What about businesses? I'd argue it's a workplace health and safety issue where the question becomes "Am I allowed to refuse to work because I don't want to suffer chronic carcinogen exposure?"
"No... Terrorism is a problem because we do not follow Sharia. It's not a matter of foreign policy (besides the fact we don't want all the Israelis driven into the sea). This is a war based on dogma."
Why is it that Christians have murdered Jews in the name of God, but not Scientologists? Why is it that Americans in the south murder black people in the name of God, but few other Christians do (And in fact, some go to Africa to help fight the wretched conditions brought about by conflicts between reigonal governments)? How is it that India can continue to exist, despite having Christians, Muslims, and Hindus living together? Because the choices people make are not based soley on the word of God.
This is part of what Nietzsche meant when he said that "God is dead". People, rather than actually follow the word of God, follow only what they're comfortable with, and where they're uncomfortable with what has been commanded, they will reinterpet what has been said. He thought it was the European man who has killed God, but it is simply human morality changing and overriding divine morality. Happens everywhere.
You're oversimplifying the entire situation into a simple one-liner to lionize yourself to justify your position, but this is not a path to victory. It's only a path to more battle.
The question for you is now simple. Do you want to achieve victory, or only battle? You can fight until the end of time if you wish, or you can take a look at the situation as it actually is, and you can try to determine a path to actual victory against a growing threat, and you can then fight the battles neccessary to win the victory then. It's not glamourous, but the greatest generals and strategists of the past fought battles that weren't flashy and spectactular to look at.
Ignoring innane conspiracy theories, Bush has ordered the deaths of far more innocent people. What was the death count in Iraq? 30k according to Bush in a Q&A session several months ago. How many were soldiers? I think it'd be charitable to say 50%.
I guess we're just talking about the difference between teleological and deontological ethics. Some people look at the guy who ordered a complete red herring of a war against a non-threat based on deliberately misstated intelligence which has resulted in the deaths of about 2000 american soldeiers, thousands of Iraqi soldiers, and thousands of Iraqi civilians, as well as provoking terrorist attacks by citizens in a number of countries slightly higher than a fundamentalist who ordered a sort of unprovoked(If you ignore 50 years of the US playing God in the middle east) attack upon innocent men women and children which took about 2500 lives.
If you're the sort to say that intent drives ethics, then yes, the man who actually intended to directly attack innocent women and children is the worse. However, if you're the sort of person who believes that the results of actions is more important than the intention, then the orders of Bush as the commander in chief are orders of magnitude more unethical.
By reducing an important dialog regarding terrorism, its motives, and the ethical question of what should be done about it, to a bipartisan farce of this vs. that, you will always get the answer wrong, no matter how long you debate.
"This statement is false" is an example. You could say that Republicans say the statement is false, and democrats say the statement is true. Reducing the statement to this, however, makes it impossible to solve. So too will the bipartisan arguement regarding terrorism assure that no matter what answer we come to, it will be the wrong one.
I wonder when people are going to realize that modern laptop batteries are simply difficult to design because of the ridiculous heat involved both in the battery, but also in the chips, which put out more heat but are designed into a thinner and thinner case -- and stop blaming companies when the thin, powerful, long lasting laptop they demand from manufacturers has a problem with fires?
Is that about every laptop manufacturer on the planet yet in the past year or so? Can we finally just accept that you're going to need either less processing power, less battery power, or a bit more bulk for airflow, if you want any sort of promises about safety from any given manufacturer?
USB hard drives are roughly the same size as an iPod, and come in sizes much larger for much less money.
That said, I just soldered in a couple RCA jacks into my truck which didn't come with a stereo so I can listen to my Creative Nomad M. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite for saying anything.
Why are hybrid cars considered an "alternative"? They're just replacing a mechanical transmission with a more efficient electrical method, where the torque is turned into electricity, the electricity is stored, then used instead of the direct torque to rotate the wheels. The energy savings come mostly from the fact that you don't need a massive engine to get moving, so you can have a smaller motor running more efficiently for less time.
Calling it an "alternative" is like calling Fuel Injection an "Alternative".
"Oh, you poor dear, you're still reliant on fossil fuels? I use fuel injection. I'm green as a leaf!"
These aren't PCs. They're hardware platforms for embedded projects -- a hobbyists toy or something a student could use. Don't expect to be chatting on IRC with your gumstick PC quite yet.
You joke now, but just wait until you accumulate the critical mass of water required to achieve a fission reaction. THEN you'll be sorry....because you drowned half the solar system. You'll still be sorry though!
What if the person comes up with plausable answers multiple times that fulfil the criteria, but not the correct answer? There lies a problem. Most puzzles are one-trick ponys. Once you get them to give up their secret, the answer falls into place. You can approach the same problem in a dozen different ways and they'll all give you some sort of answer, but only the one is correct.
Personally, my problem solving methodology depends on being able to see as many different possible causes as I can for a problem, then trying to narrow down which solutions will be the most likely to solve the most likely problems. In the end, there's no one answer, but the system can continue to function.
Because it would already be in the firmware. Rom space may be expensive, but taking out superfluous checks from another vendors software is likely to be moreso.
That said, the only reason a motherboard couldn't handle a K6-3 CPU back in the day would have been that the board couldn't regulate down to 2.2V. I too used K6 series' processors for a long time (The last one finally got phased out of my family's hand-me-down computer in the past month or so). The chip didn't work on boards that only supported 3.5V, the pentium voltage. Newer Intel boards did, if I recall, support the lower voltages to facilitate the last few MMX processors, and those boards did support the K6-2. The boards that wouldn't, if I recall, still supported the C6 winchip and Cyrix chips, because their voltages were ok.
They're capitalistic entities just like corporations. Corrupt? Sure. Unneccessary? Not in the least. Want proof? Look at what the nearest IT guy in an industrial plant makes compared to the non-unionized desk jockey at corporate. One has a nice salary, full pension, life, health, dental, job security, and severance if he ever leaves. The other might have a nice salary.
The problem is people don't THINK. If they did, they'd realize that having a bit of evil on 'our' side is a GOOD thing. Evil is the best thing to fight evil.
Virtually every BIOS in the past 25 years has been a minor derivative of one of two company's software: AMI and Award. That goes for both AMD and Intel motherboards. Minor changes are made to facilitate their use with new hardware configurations, but the fact remains that the bios isn't really a super customized piece of software like you're painting it.
The single best SS7 motherboard for AMD chips for the longest time was, if I recall, an Intel. Nearly every motherboard I owned in that era had a nice shiny Intel chipset onboard. I also recall using Intel motherboards for earlier chips; I believe my AMD 286 had one, as well as my AMD 386 and AMD 486.
Stop making up fictions in order to demonize Intel.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between rhetoric and action, silly.
If you don't even know that, I should kill you and your entire family, everyone you've ever loved, and tear your dreams asunder.
What about businesses? I'd argue it's a workplace health and safety issue where the question becomes "Am I allowed to refuse to work because I don't want to suffer chronic carcinogen exposure?"
Remember, it's not paedophilia if you're just fucking your kids by running up trillions in debt.
"No... Terrorism is a problem because we do not follow Sharia. It's not a matter of foreign policy (besides the fact we don't want all the Israelis driven into the sea). This is a war based on dogma."
Why is it that Christians have murdered Jews in the name of God, but not Scientologists? Why is it that Americans in the south murder black people in the name of God, but few other Christians do (And in fact, some go to Africa to help fight the wretched conditions brought about by conflicts between reigonal governments)? How is it that India can continue to exist, despite having Christians, Muslims, and Hindus living together? Because the choices people make are not based soley on the word of God.
This is part of what Nietzsche meant when he said that "God is dead". People, rather than actually follow the word of God, follow only what they're comfortable with, and where they're uncomfortable with what has been commanded, they will reinterpet what has been said. He thought it was the European man who has killed God, but it is simply human morality changing and overriding divine morality. Happens everywhere.
You're oversimplifying the entire situation into a simple one-liner to lionize yourself to justify your position, but this is not a path to victory. It's only a path to more battle.
The question for you is now simple. Do you want to achieve victory, or only battle? You can fight until the end of time if you wish, or you can take a look at the situation as it actually is, and you can try to determine a path to actual victory against a growing threat, and you can then fight the battles neccessary to win the victory then. It's not glamourous, but the greatest generals and strategists of the past fought battles that weren't flashy and spectactular to look at.
Ignoring innane conspiracy theories, Bush has ordered the deaths of far more innocent people. What was the death count in Iraq? 30k according to Bush in a Q&A session several months ago. How many were soldiers? I think it'd be charitable to say 50%.
I guess we're just talking about the difference between teleological and deontological ethics. Some people look at the guy who ordered a complete red herring of a war against a non-threat based on deliberately misstated intelligence which has resulted in the deaths of about 2000 american soldeiers, thousands of Iraqi soldiers, and thousands of Iraqi civilians, as well as provoking terrorist attacks by citizens in a number of countries slightly higher than a fundamentalist who ordered a sort of unprovoked(If you ignore 50 years of the US playing God in the middle east) attack upon innocent men women and children which took about 2500 lives.
If you're the sort to say that intent drives ethics, then yes, the man who actually intended to directly attack innocent women and children is the worse. However, if you're the sort of person who believes that the results of actions is more important than the intention, then the orders of Bush as the commander in chief are orders of magnitude more unethical.
By reducing an important dialog regarding terrorism, its motives, and the ethical question of what should be done about it, to a bipartisan farce of this vs. that, you will always get the answer wrong, no matter how long you debate.
"This statement is false" is an example. You could say that Republicans say the statement is false, and democrats say the statement is true. Reducing the statement to this, however, makes it impossible to solve. So too will the bipartisan arguement regarding terrorism assure that no matter what answer we come to, it will be the wrong one.
I wonder when people are going to realize that modern laptop batteries are simply difficult to design because of the ridiculous heat involved both in the battery, but also in the chips, which put out more heat but are designed into a thinner and thinner case -- and stop blaming companies when the thin, powerful, long lasting laptop they demand from manufacturers has a problem with fires?
Is that about every laptop manufacturer on the planet yet in the past year or so? Can we finally just accept that you're going to need either less processing power, less battery power, or a bit more bulk for airflow, if you want any sort of promises about safety from any given manufacturer?
Letting yourself get nailed to a board and hoping people will get the point seems like a greater gamble to me.
USB hard drives are roughly the same size as an iPod, and come in sizes much larger for much less money.
That said, I just soldered in a couple RCA jacks into my truck which didn't come with a stereo so I can listen to my Creative Nomad M. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite for saying anything.
"Road improvements etc."
You misspelled war.
Why are hybrid cars considered an "alternative"? They're just replacing a mechanical transmission with a more efficient electrical method, where the torque is turned into electricity, the electricity is stored, then used instead of the direct torque to rotate the wheels. The energy savings come mostly from the fact that you don't need a massive engine to get moving, so you can have a smaller motor running more efficiently for less time.
Calling it an "alternative" is like calling Fuel Injection an "Alternative".
"Oh, you poor dear, you're still reliant on fossil fuels? I use fuel injection. I'm green as a leaf!"
So how are you going to ba accessing ICQ and IRC without a monitor, smart guy?
These aren't PCs. They're hardware platforms for embedded projects -- a hobbyists toy or something a student could use. Don't expect to be chatting on IRC with your gumstick PC quite yet.
You joke now, but just wait until you accumulate the critical mass of water required to achieve a fission reaction. THEN you'll be sorry. ...because you drowned half the solar system. You'll still be sorry though!
Yarr. Indeed, this eyepatch o' mine does make shooting much easier, but steering me galleon is a real yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.
Vey Victus. Suffering to the conquered. Ironic, Now I was the one who was suffering.
What if the person comes up with plausable answers multiple times that fulfil the criteria, but not the correct answer? There lies a problem. Most puzzles are one-trick ponys. Once you get them to give up their secret, the answer falls into place. You can approach the same problem in a dozen different ways and they'll all give you some sort of answer, but only the one is correct.
Personally, my problem solving methodology depends on being able to see as many different possible causes as I can for a problem, then trying to narrow down which solutions will be the most likely to solve the most likely problems. In the end, there's no one answer, but the system can continue to function.
Because it would already be in the firmware. Rom space may be expensive, but taking out superfluous checks from another vendors software is likely to be moreso.
That said, the only reason a motherboard couldn't handle a K6-3 CPU back in the day would have been that the board couldn't regulate down to 2.2V. I too used K6 series' processors for a long time (The last one finally got phased out of my family's hand-me-down computer in the past month or so). The chip didn't work on boards that only supported 3.5V, the pentium voltage. Newer Intel boards did, if I recall, support the lower voltages to facilitate the last few MMX processors, and those boards did support the K6-2. The boards that wouldn't, if I recall, still supported the C6 winchip and Cyrix chips, because their voltages were ok.
Video killed the radio star....and marketing killed the video star. Oops!
Correction: A legal fiction created by Politically correct goons.
Probably a bunch of crackers and Jews. Definitely the Jews. It's impossible to be racist against Jews because they're white, you know.
They're capitalistic entities just like corporations. Corrupt? Sure. Unneccessary? Not in the least. Want proof? Look at what the nearest IT guy in an industrial plant makes compared to the non-unionized desk jockey at corporate. One has a nice salary, full pension, life, health, dental, job security, and severance if he ever leaves. The other might have a nice salary.
The problem is people don't THINK. If they did, they'd realize that having a bit of evil on 'our' side is a GOOD thing. Evil is the best thing to fight evil.
Virtually every BIOS in the past 25 years has been a minor derivative of one of two company's software: AMI and Award. That goes for both AMD and Intel motherboards. Minor changes are made to facilitate their use with new hardware configurations, but the fact remains that the bios isn't really a super customized piece of software like you're painting it.
Jesus, if you want to be unionized so badly, just unionize.
The single best SS7 motherboard for AMD chips for the longest time was, if I recall, an Intel. Nearly every motherboard I owned in that era had a nice shiny Intel chipset onboard. I also recall using Intel motherboards for earlier chips; I believe my AMD 286 had one, as well as my AMD 386 and AMD 486.
Stop making up fictions in order to demonize Intel.
I'm sorry my life isn't worthy of the great RobotRunAmok. I will now be committing suicide to try to make my life interesting to the great you.
(Oh wait. It's an ad-supported free site. Oh well.)