Nothing's stopping the relatives of dead Afghani civilians from holding their own rememberance ceremonies (or whatever you want to call them). In fact, I would think that they have done so already.
However, I have not heard anyone from the United States demanding that the populations of other countries (including our Attackers) hold ceremonies in honor of our dead. It seems that (once again) we are held to a hypocritical double standard. We are morally required to mourn them, yet they don't have to mourn us (in fact, they are permitted to openly celebrate the event!).
I am NOT advocating that other countries should feel sorry for us.
Nor am I saying that Sept. 11th is more important than other global tragedies. Far from it. All I am saying is this:
Everyone is entitled to their own grief.
If an person wants to spend today in mourning for their lost bretheren (BTW this includes many, many non-Americans), then that is their Right.
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. --Gandalf
Having read the article, my main observation is that the author should have watched a few episodes of O'Reilly Factor and Donohue as preparation, rather than memorizing a bunch of meaningless statistics.
In fact, the article is one big anecdote on how unfair the Cable Talkshows are. Well boo hoo. Let's see something posted on here more interesting than some point-headed intellectual's whining!
That said, I agree with all his points about video games (it's called "Grand Theft Auto" for god's sake. Why are all these dumbass parents abdicating responsibility for what media their children consume!? However, Trolls aside, everyone on this site agrees with the author. Let's stop the navel-gazing and move on.
I can almost understand a two-year date format. That MIGHT be an innocent oversight. But reading that usenet thread, I noticed that of the authors were discussing programs that allocated but ONE digit for the year, meaning the program would die after hitting 10 years (!). Either their system's memory resources were limited to the point of absurdity...or the programmers that wrote those apps were just plain st00p1d.
I guess some of those really old systems WERE difficult to program. It almost makes me want to learn FORTRAN programming for a legacy platform just to prove that its possible to do better. having at least 4 digits for a year seems like just common sense. Oh well. I think it might be better to spend time looking for the next Y2K. THAT would make for an interesting topic.
I'm not Java expert, but I bought Teach Yourself Java 2 in 21 Days and found it to be worthless. If you already have computer science/programming knowledge skip that and go straight to books like Java in a Nutshell, Refactoring and Effective Java
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing's stopping the relatives of dead Afghani civilians from holding their own rememberance ceremonies (or whatever you want to call them). In fact, I would think that they have done so already.
However, I have not heard anyone from the United States demanding that the populations of other countries (including our Attackers) hold ceremonies in honor of our dead. It seems that (once again) we are held to a hypocritical double standard. We are morally required to mourn them, yet they don't have to mourn us (in fact, they are permitted to openly celebrate the event!).
I am NOT advocating that other countries should feel sorry for us.
Nor am I saying that Sept. 11th is more important than other global tragedies. Far from it. All I am saying is this:
Everyone is entitled to their own grief.
If an person wants to spend today in mourning for their lost bretheren (BTW this includes many, many non-Americans), then that is their Right.
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
--Gandalf
Having read the article, my main observation is that the author should have watched a few episodes of O'Reilly Factor and Donohue as preparation, rather than memorizing a bunch of meaningless statistics.
In fact, the article is one big anecdote on how unfair the Cable Talkshows are. Well boo hoo. Let's see something posted on here more interesting than some point-headed intellectual's whining!
That said, I agree with all his points about video games (it's called "Grand Theft Auto" for god's sake. Why are all these dumbass parents abdicating responsibility for what media their children consume!? However, Trolls aside, everyone on this site agrees with the author. Let's stop the navel-gazing and move on.
I can almost understand a two-year date format. That MIGHT be an innocent oversight. But reading that usenet thread, I noticed that of the authors were discussing programs that allocated but ONE digit for the year, meaning the program would die after hitting 10 years (!). Either their system's memory resources were limited to the point of absurdity...or the programmers that wrote those apps were just plain st00p1d.
I guess some of those really old systems WERE difficult to program. It almost makes me want to learn FORTRAN programming for a legacy platform just to prove that its possible to do better. having at least 4 digits for a year seems like just common sense. Oh well. I think it might be better to spend time looking for the next Y2K. THAT would make for an interesting topic.
Stored procedures. Learn 'em, love 'em, live 'em. BTW - your link points to an article regarding the Docmd.RunSQL method in Access. ???
I'm not Java expert, but I bought Teach Yourself Java 2 in 21 Days and found it to be worthless. If you already have computer science/programming knowledge skip that and go straight to books like Java in a Nutshell, Refactoring and Effective Java