. The scanner does not register as a scanner to anything except the only application that came with it. Not a single program can use the acquire function. The webcam -- the drivers work, but apparently they have some kind of a bug, since the camera produces a much better image quality in linux. The audio board does not have a working microphone or sound out in XP or 2000. He has to change them to get them to work again. THIS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU. This happens much slower in open source since it takes only one interested person with skill to continue the work, and if it there is not enough interest, one can be generated for a price of a beer (for a small enough update). A company can not be persuaded, since it does not care about you, and the only thing it will gain is a lost sale because you would upgrade to a new device.
I would have never thought I would say this in this stage of linux development, but "Windows hardware support sucks totally" to the point where if something is not Windows (your version here, including language specific stuff -- had a device that came with english only drivers, and another language version of windows did not accept it) certified, it can be assumed not to work.
So my advice to you. If the scanner is the only reason you are on windows -- it is not a good enough reason. You will probably end up upgrading your scanner at the next version of windows, unless microsoft is kind enough to get a generic driver for it out. In which case you will lose some kind of an option that the original driver had. Like maybe 600dpi support because the generic driver is not aware of this feature on your version.
The only good thing about this is that I get the hardware.
*end hardware and windows rant *
CartoonNetwork.com's Codename: Kids Next Door game to work
Not a good enough reason. There is no need to couple that with the browser. Either produce a standalone program, or allow something that is actually sandboxed. One can argue that an activex is just like a standalone, but I will disagree if only due to layman's understanding of how software works.
Most of the people you call "masochists" can't afford a one-seat license for Microsoft Visual Studio.
That was a sideways question. They are masochists not because they are using MS Internet Update Explorer for updating the machine, but because they are using the Internet Update Explorer for browsing the net, a thing it does not do well. Luckily there are things actually designed to browse the internet nowdays.
The reason why I mentioned the activex testbox program is not because I wish to avoid IE, but to demonstrate how epsilon its actual involvement is. Actually I think the updater activex uses IE to render some of its interface (via external server), so it can not be run standalone. Furthermore I think that the activex testbox came with the VSS ActiveX developer edition, which IIRC was free.
Summary: Most of the people who use IE, do not do it for the activeX, and those who do are quickly conditioned to answer no. Most things out there use flash or java anyway.
So the answer is a simple one: If I go to an aboriginal island, and show them how to make something they desire using a suboptimal method, they will use that method. No amount of advertisement can ever change their minds. They need to actually be shown a better way. Strangely, the same thing happens, which I call an old fogey syndrome. Basically, people who have used the old method start criticizing the new one. The call everyone whippersnappers, and tell them that real
I am not an expert on this, but I do not believe it is possible to actually have multiple versions of ie installed. I know that the QA group uses virtual machines (vmware or virtualpc or something like that ) to test stuff. Would not be surprised if they have win95 running ie4 on that instead of trying to run ie4 on XP.
I believe that QA people for the website are now considering IE4 and NN4 to be completely dead. Not that it matters since ASP.NET is not really IE4/NN4 compatible anyway.
As far as the Mac IE is concerned, it is a completely different codebase. I doubt that the portable IE would work on a mac. I am guessing that the "portable" ie is nothing more than a VB gui that loads up the IE activex control for rendering.
*begin rant*
But then again. I really do not care. It has been 3.1 years since I made the switch to full time linux, and about 2.3 since I have killed my win32 dual boot partition.
What confuses me is the number of masochists among the windows crowd. Those are the people who know about opera and ff/gecko, and continue to use IE. I never understood them. I guess that one can make the claim that if they are exactly the same, then IE is already installed, and fully functional. But then the same people turn around, and install things like google toolbar and extensions to manage multiple windows better.
AFAIA concerned, the only reason to use IE nowdays is to test compatibility with IE. (and windows update, speaking of which -- can't that be run inside a activex testbox (one that comes with VS) anyway?)
First of all, when you use the controllers joysticks (which is all I am referring to) you only use your thumbs (at least in the controllers that I have used). My thumbs do not have much coordination.
It is much easier to hit a certain key with 4 fingers (all keys are within reach), then it is for me to move the joystick left a third of its complete motion. As for the mouse -- the motions are fairly large so precision is not as much of a requirement.
But as the other people have moved on to, this is really a debate of whether an FPS should be controlled via rate of movement, or the point here method.
It could be worse. It could have escaped leaving a bloody trail of dead programmers and users.
Since IE is on every windows computer, and IE does not work on anything else, the thing you were carrying is either the binary -- which is useless by itself (it does not have the renderer, just the UI) or possibly a shortcut.
In light of this new portible Firefox release, I'd like to point out that Portable IE blew goats. It crashed ALL THE TIME, and lacked functional from IE (which lacks functionality anyway!).
ok -- maybe it is ie light. Still the same thing. Why not just carry the iexplore.exe -- it will work anywhere too (assuming versions match, otherwise it will start crashing).
Makes sense. However, since I have played a lot of flight sims, I know what inversion feels like. It is not that. In fact I usually invert, due to my flight sim experience.
My problem is that I constantly bump the stick and do not return it to the middle completely.
Besides, how do you use keys for walking? It makes it hard to vary the rate at which you walk. Especially on Halo, there's a value to walking slowly such that you don't show up on the motion sensor, and changing walking speed can be useful for confusing people to snipe ahead.
This is the best point I have seen yet. No rebuttal.