I got you beat by 9 years. Now if only I had a turntable that could play them. I would like to hear Bing Crosby singing about Hawaii. It was a nice place when I was in the service, but nothing like it was before the war.
Gee, that's funny. In the programming classes I had back in school one of the basic things we learned was error-condition checking. This included checking output for wrong or impossible values, and checking inputs for inappropriate values.
For example if a simple program gave the average of points earned by a group of people, it might ask for the total points, and then the number of people, divide the first number by the second, and give out the answer. What if the user inputs a '0' (zero) for the number of people? If the program doesn't verify that the number is not '0', and it divides by 0, it could crash. That's why you check for errors, and give a warning message, so the program doesn't simply crash.
So, simple error-condition checking is part of the cirriculum. Why doesn't Microsoft seem to think it is important? Granted, the code your are talking about, "input type crash", is not a normal statement, but that is what IE should look for, and simply stop rendering the page, or that section of the page. Why should those three words cause IE to totally shut down every window I have open looking at other websites?
Well, first I have to hold my bottle of Mountain Dew between my legs, because my car doesn't have the Homer Simpson Beverage Holder. Then I have to use the back of my right hand to hold the wheel, while not dropping my Big Mac and hopefully not getting the sauce all over.
Then I use my left hand to hold the phone, while shouting over the sound of the wind, because I have to drive with both front windows open since my AC died. (Is it bad when you turn on the AC, and a smoke cloud comes out of the vent?) When it's time to shift I use my right knee to hold the wheel while moving my right hand to the stick, holding just the top with the side of my hand and my pinky finger. Press the clutch with the left foot and take the car out of gear and go to the next gear. Now comes the tricky part, since I have to have my hand on the stick to hold it in gear, my left foot on the clutch, and my right foot pressing the gas pedal as I ease up on the clutch. Basically, just get it done quickly, and it's over, and I'm in the next gear.
Oh, and for those who would crucify me, I haven't driven a stick since I was a teenager, but the memories came flodding back when ForestGrump asked the question. Oh, for the freedoms offered by a Datsun 510 hatchback, and a long country road.:^)
Don't vote for any politician that will encroach on your freedom, whether it is a democrat, republican, green, libitarian, reform, communist or otherwise. Oops, that just ruled out every politician in our country. But let's just look at the two major parties of the US.
Democrats (also known as liberals and socialists) want to take away the right to bear arms as specifically stated in the US Constitution. They want to take away the right to assemble with persons of your own choice, whether in personal or public settings. They also want to limit the freedom of speech and of press, if you want to say anything pro-life, Christian, family-oriented, racist, sexist, anti-homosexual, anti-Hollywood, or anti-Democrat.
Republicans (also known as conservatives and the religious right) want to take away a person's right to privacy in their own home to prevent consensual 'crimes', to include recreational drug use, sexual activity with a willing adult of the same sex, and gambling. They want to limit the freedom of speech and of press, if you want to say anything pro-choice, anti-christian, feminist, empowering to minorities, homosexual, supporting violence, nudity, profanity, obscenity, etc in movies and songs, or anti-Republican.
I don't see a big difference between either party, they are out for control of your lives to the fullest extent of their power. If only we had a third party candidate we could vote for.
Breaking the law is breaking the law. Would your argument change if speeding was a felony? Would you stop speeding if it was a felony? And specify exactly what Mitnick "stole". From the stories I have read about him, he hacked systems, that's all.
Just like I would never hire a delivery drive who has had a speeding ticket. Just can't trust them. I also don't hire receptionists who have had a speeding ticket. I don't use doctors who have had a speeding ticket. I don't talk to anyone who has ever had a speeding ticket in their entire life, because I have never had one, and that is the standard I expect of everyone around me. Of course I have broken the speed limit, almost every day, and I've been pulled over. But I've never gotten a speeding ticket, so I don't trust people who do.
In case you missed it, I was being sarcastic there. My point is that Mitnick was caught hacking into computers just to hack into computers. In many cases, people gave him access, unthinkingly. He never used it to steal money or trade secrets. He didn't blackmail the companies, or sell their info to competitors or the mafia. So big deal. He hacked some systems. Starting when it was no big thing. For those who say "Hacking is never acceptable", what industry are you in? It's like the websites that get pissed at people for linking to pages in their site, rather than their front page. "You don't have the right to link to our pages, you never asked permission." If a computer is connected to the Internet, or has dial-in access, and someone accesses it, and doesn't cause damage, I couldn't care less. It the computer's owner doesn't like it, he should have put better safeguards in place.
And before the "Should everyone be allowed to walk in your open front door" argument is thrown in, it's no comparison. The proper comparison would be "Should everyone be allowed to stand on the sidewalk in front of your house, and watch you have sex with your supermodel girlfriend while you two are standing in your private house, in the living room, pressed up against the large picture window?" My response would of course be, "They could take video of it and sell it if they wanted. The activity happened in public view. If I was worried about it, I would have closed the curtains to restrict their view. It would be my responsibility to protect my privacy, not theirs."
I think a short period of 17th century european punishment would do a vast amount of good for the us. Just have a 5 year period where every major crime was punishable by death. I'm talking from murder, armed robbery, rape, grand-theft auto, to Enronizing a company for a personal multi-million-dollar gain. Give the convicted one appeal, which could include 50 partsif they want, and if that appeal is rejected, execute the person.
Major guidelines would include these: 1. All cases with possible DNA evidence will have DNA tests performed by independent labs. 2. Insanity, mental-defect, patient off his medicine, and temporary loss of self control are not valid defense arguments. 3. Anyone caught lying or tampering with evidence to aid the prosecutor will face either a 20-year sentence, or death if the person they lied about had already been executed.
On a side note, if the government would just get out of our personal lives, out of our sex lives, and out of our leisure activities, many of the crimes of today would not happen. As I have said before, how many people have been killed lately over a case of Budweiser? Prohibition in the 1920s didn't work, it just made Al Capone rich, cops and judges corrupt, and many people dead. Drug laws now don't work any better, and should be scrapped. Simply prosecute people who kill during a drug deal as a murderer, why worry about the drug deal aspect.
You'll have to excuse Tom, he hasn't had his circus peanuts today, so he's really grouchy. I get that way when I'm jonsing for them too. But what's with the "other 3 people" comment? Tom and I like them, and I was just on the phone with Cindy talking about this, since they are her favorite too. Mary just sent me her daily "Circus Peanut" peom, and then John...wait, I haven't heard from John in two days..oh no, John's dead. Not John, he was the kindest guy I know, as long as he had those circus peanuts. I have to go now. I have to email Mary about this.
but I downloaded a program from Tucows that my 6-yr-old daughter is having fun with. It's called "Mathematics Worksheet Factory Lite", from Schoolhouse Technologies Inc., and it lets you make math homework pages that you can print out and have the kids figure out. There are several options available on it, including a joke, picture, and lines for name, grade, etc.
It lets you do addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, and how you want them laid out. The nicest part is that you can choose what numbers to use for both the first and second numbers. One sheet I made had '10' for the first number, and 1-9 for the second number, to show her how those problems work. She even has it on her own computer now, and will make sheets that she will print out and figure out. Then she colors in the picture.
One last thing is the version. I downloaded version 2 from Tucows at work, and at home I went to the company's website, and downloaded version 3. I prefer the layout of version 2, it's more user friendly I think. Version 3 is like they wanted to copy MS Office, more slick and polished, but things are not as easy to find. The company also has a free word-search creator to download.
So, again, it isn't a kid's website, but they do have free educational software available.
No, you're not thinking deeply enough. It will be how to defend yourself when someone rings your doorbell and runs away, but leaves a buning paper bag of dog poop on your porch.
I read a book back in the 80s or early 90s that took that into consideration. I think it was called "Vacuum Flowers". There was a spherical craft in space, I don't think it was in Earth orbit, but in it's own orbit. It was basically a ghetto district with living spaces built wherever someone decided to build, usually tethered to the living spaces nearby. There was no gravity field to worry about pulling everything down. But any attempt to move the craft would have ripped everything inside apart because the inertia of all the buildings would have broken the flimsy connections between the living spaces, and they would have all crushed up against the inside of the craft.
They had to use a special device that put equal pressure on all of the molecules with the craft, like using a magnetic field almost. It wasn't the most interesting book I've read, but it was certainly original, and worth my time.
The current 'politically correct' phrase of "little people" is so completely asinine that I can't believe no has been shot over it yet. Let's be medically acurate, adult humans that are under a certain height are midgets or dwarfs. The distinction between the two has to do with body proportions, because the genetic anamoly that cause either condition affect parts of the body differently.
"Little people" as a group would include all children, up to about the age of 10, and many teenagers as well. It's not like the term "little children" is referring to midgets and dwarfs who are under the age of 10.
"The most salient explanation for the arrest seems to be a link between the programmer, Maher "Mike" Hawash, and a charitable organization to which he donated a fairly large sum three years ago. The U.S. government has subsequently tagged the charity as having ties to terrorism. "
What hogwash. Since the government hasn't given out any of the classified information they have about this guy, these guys are assuming it is because of a donation to a charity. Did the government arrest everyone that donated to that charity? I doubt it. Maybe the feds have a real link between this guy and terrorist cells. Especially since recently several other Arabs actually confessed that they were planning terrorist training camps in that part of the country.
And enough about whether he is a US citizen or not. The Constitution applies to every person in the US. Civil rights are not conditional based on if you are a citizen or not. But the Supreme Court long ago agreed that civil rights can be based on if someone is a foreign infiltrator. If you forget, nineteen foreign infiltrators brought down the World Trade Center towers. Do you really think those were the only ones in this country?
And for those who think I am in support of a police state, no I am not. I would fight the government if they were coming after me for excercising my constitutional rights. But see, I don't make donations to terrorist organizations, so I know they aren't going to come after me. If I did do that, they would have every right to pick me up. I also don't have dinner with the local mafioso, I don't order large packages from Columbia, and I don't hang out at school grounds with bags of candy in my car. Certain actions, while perfectly legal, are also grounds for investigating people. In this case, with the threat of terrorism very high, maybe this guy is getting what he deserves for whatever activities he is involved in that you and I don't know about.
C'mon mister, when have you ever seen a color photo in a newspaper that is clear enough to give a shit about red-eye to begin with? Glossy magazine ads have clear images, not the front page of the Times.
And as far as the talking heads telling pure fact, few people expect that. Even people that swear by Dan Rather being the twelfth apostle, would link Tom Brokaw with the devil himself. Most people just realize that the news reporters have a bias, even if no one really knows what it is. But with photos, you expect it to be 'real'. You can see what you want in a photo, but you know it's a picture of what really happened. Let the talking heads spin the contents of the photo, but don't mess with what the contents actually are.
The reporter deserved to be fired. Now the next one to think of this will have cause not to.
Anyone else see this post-nuclear (sp?) holocaust film, starring Don Johnson? I just watched it a couple months ago. Definitely worth the price-gouging from Blockbuster. Even made my wife watch the last scene, just to see if she would get it. She did, but wasn't sure if it meant what she thought, I had to tell her "Yes it does mean that what you think happened, happened."
So now when you tell people you like Hudson Hawk, and they make fun of you, you can tell them "But a lot of people on Slashdot like it too, I'm not so weird." And they'll look at you like you have a toenail growing out of your forehead, and quickly move out of your area.
I know this because a month ago I was telling my wife how funny Hudson Hawk really is, and that everyone just didn't get it. Like someone else pointed out, it is like Moonlighting, where Bruce Willis got his big start. Not just funny, but self-parodying, aware that the crazy things in the show/movie don't make since, but you have to work with what is happening anyway. My loving wife gave me the look that meant she thought I was out of my mind, but she loved me anyway. And she still gave me that look after I mentioned Moonlight a few more times, and stuff.
Now I too can say I'm not crazy, many people on Slashdot agree with me. Oh wait, she gives me that look when I mention Slashdot too.
"then commit suicide by trying to fly through the asteroid belt:)"
You're thinking two-dimensionally. Why go through it when we could just tilt the angle slightly (since we're moving the entire planet anyway) and go above it or below it?
We will just have to make sure the Puppeteers don't get mad at us for copying them.
As quoted at snopes.com: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Did he say he "created the Internet"? No. He said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet."
What exactly is the difference in those two phrases? Please analyze both wordings, and tell us what each one says in a purely grammatical sense. Yeah, right, like anyone does that. We hear words, correlate them to ideas we have from other areas, and interpret the meaning from there. This is the important point.
Al Gore knew who would be watching his intreview. There were a lot of people who owed their jobs, salary level, or stock portfolio to the Internet, in one way or another. He knew that he could say he was instrumental in bringing about the proper government support and funding that enabled the Internet to grow as large and all-encompassing as it was. But that doesn't sound nearly as great as saying he was responsible for "creating the Internet." And many people watching would love to reward someone who they thought "created" that wonderful Internet that is making them so much money.
Look at the quote again. ""During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." The first clause is just filler, easily discarded by the average viewer/listener. But everyone noticed the main clause, which was phrased just right. Gore claims that it is accurate because he sponsered several bills that gave funding to the expand the military-only DARPA-net, and that grew into the Internet of today. And us techies know that Gore did nothing to invent the technologies that the Internet is based on. You clutch onto that straw, that he wouldn't say something that 'us techies' could so easily prove false.
But he wasn't talking to the small percentage of techies watching the interview. He was grandstanding for the masses of non-technical people who watch politicians before an election. They have no idea if he 'made' the Internet, or 'created' the Internet, or 'invented' the Internet. But then he says that "I took the initiative in creating the Internet", and all those non-techies hear it as "I created the Internet." Hell, most techies hear it that way, at least the first time. Even you and others who now argue so vehemently that "he didn't say that" probably thought he did say that, until you could see the words in print, analyze exactly what he did say, and realize he isn't taking credit for creating the Internet.
If you think I am blowing hot air, do a little experiment. Print the sentence out, and have someone read it to you. Does it sound, even remotely, like that person is saying they 'created the Internet'? What if Vint Cerf read the sentence to you, would it sound like he meant that he created the Internet? Now read the sentence to a group of people who know nothing about this discussion. Read it to your mother over the phone. Ask them what they think it means. I bet most of them will say it sounds like someone is claiming to have created the Internet. Remember, with politicians, it isn't what they say, it's how they say it, and who hears it.
Slashdot Mirror
I got you beat by 9 years. Now if only I had a turntable that could play them. I would like to hear Bing Crosby singing about Hawaii. It was a nice place when I was in the service, but nothing like it was before the war.
Gee, that's funny. In the programming classes I had back in school one of the basic things we learned was error-condition checking. This included checking output for wrong or impossible values, and checking inputs for inappropriate values.
For example if a simple program gave the average of points earned by a group of people, it might ask for the total points, and then the number of people, divide the first number by the second, and give out the answer. What if the user inputs a '0' (zero) for the number of people? If the program doesn't verify that the number is not '0', and it divides by 0, it could crash. That's why you check for errors, and give a warning message, so the program doesn't simply crash.
So, simple error-condition checking is part of the cirriculum. Why doesn't Microsoft seem to think it is important? Granted, the code your are talking about, "input type crash", is not a normal statement, but that is what IE should look for, and simply stop rendering the page, or that section of the page. Why should those three words cause IE to totally shut down every window I have open looking at other websites?
Well, first I have to hold my bottle of Mountain Dew between my legs, because my car doesn't have the Homer Simpson Beverage Holder. Then I have to use the back of my right hand to hold the wheel, while not dropping my Big Mac and hopefully not getting the sauce all over.
:^)
Then I use my left hand to hold the phone, while shouting over the sound of the wind, because I have to drive with both front windows open since my AC died. (Is it bad when you turn on the AC, and a smoke cloud comes out of the vent?) When it's time to shift I use my right knee to hold the wheel while moving my right hand to the stick, holding just the top with the side of my hand and my pinky finger. Press the clutch with the left foot and take the car out of gear and go to the next gear. Now comes the tricky part, since I have to have my hand on the stick to hold it in gear, my left foot on the clutch, and my right foot pressing the gas pedal as I ease up on the clutch. Basically, just get it done quickly, and it's over, and I'm in the next gear.
Oh, and for those who would crucify me, I haven't driven a stick since I was a teenager, but the memories came flodding back when ForestGrump asked the question. Oh, for the freedoms offered by a Datsun 510 hatchback, and a long country road.
Just postpone your wedding by a week or two. She'll understand.
They're still trying to find an icon of Bender's shiny metal ass.
I don't know if I should report you to the Grammar Nazi or the Spelling Nazi. I'll just forward this to both, and let them argue about jurisdiction.
Don't vote for any politician that will encroach on your freedom, whether it is a democrat, republican, green, libitarian, reform, communist or otherwise. Oops, that just ruled out every politician in our country. But let's just look at the two major parties of the US.
Democrats (also known as liberals and socialists) want to take away the right to bear arms as specifically stated in the US Constitution. They want to take away the right to assemble with persons of your own choice, whether in personal or public settings. They also want to limit the freedom of speech and of press, if you want to say anything pro-life, Christian, family-oriented, racist, sexist, anti-homosexual, anti-Hollywood, or anti-Democrat.
Republicans (also known as conservatives and the religious right) want to take away a person's right to privacy in their own home to prevent consensual 'crimes', to include recreational drug use, sexual activity with a willing adult of the same sex, and gambling. They want to limit the freedom of speech and of press, if you want to say anything pro-choice, anti-christian, feminist, empowering to minorities, homosexual, supporting violence, nudity, profanity, obscenity, etc in movies and songs, or anti-Republican.
I don't see a big difference between either party, they are out for control of your lives to the fullest extent of their power. If only we had a third party candidate we could vote for.
Breaking the law is breaking the law. Would your argument change if speeding was a felony? Would you stop speeding if it was a felony? And specify exactly what Mitnick "stole". From the stories I have read about him, he hacked systems, that's all.
Just like I would never hire a delivery drive who has had a speeding ticket. Just can't trust them. I also don't hire receptionists who have had a speeding ticket. I don't use doctors who have had a speeding ticket. I don't talk to anyone who has ever had a speeding ticket in their entire life, because I have never had one, and that is the standard I expect of everyone around me. Of course I have broken the speed limit, almost every day, and I've been pulled over. But I've never gotten a speeding ticket, so I don't trust people who do.
In case you missed it, I was being sarcastic there. My point is that Mitnick was caught hacking into computers just to hack into computers. In many cases, people gave him access, unthinkingly. He never used it to steal money or trade secrets. He didn't blackmail the companies, or sell their info to competitors or the mafia. So big deal. He hacked some systems. Starting when it was no big thing. For those who say "Hacking is never acceptable", what industry are you in? It's like the websites that get pissed at people for linking to pages in their site, rather than their front page. "You don't have the right to link to our pages, you never asked permission." If a computer is connected to the Internet, or has dial-in access, and someone accesses it, and doesn't cause damage, I couldn't care less. It the computer's owner doesn't like it, he should have put better safeguards in place.
And before the "Should everyone be allowed to walk in your open front door" argument is thrown in, it's no comparison. The proper comparison would be "Should everyone be allowed to stand on the sidewalk in front of your house, and watch you have sex with your supermodel girlfriend while you two are standing in your private house, in the living room, pressed up against the large picture window?" My response would of course be, "They could take video of it and sell it if they wanted. The activity happened in public view. If I was worried about it, I would have closed the curtains to restrict their view. It would be my responsibility to protect my privacy, not theirs."
Hey, it works for the Jedi.
"This is not the resume you are looking for."
"You think I will make an excellent addition to your company."
"You agree that your salary offer was very inadequate for a person of my skills."
I think a short period of 17th century european punishment would do a vast amount of good for the us. Just have a 5 year period where every major crime was punishable by death. I'm talking from murder, armed robbery, rape, grand-theft auto, to Enronizing a company for a personal multi-million-dollar gain. Give the convicted one appeal, which could include 50 partsif they want, and if that appeal is rejected, execute the person.
Major guidelines would include these: 1. All cases with possible DNA evidence will have DNA tests performed by independent labs. 2. Insanity, mental-defect, patient off his medicine, and temporary loss of self control are not valid defense arguments. 3. Anyone caught lying or tampering with evidence to aid the prosecutor will face either a 20-year sentence, or death if the person they lied about had already been executed.
On a side note, if the government would just get out of our personal lives, out of our sex lives, and out of our leisure activities, many of the crimes of today would not happen. As I have said before, how many people have been killed lately over a case of Budweiser? Prohibition in the 1920s didn't work, it just made Al Capone rich, cops and judges corrupt, and many people dead. Drug laws now don't work any better, and should be scrapped. Simply prosecute people who kill during a drug deal as a murderer, why worry about the drug deal aspect.
You'll have to excuse Tom, he hasn't had his circus peanuts today, so he's really grouchy. I get that way when I'm jonsing for them too. But what's with the "other 3 people" comment? Tom and I like them, and I was just on the phone with Cindy talking about this, since they are her favorite too. Mary just sent me her daily "Circus Peanut" peom, and then John...wait, I haven't heard from John in two days..oh no, John's dead. Not John, he was the kindest guy I know, as long as he had those circus peanuts. I have to go now. I have to email Mary about this.
but I downloaded a program from Tucows that my 6-yr-old daughter is having fun with. It's called "Mathematics Worksheet Factory Lite", from Schoolhouse Technologies Inc., and it lets you make math homework pages that you can print out and have the kids figure out. There are several options available on it, including a joke, picture, and lines for name, grade, etc.
It lets you do addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, and how you want them laid out. The nicest part is that you can choose what numbers to use for both the first and second numbers. One sheet I made had '10' for the first number, and 1-9 for the second number, to show her how those problems work. She even has it on her own computer now, and will make sheets that she will print out and figure out. Then she colors in the picture.
One last thing is the version. I downloaded version 2 from Tucows at work, and at home I went to the company's website, and downloaded version 3. I prefer the layout of version 2, it's more user friendly I think. Version 3 is like they wanted to copy MS Office, more slick and polished, but things are not as easy to find. The company also has a free word-search creator to download.
So, again, it isn't a kid's website, but they do have free educational software available.
No, you're not thinking deeply enough. It will be how to defend yourself when someone rings your doorbell and runs away, but leaves a buning paper bag of dog poop on your porch.
I read a book back in the 80s or early 90s that took that into consideration. I think it was called "Vacuum Flowers". There was a spherical craft in space, I don't think it was in Earth orbit, but in it's own orbit. It was basically a ghetto district with living spaces built wherever someone decided to build, usually tethered to the living spaces nearby. There was no gravity field to worry about pulling everything down. But any attempt to move the craft would have ripped everything inside apart because the inertia of all the buildings would have broken the flimsy connections between the living spaces, and they would have all crushed up against the inside of the craft.
They had to use a special device that put equal pressure on all of the molecules with the craft, like using a magnetic field almost. It wasn't the most interesting book I've read, but it was certainly original, and worth my time.
The current 'politically correct' phrase of "little people" is so completely asinine that I can't believe no has been shot over it yet. Let's be medically acurate, adult humans that are under a certain height are midgets or dwarfs. The distinction between the two has to do with body proportions, because the genetic anamoly that cause either condition affect parts of the body differently.
"Little people" as a group would include all children, up to about the age of 10, and many teenagers as well. It's not like the term "little children" is referring to midgets and dwarfs who are under the age of 10.
OK, that's my rant for the day. Thanks.
Me: I don't make donations to terrorist organizations
You: Really now? How do you determine that?
Me: I don't give money to PETA.
"The most salient explanation for the arrest seems to be a link between the programmer, Maher "Mike" Hawash, and a charitable organization to which he donated a fairly large sum three years ago. The U.S. government has subsequently tagged the charity as having ties to terrorism. "
What hogwash. Since the government hasn't given out any of the classified information they have about this guy, these guys are assuming it is because of a donation to a charity. Did the government arrest everyone that donated to that charity? I doubt it. Maybe the feds have a real link between this guy and terrorist cells. Especially since recently several other Arabs actually confessed that they were planning terrorist training camps in that part of the country.
And enough about whether he is a US citizen or not. The Constitution applies to every person in the US. Civil rights are not conditional based on if you are a citizen or not. But the Supreme Court long ago agreed that civil rights can be based on if someone is a foreign infiltrator. If you forget, nineteen foreign infiltrators brought down the World Trade Center towers. Do you really think those were the only ones in this country?
And for those who think I am in support of a police state, no I am not. I would fight the government if they were coming after me for excercising my constitutional rights. But see, I don't make donations to terrorist organizations, so I know they aren't going to come after me. If I did do that, they would have every right to pick me up. I also don't have dinner with the local mafioso, I don't order large packages from Columbia, and I don't hang out at school grounds with bags of candy in my car. Certain actions, while perfectly legal, are also grounds for investigating people. In this case, with the threat of terrorism very high, maybe this guy is getting what he deserves for whatever activities he is involved in that you and I don't know about.
Maybe a 'bad assumption', but it's still true. What college network with P2P software has absolutely no copyright-infringing files?
C'mon mister, when have you ever seen a color photo in a newspaper that is clear enough to give a shit about red-eye to begin with? Glossy magazine ads have clear images, not the front page of the Times.
And as far as the talking heads telling pure fact, few people expect that. Even people that swear by Dan Rather being the twelfth apostle, would link Tom Brokaw with the devil himself. Most people just realize that the news reporters have a bias, even if no one really knows what it is. But with photos, you expect it to be 'real'. You can see what you want in a photo, but you know it's a picture of what really happened. Let the talking heads spin the contents of the photo, but don't mess with what the contents actually are.
The reporter deserved to be fired. Now the next one to think of this will have cause not to.
Anyone else see this post-nuclear (sp?) holocaust film, starring Don Johnson? I just watched it a couple months ago. Definitely worth the price-gouging from Blockbuster. Even made my wife watch the last scene, just to see if she would get it. She did, but wasn't sure if it meant what she thought, I had to tell her "Yes it does mean that what you think happened, happened."
So now when you tell people you like Hudson Hawk, and they make fun of you, you can tell them "But a lot of people on Slashdot like it too, I'm not so weird." And they'll look at you like you have a toenail growing out of your forehead, and quickly move out of your area.
I know this because a month ago I was telling my wife how funny Hudson Hawk really is, and that everyone just didn't get it. Like someone else pointed out, it is like Moonlighting, where Bruce Willis got his big start. Not just funny, but self-parodying, aware that the crazy things in the show/movie don't make since, but you have to work with what is happening anyway. My loving wife gave me the look that meant she thought I was out of my mind, but she loved me anyway. And she still gave me that look after I mentioned Moonlight a few more times, and stuff.
Now I too can say I'm not crazy, many people on Slashdot agree with me. Oh wait, she gives me that look when I mention Slashdot too.
"then commit suicide by trying to fly through the asteroid belt :)"
You're thinking two-dimensionally. Why go through it when we could just tilt the angle slightly (since we're moving the entire planet anyway) and go above it or below it?
We will just have to make sure the Puppeteers don't get mad at us for copying them.
As quoted at snopes.com: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Did he say he "created the Internet"? No. He said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet."
What exactly is the difference in those two phrases? Please analyze both wordings, and tell us what each one says in a purely grammatical sense. Yeah, right, like anyone does that. We hear words, correlate them to ideas we have from other areas, and interpret the meaning from there. This is the important point.
Al Gore knew who would be watching his intreview. There were a lot of people who owed their jobs, salary level, or stock portfolio to the Internet, in one way or another. He knew that he could say he was instrumental in bringing about the proper government support and funding that enabled the Internet to grow as large and all-encompassing as it was. But that doesn't sound nearly as great as saying he was responsible for "creating the Internet." And many people watching would love to reward someone who they thought "created" that wonderful Internet that is making them so much money.
Look at the quote again. ""During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." The first clause is just filler, easily discarded by the average viewer/listener. But everyone noticed the main clause, which was phrased just right. Gore claims that it is accurate because he sponsered several bills that gave funding to the expand the military-only DARPA-net, and that grew into the Internet of today. And us techies know that Gore did nothing to invent the technologies that the Internet is based on. You clutch onto that straw, that he wouldn't say something that 'us techies' could so easily prove false.
But he wasn't talking to the small percentage of techies watching the interview. He was grandstanding for the masses of non-technical people who watch politicians before an election. They have no idea if he 'made' the Internet, or 'created' the Internet, or 'invented' the Internet. But then he says that "I took the initiative in creating the Internet", and all those non-techies hear it as "I created the Internet." Hell, most techies hear it that way, at least the first time. Even you and others who now argue so vehemently that "he didn't say that" probably thought he did say that, until you could see the words in print, analyze exactly what he did say, and realize he isn't taking credit for creating the Internet.
If you think I am blowing hot air, do a little experiment. Print the sentence out, and have someone read it to you. Does it sound, even remotely, like that person is saying they 'created the Internet'? What if Vint Cerf read the sentence to you, would it sound like he meant that he created the Internet? Now read the sentence to a group of people who know nothing about this discussion. Read it to your mother over the phone. Ask them what they think it means. I bet most of them will say it sounds like someone is claiming to have created the Internet. Remember, with politicians, it isn't what they say, it's how they say it, and who hears it.
"Gotta wonder if it work on the IRS auditors though..."
No. Everyone knows that those mind tricks don't work on Toydarians. Only money.