I will concur. Got mine for $450 on some whacky promotion from CompUsa almost a year ago. Looking for another one at the same price, and could not find the same deal again. It is an awesome monitor.
Well lines might not be seemingly aligned with holes, ala Florida. Yes, the voters can watch carefully to make sure that they did not select the wrong choice, but same can be said here. No matter which way you do it, there will be problems. There will also be errors.
I think that if a candidate could not get a decent margin of victory (say 1%), then the electoral votes of the state should be split 50/50.
Hey. It sounds like you know what you are doing, and UAE is a lot more open-minded than its neighbours.
Still, my advice to you is: Keep your eyes and ears open. Stuff can go from ok to highly painful and even deadly very quickly. Stability is quite often an illusion.
Good luck on your start up. Hope it turns out well, whatever you do.
Well, good for you and your business. Be careful though if you get into tangle with the law (assuming you are a non-Muslim). A lot of Muslim countries do not allow a non-Muslim to even testify against a Muslim.
If you are a woman, you have a lot of balls. Make sue those are seen if you chose to wear something revealing.
If your religion does not match the local religion, you may find spray paint on your residence encouraging violence.
If the government decides they do not like you, your business is confiscated without trial, and if you are lucky or smart enough to keep your mouth shut will be "peacefully" forced out of the country.
Note: Much of what I said is based on what is going on in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, etc. I would think that United Arab Emirates is very similar, but I could be wrong.
There are benefits and there are downsides. I hope you weighed them all and the right choice. Good luck.
Yeah, and Syria, Iran, and North Korea are on the waiting list of a sort.
It is interesting though, that although the rest of the world is so bent on criticizing the actions of the US, they are not stopping them. Could it be that the governments of those countries actually want these wars. You do know that any country in Europe has enough power to stop the US singlehandedly. Hint: nukes. This is why governments Europe has been criticizing US more for the missile defense that it has for Iraq. They quickly shut their mouth realizing that the system is a failure.
The people of Europe on the other hand were criticizing the war, but not really the missile defense. What does this tell you? This tells you that Europe wants and has the ability to check the US at any point, so why did not they. Maybe it is because they want the war without the mess that it causes. The government of the US just lost patience waaay prematurely.
So to conclude about the active invasion....if it becomes dangerous for the safety and freedom of the world, the world will either stop it, or destroy itself in the process. It does not matter which country begins that. Personally I do not see the US currently engaging in anything that will start WWIII.
Just for a random prediction: First nuclear war (WW3) will start in the far east. My guess: Malaysia. It is poised to become another middle east. But not for at least 20-30 years. There may be a terrorist incident (outside of Asia) before it, but it will not start a war. Once SE Asia nuclearizes, things are going to be heating up quickly. Korea may act as a catalyst for nuclearization. Of course this is a product of my imagination, and if you use this to make any predictions, you are crazy.
I wish I had mod points. This at least deserves to be seen.
Yeah Now Iraq is about to become an model of peace, democracy, and freedom. is a BIT exaggerated. It will turn into "a" democracy in a while. It is not going to be too peaceful, but it will be a democracy.
Bloodshed has also decreased in Palestine
Not knowing total figures, I can not say that that is correct. However, violence there kept at about the same level for the duration of the conflict.
It is the second paragraph that is the most interesting. Where was the UN when Rwanda massacres were occuring. Oh yeah, they were criticizing israel on the occupation (at that point without much bloodshed) of "Palestinians". That makes me have much faith in the UN. The only thing that the UN has been correct about is that we need to do something about the AIDS epidemic. Of course no constructive suggestions were actually offered.
So whoever kept modding this down as a troll, why do you not want this seen. Why are you disinforming people? Why do you want to censor information?
I normally do not respond to ACs, but this one is just too baiting.
If it's a war to free the people of Iraq and reduce terrorism, it's a miserable failure.
It is too early to judge. It is a failure if US leaves Iraq now, causing a civil war and a power grab. This is why neither Bush, nor Kerry, nor any other sane person will remove troops from Iraq. Europe does it because they feel it is same to leave the mess in the hands of the people who started it. That way they can keep their hands clean, and pass the blame, no matter which way the wind blows. At the same time their people can be happy that they are not the part of war that they do not feel is worthwhile.
If it's a war to get cheaper oil, boost the profits of USA construction companies and demonstrate how dangerous the USA can be, it's an astounding success.
Where is the cheaper oil? This did not increase production at all. US still has to purchase the oil from Iraq, and it still has to be done through the same refinery companies. The only difference is that France is no longer getting the oil for weapons preferred contact. I guess that is why they are annoyed but are keeping the mouth shut about the oil.
Halliburton is one point I will agree on. No bid contract are bad. Why aren't other companies suing the government, since the government is required by law to have bidding. Moreover, there is an extra rule that basically says that minority run companies are to be preferred, etc. One valid point there. Too bad it seems to be ignored by the people in general. Seems that Cheney is a smart man, he is not even being blamed. Nice game of hide behind the dummy. Nobody can look past the stupidity of the person in front.
As for USA being highly dangerous, any country with nukes and a crazy monkey behind the wheel is just as dangerous. There are plenty of countries like that, including Russia, Pakistan, etc.
If you believe what Bush says, then he's a miserable failure. If you don't believe what Bush says, he's an aggressive, greedy zealot.
Agressive -- maybe. Incompetent -- likely. Greedy -- possibly. Zealot -- hmmm. I think the only zealotry here is Bush trying to put his name into the history books. He failed to get much good written about him. He hurried the war, which should have takes place a while later. (It would have happened eventually) Is he a religious zealot. I am not even sure he is a believer/follower. He may just be putting on a show, like about 50-60 % of the US church going population. (I pulled those numbers from nowhere, and will only credit the people I remember at my work and high school, their beliefs, and if they go to church. It is a poor sample, but...)
Either way, nobody should be voting for him.
So, who should we vote for? If it is not "No child left behind, because the law forces the school to cheat" Bush, or the "I am going to fix American health care, social security, and economy, just do not ask me how" Kerry.
Both candidates suck. Both of them are making promises to get elected. But in the end, they are just puppets of the party.
I do not want to make a choice between these two. I do not know which one is going to get luckier than the other, by guessing an answer to certain issues correctly. The general populace has more luck than I do, I will let them have at it. Personally I voted so that a certain third party will not give up, so that they know that there are people who appreciate what they are doing, and even if I do not agree with everything they do, having more choices is having an ability to make a better choice.
So go ahead, vote Kerry or Bush. Throw your vote away, because voting for them is no better than flipping a coin. I, I am voting for the edge.
Hey, I AM being realistic here. If I was not realistic I would ask for the alpha/*BSD version. That implies that I would actually be able to find a decent video card / drivers for it.
But in all seriousness, will there be a Linux version (even 32 bit?) With quite a few games running natively on linux, one would figure the companies might start doing it as a fad.
But hey it probably uses directX, so no cigar. One more sale they will not have.
Hmm. I have a tinfoil hat on. Guess that is the reason why it is taking them so long.
Next time I will pass the car, I will sniff for donuts. That will make sure.
Thanks. I did not think of that possibility. Guess I am not paranoid enough. Wait. Maybe they are making me not paranoid, and my hat is not working.../me puts on another tinfoil hat on top of my tinfoil hat.
Fully agree with your post. However great-grand-parent will probably not.
Speaking of libertarians gutting health and safety. One of the reasons that the American costs are high is that American laws force high safety standards. Other countries (mostly outside of Europe), do not have such safety restrictions, and hence are more competitive. In a way, libertarians eliminating health and safety will reduce outsourcing. The question is "is it worth the price?".
Sometimes equality, fairness, and simplicity are more important than getting the resources where they matter most. For example, I would rather have equally crappy health care, then awesome healthcare for those with money. Imagine if air were to be purchased and was scarce(not that unrealistic). Would it be better to have more then enough air go to those who can afford it, leaving some to suffocate, or everybody receiving just barely enough.
Personally, I think BASIC life necessities (air, water, food, medicine, shelter) should be completely socialized, and everything else (luxuries) can continue to be completely capitalized (this may include education). The problem is that most people will not need anything more and will become lazy, and will not work.
So it seems that my utopia will fail. Hence, we must do the amoral thing, and allow people to starve, be poor, etc. This is the reason why I will actually say that libertarian position is the most moral one that will work. Right now, tons of people sit on welfare. If we offer them almost slavery or death, are we being cruel? I am almost a slave to my work. I have to work. Does it make a difference if I make a lot more money than the minimum-wage employee? I can afford a few more luxuries while I work, but that is it. Morally, I am as much a slave as the poor people.
You refer to minimum salaries as a moral position. Gutting minimum salaries is not an amoral choice. What that means is that more people will leave welfare and go to work. (This is why libertarians will gut welfare -- abundant work will be welfare).
Sorry for an incohesive stream of thought. But my mind keeps wondering. Guess I will have another cup of coffee.
Dude, that is like saying that you are against educating children.
The president can not really affect outsourcing directly . If they try to do this with taxes, EU/WTO will slap trade sanction, since taxes against world economy are in many cases illegal.
Meanwhile, if Kerry manages to get Congress to increase the minimum wage, we will see more pressure for outsourcing (as everybody's wage will start going up, due to inflation). In the long run the falling value of the dollar will eventually balance this out.
Bush is not for outsourcing, but giving businesses huge tax breaks, when the economy is balanced to drive the money out of the country is insane. Talk about overcompensating. This is what is causing the inflation now. (that, and rising energy prices)
Libertarians are not your friends either. They will want to ease restrictions on work (and workers).
On the topic of WTO.... Does anyone else find it strange that the rules of free trade aren't forcing countries into private medicine? After all socializing an industry is one heck of a major subsidy. Shouldn't Europe and Canada be sanctioned for this?
Or am I misunderstanding WTO rules. Anyone with knowledge please post.
Yeah, when I was taking basic chemistry in middle school the teacher corrected my spelling of Aluminium on the quiz and took off points. So, on the next quiz I spelled Natrium, Kalium, and Ferrum properly.
I was about to lose points, except that she decided to show me the spelling on the chart that she had instead of the book. Imagine her surprise when she discovered that the chart had the official names.
Slashdot Mirror
I will concur. Got mine for $450 on some whacky promotion from CompUsa almost a year ago. Looking for another one at the same price, and could not find the same deal again. It is an awesome monitor.
UT2004 at 1280x1024 -- perfect.
Yeah. We enjoy it too. Your cable bill is now $150 a month.
-- Your Cable Company mgmt.
Hmmm, those PlexTools for detecting errors are very interesting.
Is there open source software that does something similar? Does Anybody know.
Well lines might not be seemingly aligned with holes, ala Florida. Yes, the voters can watch carefully to make sure that they did not select the wrong choice, but same can be said here. No matter which way you do it, there will be problems. There will also be errors.
I think that if a candidate could not get a decent margin of victory (say 1%), then the electoral votes of the state should be split 50/50.
That is an awesome solution. Simple and effective.
I bow before your wisdom.
This looks to be nothing more than misaligned touchscreens. The main question is "Are they misaligned on purpose?"
And why won't someone realign them.
Hey. It sounds like you know what you are doing, and UAE is a lot more open-minded than its neighbours.
Still, my advice to you is: Keep your eyes and ears open. Stuff can go from ok to highly painful and even deadly very quickly. Stability is quite often an illusion.
Good luck on your start up. Hope it turns out well, whatever you do.
Well, good for you and your business. Be careful though if you get into tangle with the law (assuming you are a non-Muslim). A lot of Muslim countries do not allow a non-Muslim to even testify against a Muslim.
If you are a woman, you have a lot of balls. Make sue those are seen if you chose to wear something revealing.
If your religion does not match the local religion, you may find spray paint on your residence encouraging violence.
If the government decides they do not like you, your business is confiscated without trial, and if you are lucky or smart enough to keep your mouth shut will be "peacefully" forced out of the country.
Note: Much of what I said is based on what is going on in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, etc. I would think that United Arab Emirates is very similar, but I could be wrong.
There are benefits and there are downsides. I hope you weighed them all and the right choice. Good luck.
Caps Lock? There is such a key. You mean it is not just a second Ctrl.
Weird...
First the browser, then politics. Good politics can not happen without a good browser.
The question is:
Was it a really good webpage?
Due to the failure to read to the bottom of the posts, I hereby retract my overly cynical and redundant message.
No worries! Remember it is still a beta. It is not like anyone will use this for a serious purpose.
It even comes with a Media Player.
There was even a slashdot post about it, but I do not seem to be able to find it.
Hmm.
Yeah, and Syria, Iran, and North Korea are on the waiting list of a sort.
It is interesting though, that although the rest of the world is so bent on criticizing the actions of the US, they are not stopping them. Could it be that the governments of those countries actually want these wars. You do know that any country in Europe has enough power to stop the US singlehandedly. Hint: nukes. This is why governments Europe has been criticizing US more for the missile defense that it has for Iraq. They quickly shut their mouth realizing that the system is a failure.
The people of Europe on the other hand were criticizing the war, but not really the missile defense. What does this tell you? This tells you that Europe wants and has the ability to check the US at any point, so why did not they. Maybe it is because they want the war without the mess that it causes. The government of the US just lost patience waaay prematurely.
So to conclude about the active invasion....if it becomes dangerous for the safety and freedom of the world, the world will either stop it, or destroy itself in the process. It does not matter which country begins that. Personally I do not see the US currently engaging in anything that will start WWIII.
Just for a random prediction: First nuclear war (WW3) will start in the far east. My guess: Malaysia. It is poised to become another middle east. But not for at least 20-30 years. There may be a terrorist incident (outside of Asia) before it, but it will not start a war. Once SE Asia nuclearizes, things are going to be heating up quickly. Korea may act as a catalyst for nuclearization. Of course this is a product of my imagination, and if you use this to make any predictions, you are crazy.
I wish I had mod points. This at least deserves to be seen.
Yeah Now Iraq is about to become an model of peace, democracy, and freedom. is a BIT exaggerated. It will turn into "a" democracy in a while. It is not going to be too peaceful, but it will be a democracy.
Bloodshed has also decreased in Palestine
Not knowing total figures, I can not say that that is correct. However, violence there kept at about the same level for the duration of the conflict.
It is the second paragraph that is the most interesting. Where was the UN when Rwanda massacres were occuring. Oh yeah, they were criticizing israel on the occupation (at that point without much bloodshed) of "Palestinians". That makes me have much faith in the UN. The only thing that the UN has been correct about is that we need to do something about the AIDS epidemic. Of course no constructive suggestions were actually offered.
So whoever kept modding this down as a troll, why do you not want this seen. Why are you disinforming people? Why do you want to censor information?
Sigh...
I normally do not respond to ACs, but this one is just too baiting.
If it's a war to free the people of Iraq and reduce terrorism, it's a miserable failure.
It is too early to judge. It is a failure if US leaves Iraq now, causing a civil war and a power grab. This is why neither Bush, nor Kerry, nor any other sane person will remove troops from Iraq. Europe does it because they feel it is same to leave the mess in the hands of the people who started it. That way they can keep their hands clean, and pass the blame, no matter which way the wind blows. At the same time their people can be happy that they are not the part of war that they do not feel is worthwhile.
If it's a war to get cheaper oil, boost the profits of USA construction companies and demonstrate how dangerous the USA can be, it's an astounding success.
Where is the cheaper oil? This did not increase production at all. US still has to purchase the oil from Iraq, and it still has to be done through the same refinery companies. The only difference is that France is no longer getting the oil for weapons preferred contact. I guess that is why they are annoyed but are keeping the mouth shut about the oil.
Halliburton is one point I will agree on. No bid contract are bad. Why aren't other companies suing the government, since the government is required by law to have bidding. Moreover, there is an extra rule that basically says that minority run companies are to be preferred, etc. One valid point there. Too bad it seems to be ignored by the people in general. Seems that Cheney is a smart man, he is not even being blamed. Nice game of hide behind the dummy. Nobody can look past the stupidity of the person in front.
As for USA being highly dangerous, any country with nukes and a crazy monkey behind the wheel is just as dangerous. There are plenty of countries like that, including Russia, Pakistan, etc.
If you believe what Bush says, then he's a miserable failure. If you don't believe what Bush says, he's an aggressive, greedy zealot.
Agressive -- maybe. Incompetent -- likely. Greedy -- possibly. Zealot -- hmmm. I think the only zealotry here is Bush trying to put his name into the history books. He failed to get much good written about him. He hurried the war, which should have takes place a while later. (It would have happened eventually) Is he a religious zealot. I am not even sure he is a believer/follower. He may just be putting on a show, like about 50-60 % of the US church going population. (I pulled those numbers from nowhere, and will only credit the people I remember at my work and high school, their beliefs, and if they go to church. It is a poor sample, but...)
Either way, nobody should be voting for him.
So, who should we vote for? If it is not "No child left behind, because the law forces the school to cheat" Bush, or the "I am going to fix American health care, social security, and economy, just do not ask me how" Kerry.
Both candidates suck. Both of them are making promises to get elected. But in the end, they are just puppets of the party.
I do not want to make a choice between these two. I do not know which one is going to get luckier than the other, by guessing an answer to certain issues correctly. The general populace has more luck than I do, I will let them have at it. Personally I voted so that a certain third party will not give up, so that they know that there are people who appreciate what they are doing, and even if I do not agree with everything they do, having more choices is having an ability to make a better choice.
So go ahead, vote Kerry or Bush. Throw your vote away, because voting for them is no better than flipping a coin. I, I am voting for the edge.
HAND.
not for alpha, they do not.
At least it does not say:
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
like some other site I know.
Is there a x86-64 Linux version?
Hey, I AM being realistic here. If I was not realistic I would ask for the alpha/*BSD version. That implies that I would actually be able to find a decent video card / drivers for it.
But in all seriousness, will there be a Linux version (even 32 bit?) With quite a few games running natively on linux, one would figure the companies might start doing it as a fad.
But hey it probably uses directX, so no cigar. One more sale they will not have.
Hmm. I have a tinfoil hat on. Guess that is the reason why it is taking them so long.
/me puts on another tinfoil hat on top of my tinfoil hat.
Next time I will pass the car, I will sniff for donuts. That will make sure.
Thanks. I did not think of that possibility. Guess I am not paranoid enough. Wait. Maybe they are making me not paranoid, and my hat is not working...
Fully agree with your post. However great-grand-parent will probably not.
Speaking of libertarians gutting health and safety. One of the reasons that the American costs are high is that American laws force high safety standards. Other countries (mostly outside of Europe), do not have such safety restrictions, and hence are more competitive. In a way, libertarians eliminating health and safety will reduce outsourcing. The question is "is it worth the price?".
Sometimes equality, fairness, and simplicity are more important than getting the resources where they matter most. For example, I would rather have equally crappy health care, then awesome healthcare for those with money. Imagine if air were to be purchased and was scarce(not that unrealistic). Would it be better to have more then enough air go to those who can afford it, leaving some to suffocate, or everybody receiving just barely enough.
Personally, I think BASIC life necessities (air, water, food, medicine, shelter) should be completely socialized, and everything else (luxuries) can continue to be completely capitalized (this may include education). The problem is that most people will not need anything more and will become lazy, and will not work.
So it seems that my utopia will fail. Hence, we must do the amoral thing, and allow people to starve, be poor, etc. This is the reason why I will actually say that libertarian position is the most moral one that will work. Right now, tons of people sit on welfare. If we offer them almost slavery or death, are we being cruel? I am almost a slave to my work. I have to work. Does it make a difference if I make a lot more money than the minimum-wage employee? I can afford a few more luxuries while I work, but that is it. Morally, I am as much a slave as the poor people.
You refer to minimum salaries as a moral position. Gutting minimum salaries is not an amoral choice. What that means is that more people will leave welfare and go to work. (This is why libertarians will gut welfare -- abundant work will be welfare).
Sorry for an incohesive stream of thought. But my mind keeps wondering. Guess I will have another cup of coffee.
Dude, that is like saying that you are against educating children.
The president can not really affect outsourcing directly . If they try to do this with taxes, EU/WTO will slap trade sanction, since taxes against world economy are in many cases illegal.
Meanwhile, if Kerry manages to get Congress to increase the minimum wage, we will see more pressure for outsourcing (as everybody's wage will start going up, due to inflation). In the long run the falling value of the dollar will eventually balance this out.
Bush is not for outsourcing, but giving businesses huge tax breaks, when the economy is balanced to drive the money out of the country is insane. Talk about overcompensating. This is what is causing the inflation now. (that, and rising energy prices)
Libertarians are not your friends either. They will want to ease restrictions on work (and workers).
On the topic of WTO....
Does anyone else find it strange that the rules of free trade aren't forcing countries into private medicine? After all socializing an industry is one heck of a major subsidy. Shouldn't Europe and Canada be sanctioned for this?
Or am I misunderstanding WTO rules. Anyone with knowledge please post.
Yeah, when I was taking basic chemistry in middle school the teacher corrected my spelling of Aluminium on the quiz and took off points. So, on the next quiz I spelled Natrium, Kalium, and Ferrum properly.
I was about to lose points, except that she decided to show me the spelling on the chart that she had instead of the book. Imagine her surprise when she discovered that the chart had the official names.
Still a warm memory.
I don't know. It seems that most cars today are carbon fiber.
Not much steel there.
Unless you are referring to that old crown victoria across the street that has not moved in 8 years.