Yes, only two of those (CE and NavReady (whatever that is)) run on anything other than x86 processors, which are not terribly popular in the embedded world.
Who decides? So I'm a radio station. Throughout the day I have different hosts with different opinions, however none of them approve of Pres. Bush. So now I have to go find someone who does? How many hosts must I find so that every viewpoint on every controversial issue gets airtime?
It is censorship. If I want to stand on my soapbox all day long and the government says I can only do so from noon to 6, that's censorship.
It is widely known that Pelosi supports the fairness doctrine. The reason she wants to restore it is to censor talk radio. This is because she is very widely reviled, not only by ordinary Californians, but by the hosts of the biggest talk radio shows in her state. I know because I listen to them. So while arguing about history let's not dismiss the immediate facts, eh?
Your only argument is that Bush actually believed the crap that he told Congress and America. I posit that it doesn't matter. He should have. If they ever manage to put him on trial for perjury then we'll worry about whether he knew it was bullshit or not.
That was an interesting read. However if you read far enough you'll discover that they're doubling capacity. Seeing as how that's not enough two other forgers are attempting to get in the game. Also, Russia makes them too. I realize the words "Russian made nuclear reactor" are scary, but since it's just a huge block of steel it seems reasonable to use one of those.
Selling individual cigarettes with no warning is in fact completely illegal, but it's not really enforced. Big chain stores and the like won't do it, just local establishments that can fly under the radar.
You're right of course. The problem is that even the simplest of these conditions require dangerous, dangerous drugs such as Penicillin that must be kept from the public at all costs, lest we all be infected by a plague of antibiotic resistant zombieism. Even worse, somebody might get high on something. (Is that what you call it when a person takes opioid medications or is there some approved medical term?)
Well to be fair he did flip flop on the War on Drugs thing. When a candidate changes his mind and actually takes action to demonstrate that he really has changed, I tend to see that as a positive thing. I mean failure to reconsider old, ineffective laws is what is keeping us from making progress currently.
Imagine if politicians had had the guts to change federal sentencing for rock cocaine to match that of powdered cocaine after the epidemic began to quiet...
Why exactly is Bob Barr an "idiot?" I'm asking because I've looked at his positions, and, while we aren't going to agree on everything, I fail to see anything disingenuous much less idiotic.
Somebody here considers you insightful so please do elaborate on what's wrong with the party's candidate.
Damn I had to no idea he was such an anti-gun nutjob until I read his Wikipedia page. I wasn't going to vote for him anyways due to his big-government predilections but he is really out there.
For all the "change" he claims to promote, he rarely seems to toe the Dem party line pretty well on the big issues. He's created this straw man of the typical politician, but I don't recall any of them coming out and admitting that they like lobbyists, soft money, backsliding, etc. How am I supposed to believe that he's different when his positions on the things that are easier to call him on are so typical?
Oh BTW, I got an EVGA 8800GT (no X) and was disappointed that they put a capacitor where they shouldn't have and after market water blocks wouldn't fit it. In fact any sort of full coverage solution probably won't. Definitely buying from another "manufacturer" or whatever nVidia is calling them next time.
I'm very interested in this decision for a couple of reasons:
1) the Court (capitalized out of respect for the institution in general) has been eroding individual rights for some time now, and I wonder how far they will go. 2) the current court is considered conservative, because many justices were appointed by conservative presidents. In case I need to point it out, conservatives are generally for gun rights which conflicts with part 1.
The DC case should be a litmus test for this Court, however it has been the habit of the Court to rule narrowly of late, so I'm wondering if they'll just rule on DC's particular gun ban and leave the greater issue unresolved.
Yeah the funny mod is an interesting thing. There's no "not funny" option, so anything that 5 people on slashdot find funny gets a +5. I wouldn't put too much stock in it though.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, only two of those (CE and NavReady (whatever that is)) run on anything other than x86 processors, which are not terribly popular in the embedded world.
It is a character problem When you say one thing and vote another that's a credibility issue, to put it nicely.
He could have voted against the bill. Fuck law enforcement.
Does that actually work? I'm not on Linux right now.
Who decides? So I'm a radio station. Throughout the day I have different hosts with different opinions, however none of them approve of Pres. Bush. So now I have to go find someone who does? How many hosts must I find so that every viewpoint on every controversial issue gets airtime?
It is censorship. If I want to stand on my soapbox all day long and the government says I can only do so from noon to 6, that's censorship.
So who exactly do you think Pelosi wants to target with the Fairness Doctrine?
It is widely known that Pelosi supports the fairness doctrine. The reason she wants to restore it is to censor talk radio. This is because she is very widely reviled, not only by ordinary Californians, but by the hosts of the biggest talk radio shows in her state. I know because I listen to them. So while arguing about history let's not dismiss the immediate facts, eh?
Your only argument is that Bush actually believed the crap that he told Congress and America. I posit that it doesn't matter. He should have. If they ever manage to put him on trial for perjury then we'll worry about whether he knew it was bullshit or not.
That was an interesting read. However if you read far enough you'll discover that they're doubling capacity. Seeing as how that's not enough two other forgers are attempting to get in the game. Also, Russia makes them too. I realize the words "Russian made nuclear reactor" are scary, but since it's just a huge block of steel it seems reasonable to use one of those.
Selling individual cigarettes with no warning is in fact completely illegal, but it's not really enforced. Big chain stores and the like won't do it, just local establishments that can fly under the radar.
Brussels is the seat of the EU, which has some say over these sorts of trade issues.
You're right of course. The problem is that even the simplest of these conditions require dangerous, dangerous drugs such as Penicillin that must be kept from the public at all costs, lest we all be infected by a plague of antibiotic resistant zombieism. Even worse, somebody might get high on something. (Is that what you call it when a person takes opioid medications or is there some approved medical term?)
Well to be fair he did flip flop on the War on Drugs thing. When a candidate changes his mind and actually takes action to demonstrate that he really has changed, I tend to see that as a positive thing. I mean failure to reconsider old, ineffective laws is what is keeping us from making progress currently.
Imagine if politicians had had the guts to change federal sentencing for rock cocaine to match that of powdered cocaine after the epidemic began to quiet...
I think the practical aspect of not granting telecoms immunity is that they will think twice about doing it again.
Fact is the rates are regulated by local governments; any increases due to lawsuit payments will have to be negotiated there.
In my opinion, bringing this issue to court is worth it.
Why exactly is Bob Barr an "idiot?" I'm asking because I've looked at his positions, and, while we aren't going to agree on everything, I fail to see anything disingenuous much less idiotic.
Somebody here considers you insightful so please do elaborate on what's wrong with the party's candidate.
And because as of next month it's going to be cheap as dirt.
Damn I had to no idea he was such an anti-gun nutjob until I read his Wikipedia page. I wasn't going to vote for him anyways due to his big-government predilections but he is really out there.
For all the "change" he claims to promote, he rarely seems to toe the Dem party line pretty well on the big issues. He's created this straw man of the typical politician, but I don't recall any of them coming out and admitting that they like lobbyists, soft money, backsliding, etc. How am I supposed to believe that he's different when his positions on the things that are easier to call him on are so typical?
Oh no it couldn't be a natural part of the cycle, never. Must be the end of the US.
In some states the permits are available, but they still don't make your bud legal.
Your government at work.
So did you pirate your OS or are you doing Linux "gaming?"
9800GX2 FTW man.
Oh BTW, I got an EVGA 8800GT (no X) and was disappointed that they put a capacitor where they shouldn't have and after market water blocks wouldn't fit it. In fact any sort of full coverage solution probably won't. Definitely buying from another "manufacturer" or whatever nVidia is calling them next time.
I'm very interested in this decision for a couple of reasons:
1) the Court (capitalized out of respect for the institution in general) has been eroding individual rights for some time now, and I wonder how far they will go.
2) the current court is considered conservative, because many justices were appointed by conservative presidents. In case I need to point it out, conservatives are generally for gun rights which conflicts with part 1.
The DC case should be a litmus test for this Court, however it has been the habit of the Court to rule narrowly of late, so I'm wondering if they'll just rule on DC's particular gun ban and leave the greater issue unresolved.
Yeah the funny mod is an interesting thing. There's no "not funny" option, so anything that 5 people on slashdot find funny gets a +5. I wouldn't put too much stock in it though.
Eliminate the technically. Either it's legal or it ain't.
The principle that the President can't break the law goes back to the Magna Carta, at least.
Just to be fair: who hasn't thought similar thoughts when the scope of government malfeasance overwhelms him?
Then again I'm not running for president. I'm still afraid of John McCain.