So your system relies on INCREASING the world's population?
It helps, but it's not strictly required.
How the hell do you expect to get rich when your job pays so little you can't afford to pick yourself back up if you get ill?
As I keep trying to tell you, CREATE NEW BUSINESSES! Start your own if you can. The big problem, especially outside of America and a handful of other nations, is that governments make it insanely difficult to start new businesses. Many governments make you prove that there's a "need" for your new company. Many take months, even years to process the paperwork, unless you pay bribes. Bad government is the #1 poverty creator.
There is a limit to how much and how quickly any market can grow. One of the main problems I have with unfettered capitalism is that this never seems to be recognised. Any system relying on continual growth eventually fails, and in this case it would take nations or in a global economy the world with it.
Population growth helps feed market growth. If we run out of room for population growth, THEN we're in trouble. We're no where near that here in America, our goofy housing market notwithstanding. I would like to see us figure out how to expand off-world but that's a topic for another thread.
Problem is those who stand to gain most from the capitalist system are those who are rich and in power. It's in their best interest to ignore problems like unsustainable growth and prattle on about free markets because while the system is working they get richer and fatter.
Not true. The people who stand to gain the most are the ones who are not rich yet. The already rich can prattle on about how much they "care" about the little guy while they frustrate the entrepreneurial class that could unseat them. See the Kennedy clan, Warren Buffet, George Soros, heck even Bill Gates, all Democrats or worse. The Left is extremely well represented by the very rich. Big business political funding patterns bear this out. Small businessmen are overwhelmingly Republican or Libertarian. Cutting tax and regulatory complexity for small businesses is the best thing you can do for the economy.
So if you say "here do this work, otherwise you'll end up poor and starving" isn't enslavement?
All you can do is grow the economy as quickly as possible so that competition for labor will intensify. Socialist-style "you WILL pay this much for labor, and you can't do this and this and this..." breeds weakness and stagnation. Witness France. Thus why I said: make it as easy as possible for people to start new businesses, small businesses in particular.
Offering someone a job, even at what you consider to be a crappy wage, isn't enslavement.
It isn't necessarily a bright idea either. A hefty chunk of the really smart people overseas tend to emigrate to where they'll get paid nice wages. Managing projects on the other side of the world, through culture and time-zone barriers, isn't very easy. Clueless PHB types at big companies are torching resources by following this outsourcing fad but it's very difficult to outright sink a huge corporate ship, short of pulling an Enron. Our clue^H^H^H^Hfearless MBAs are trying though.
What we should do is make it as easy as possible to start and run businesses. Pass the Flat Tax so we won't have to waste so much time and money figuring out how to comply with the tax code. Heck, that step alone would give a huge boost to small businesses who can't afford platoons of tax attorneys and accountants (and "donations" to Congressmen to encourage the writing of favorable tax loopholes). Tort reform would be nice too.
Make it easier to start businesses and the dumb ones won't be able to stay in business so long.
C'mon, there has to be someone in Hollywood smart enough to figure out that copy protection this draconian is going to seriously encourage cracking? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to do everything possible to make it easier for their paying customers to get to their content rather than making it more irritating, unreliable, and expensive?
Oh, right. Oh well, not much worth watching anyhow.
I got bit by that too. I bought that 6200 for an old Celeron slot 1 CPU in a 440BX chipset board and the card was keyed differently so it didn't fit at all. I then bought a 5200 card, which did fit, but the machine wouldn't boot. GeForce 4-series cards are fine though.
Get a Zalman VF700-AlCu to replace your stock cooling. You'll sacrifice a card slot but it works very, very well. The -Cu version is considerably heavier and just isn't needed unless you're into serious overclocking (in which case you should be thinking about liquid cooling).
For people who haven't bought cards yet, pick one with a 60mm fan instead of the reference 40mm fans. MUCH quieter. I went with Leadtek.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasises the uncertainties he asserts are present in the climate change issue [9]. Furthermore, he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
"The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
So China is in a separate signatory class, which doesn't appear to be all that different from not signing at all as I had mistakenly thought. It's also possible that the pollutants they produce tend to be more heavily weighted to sulfur, etc. than CO2 and are not covered by Kyoto, though I'd argue those pollutants are a LOT more harmful than CO2 (which I'm still not convinced really is a problem). I'd take any official Chinese government figures with a large pinch of salt and given their rapid economic growth they probably don't know anyhow.
America also has huge expanses of forests, etc. that absorb CO2. Environmentalists call the South American rainforests "the Earth's lungs." I see little reason to excluse North America's forests from the same category.
A "7% decrease over 20 years" may seem reasonable until you remember that we're letting in well over 1 million legal immigrants per year, plus God knows how many illegals. If the trend holds our population is going to be a lot larger in 2025 while Europe... not so much.
There are two major things we could do to be more efficient energy users: build nuclear power plants, and allow for higher-density development (all those new residents need housing, y'know). Here in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor (the Berkeley of the Midwest) there's heavy opposition to both, though they're starting to cave on high-density development a bit. It's nice to see the dissent within the Left building but if the modding down of my previous post is any indication the Left is still ridiculously intolerant of the "politically incorrect". (Thanks to the folks who modded me up to counterweight that.)
Well, yeah. If Kyoto were a serious plan it'd include China, India, Brazil, etc., but it doesn't. It also just happens to be that America, with its relatively low population density combined with having the most developed economy has the highest per capita energy needs. If you wanted to knock the American economy down a peg or two then convincing us that Kyoto is a good idea is a good way to do it. But first you have to convince us that the global warming and cooling trends that have been happening since the beginning of recorded history are changing due to some man-made influence.
And the enviromentalists won't let us build nuclear power plants to replace coal-fired ones, which is sheer idiocy. President Bush is working on fixing that.
And then I'd have you check the air quality in China, which is a lot worse than it is in America. As they get wealthier I expect that situation to improve (they'll have the resources to deal with such quality-of-life issues), but why isn't anyone pressuring the ChiComs to abide by the Kyoto protocols and clean up their neighborhood now?
If you want Linux compatibility, you want nVidia. Yes, nVidia's drivers are closed-source, but they're at the same level as their Windows drivers, right down to the overclocking controls.
If you want a fanless, low-power GPU that can also do light gaming, get a GeForce 6200 with as much onboard RAM as you can find (ignore the TC "TurboCache" crap).
If you want a midrange, not-too-power-hungry card, get the 6600GT. This is my favorite card.
If you need a high-end GPU, get a 7800GT. If you have money to burn, get the GTX version. Check to make sure your power supply is up to snuff (Seasonic S12 series is my favorite, highest efficiency I've found), especially if you did something silly like buy an Intel P4. If you can afford one of these you can afford a proper AMD 64-bit processor to go with it.
There, everything you need to know. The 6200 was a pleasant surprise to me. I put one in my parents' Shuttle SFF box (Athlon 64 3000+), replacing a Ti4200, and the lower power consumption was enough for the main system fan to slow down to its minimum 1000RPM most of the time. It's still good enough to play UT2004 Demo at full detail at 1280x1024 res.
This was likely done with IBM's approval. AMD and IBM recently extended their chip development cooperation agreement. I'd sooner expect IBM to buy AMD than sue them but even that's not all that likely.
Microsoft, a few days ago: "Worms are coming. Here's the patch. Secure your systems."
NYT/CNN/ABC: "Yawn. We don't see any worms. Stop trying to scare us. It's acceptable to lose a few LANs so we don't have our right to pr0n infringed, or something."
Today: Worm hits.
NYT/CNN/ABC: "It's Karl Rove's fault!"
FOX: "Our networks are fine. Who's the dumbass now?"
Microsoft: "Good thing people too stupid to run Windows Update are also too stupid to run Linux."
Imagine having to view a short ad before full access is granted
No need. Google's existing ad system is a cash cow already. Getting more people online means more people stumbling across their ads means more $, and if there's a direct path from their ad servers to the enduser, so much the better.
They could make those ads a bit more targeted with an authentication system. Login with your GMail account before proceeding? Would you like to do a Google search while you're at it? Maybe make the bandwidth limits for nonauthenticated users a bit tighter (64Kbps?) instead so software other than web browsers can use the service prior to the user firing up a browser. Maybe that's what you had in mind, now that I reread your message.
Upping the bandwidth limits for paying users is probably a given.
Of course, the whole idea of a nationwide Google WiFi system is probably someone's hallucination anyhow. WiFi is too short range and WiMAX is vaporware until I see a finished working system.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Let's say we want FTTH Internet service. Guess what, that means ripping out the old "monopoly" copper network or building around it. The existing telcos and cable companies have the advantage of being already there and financial might but they're not invincible, especially if they're incompetent and especially if we aren't foolish enough to allow the extension of their legal monopoly to data networks (which I don't see happening). Streamlining the right-of-way regs for laying new cable would be a good use of federal legislation; heck, there have been far worse abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause. (IANAL, but I'm guessing the feds would claim rights under the ICC to justify such a law.)
And then there's wireless...
Remember, the cable companies built their networks from scratch, what, 20 years ago, give or take? Before then there was no Comcast/etc. It could be done again with data. Just don't grant legal monopolies this time!
You want a better network than the telcos and cable companies provide? Build one. Roll out new FTTH. Or wireless. Or carrier pigeon. Whatever. This is the Internet, a network of networks. We can build more than one.
Don't force another company that spent $millions or $billions on their network to "share" with their competitors at government-dictated rates. The expense is in the network, not the backend and marketing layers. I wouldn't spend $gigabucks building new plant if I knew the government was going to force me to hand it over to competitors either.
The NRA's point is that gun-control laws applied to all citizens are only effective against law-abiding citizens. Criminals (felons), who aren't allowed to own firearms to begin with, aren't going to obey the new laws any more than they obeyed the old ones.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party used Germany's existing gun registration laws, selectively enforced, to pave the way for the Holocost. They didn't have to make additional laws until late in the game. The lesson here is to distrust politicians who want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Giving the government a handy list of who to target is considered Bad.
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
Orwell is respected by the Right, his socialist credentials notwithstanding, because he wasn't a Useful Idiot.
Clevo D900K. It's an update of the Clevo D470K w/Radeon 9700 that various vendors have been selling under their own brands (GamePC, Sager, etc). No Turion, since it's Socket 939 (the D470K can take Turions), but with AMD's excellent power management that's not too big a deal in a behemoth like this. Definitely go with an Athlon 64 X2 dualcore CPU.
Yeah, gotta watch out for those Nazi book burners. Next thing you know they'll take your guns away and then the real trouble begins. Oh, wait...
You do know that Nazi is short for National Socialist Workers' Party, right?
Geeze, get a grip. If this really were a Nazi police state, would you have the cajones to say anything about it in public? Would the gutless wonders in Hollywood invest $millions producing a movie that you think matches the voices in your head?
Pacifism and the War. Quite a few other essays by Orwell are available on that site.
From the essay: Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
The ammount of therory in CS is what is killing these programs. What is needed is job training.
I used to think that too, but I eventually figured out my professors' point. University is for learning things you aren't likely to teach yourself. Applied stuff is relatively easy to learn on your own or on the job. Theory isn't.
Now, using a broad definition of the word theory, courses do need to do a better job of keeping up with current CompSci practices. Design patterns, testing, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
So your system relies on INCREASING the world's population?
It helps, but it's not strictly required.
How the hell do you expect to get rich when your job pays so little you can't afford to pick yourself back up if you get ill?
As I keep trying to tell you, CREATE NEW BUSINESSES! Start your own if you can. The big problem, especially outside of America and a handful of other nations, is that governments make it insanely difficult to start new businesses. Many governments make you prove that there's a "need" for your new company. Many take months, even years to process the paperwork, unless you pay bribes. Bad government is the #1 poverty creator.
Just out of curiosity, what nation are you from?
There is a limit to how much and how quickly any market can grow. One of the main problems I have with unfettered capitalism is that this never seems to be recognised. Any system relying on continual growth eventually fails, and in this case it would take nations or in a global economy the world with it.
Population growth helps feed market growth. If we run out of room for population growth, THEN we're in trouble. We're no where near that here in America, our goofy housing market notwithstanding. I would like to see us figure out how to expand off-world but that's a topic for another thread.
Problem is those who stand to gain most from the capitalist system are those who are rich and in power. It's in their best interest to ignore problems like unsustainable growth and prattle on about free markets because while the system is working they get richer and fatter.
Not true. The people who stand to gain the most are the ones who are not rich yet. The already rich can prattle on about how much they "care" about the little guy while they frustrate the entrepreneurial class that could unseat them. See the Kennedy clan, Warren Buffet, George Soros, heck even Bill Gates, all Democrats or worse. The Left is extremely well represented by the very rich. Big business political funding patterns bear this out. Small businessmen are overwhelmingly Republican or Libertarian. Cutting tax and regulatory complexity for small businesses is the best thing you can do for the economy.
So if you say "here do this work, otherwise you'll end up poor and starving" isn't enslavement?
All you can do is grow the economy as quickly as possible so that competition for labor will intensify. Socialist-style "you WILL pay this much for labor, and you can't do this and this and this..." breeds weakness and stagnation. Witness France. Thus why I said: make it as easy as possible for people to start new businesses, small businesses in particular.
Offering someone a job, even at what you consider to be a crappy wage, isn't enslavement.
It isn't necessarily a bright idea either. A hefty chunk of the really smart people overseas tend to emigrate to where they'll get paid nice wages. Managing projects on the other side of the world, through culture and time-zone barriers, isn't very easy. Clueless PHB types at big companies are torching resources by following this outsourcing fad but it's very difficult to outright sink a huge corporate ship, short of pulling an Enron. Our clue^H^H^H^Hfearless MBAs are trying though.
What we should do is make it as easy as possible to start and run businesses. Pass the Flat Tax so we won't have to waste so much time and money figuring out how to comply with the tax code. Heck, that step alone would give a huge boost to small businesses who can't afford platoons of tax attorneys and accountants (and "donations" to Congressmen to encourage the writing of favorable tax loopholes). Tort reform would be nice too.
Make it easier to start businesses and the dumb ones won't be able to stay in business so long.
..until it shows up on Bittorrent an hour later.
C'mon, there has to be someone in Hollywood smart enough to figure out that copy protection this draconian is going to seriously encourage cracking? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to do everything possible to make it easier for their paying customers to get to their content rather than making it more irritating, unreliable, and expensive?
Oh, right. Oh well, not much worth watching anyhow.
Ah, sorry. His reply was filtered out by my +2 moderation filter so it looked like you were replying to my post.
See here. Intel P4's burn a LOT more power than AMD chips. They place a far greater demand on your power supply (and your electric bill).
/. ID unless you know what you're doing ;-).
Never argue technology with a 4-digit
I got bit by that too. I bought that 6200 for an old Celeron slot 1 CPU in a 440BX chipset board and the card was keyed differently so it didn't fit at all. I then bought a 5200 card, which did fit, but the machine wouldn't boot. GeForce 4-series cards are fine though.
Get a Zalman VF700-AlCu to replace your stock cooling. You'll sacrifice a card slot but it works very, very well. The -Cu version is considerably heavier and just isn't needed unless you're into serious overclocking (in which case you should be thinking about liquid cooling).
For people who haven't bought cards yet, pick one with a 60mm fan instead of the reference 40mm fans. MUCH quieter. I went with Leadtek.
From another Wikipedia page:
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasises the uncertainties he asserts are present in the climate change issue [9]. Furthermore, he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
"The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
So China is in a separate signatory class, which doesn't appear to be all that different from not signing at all as I had mistakenly thought. It's also possible that the pollutants they produce tend to be more heavily weighted to sulfur, etc. than CO2 and are not covered by Kyoto, though I'd argue those pollutants are a LOT more harmful than CO2 (which I'm still not convinced really is a problem). I'd take any official Chinese government figures with a large pinch of salt and given their rapid economic growth they probably don't know anyhow.
America also has huge expanses of forests, etc. that absorb CO2. Environmentalists call the South American rainforests "the Earth's lungs." I see little reason to excluse North America's forests from the same category.
A "7% decrease over 20 years" may seem reasonable until you remember that we're letting in well over 1 million legal immigrants per year, plus God knows how many illegals. If the trend holds our population is going to be a lot larger in 2025 while Europe... not so much.
There are two major things we could do to be more efficient energy users: build nuclear power plants, and allow for higher-density development (all those new residents need housing, y'know). Here in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor (the Berkeley of the Midwest) there's heavy opposition to both, though they're starting to cave on high-density development a bit. It's nice to see the dissent within the Left building but if the modding down of my previous post is any indication the Left is still ridiculously intolerant of the "politically incorrect". (Thanks to the folks who modded me up to counterweight that.)
"kyoto a bad plan" => american
Well, yeah. If Kyoto were a serious plan it'd include China, India, Brazil, etc., but it doesn't. It also just happens to be that America, with its relatively low population density combined with having the most developed economy has the highest per capita energy needs. If you wanted to knock the American economy down a peg or two then convincing us that Kyoto is a good idea is a good way to do it. But first you have to convince us that the global warming and cooling trends that have been happening since the beginning of recorded history are changing due to some man-made influence.
And the enviromentalists won't let us build nuclear power plants to replace coal-fired ones, which is sheer idiocy. President Bush is working on fixing that.
And then I'd have you check the air quality in China, which is a lot worse than it is in America. As they get wealthier I expect that situation to improve (they'll have the resources to deal with such quality-of-life issues), but why isn't anyone pressuring the ChiComs to abide by the Kyoto protocols and clean up their neighborhood now?
If you want Linux compatibility, you want nVidia. Yes, nVidia's drivers are closed-source, but they're at the same level as their Windows drivers, right down to the overclocking controls.
If you want a fanless, low-power GPU that can also do light gaming, get a GeForce 6200 with as much onboard RAM as you can find (ignore the TC "TurboCache" crap).
If you want a midrange, not-too-power-hungry card, get the 6600GT. This is my favorite card.
If you need a high-end GPU, get a 7800GT. If you have money to burn, get the GTX version. Check to make sure your power supply is up to snuff (Seasonic S12 series is my favorite, highest efficiency I've found), especially if you did something silly like buy an Intel P4. If you can afford one of these you can afford a proper AMD 64-bit processor to go with it.
There, everything you need to know. The 6200 was a pleasant surprise to me. I put one in my parents' Shuttle SFF box (Athlon 64 3000+), replacing a Ti4200, and the lower power consumption was enough for the main system fan to slow down to its minimum 1000RPM most of the time. It's still good enough to play UT2004 Demo at full detail at 1280x1024 res.
This was likely done with IBM's approval. AMD and IBM recently extended their chip development cooperation agreement. I'd sooner expect IBM to buy AMD than sue them but even that's not all that likely.
Microsoft, a few days ago: "Worms are coming. Here's the patch. Secure your systems."
NYT/CNN/ABC: "Yawn. We don't see any worms. Stop trying to scare us. It's acceptable to lose a few LANs so we don't have our right to pr0n infringed, or something."
Today: Worm hits.
NYT/CNN/ABC: "It's Karl Rove's fault!"
FOX: "Our networks are fine. Who's the dumbass now?"
Microsoft: "Good thing people too stupid to run Windows Update are also too stupid to run Linux."
Imagine having to view a short ad before full access is granted
No need. Google's existing ad system is a cash cow already. Getting more people online means more people stumbling across their ads means more $, and if there's a direct path from their ad servers to the enduser, so much the better.
They could make those ads a bit more targeted with an authentication system. Login with your GMail account before proceeding? Would you like to do a Google search while you're at it? Maybe make the bandwidth limits for nonauthenticated users a bit tighter (64Kbps?) instead so software other than web browsers can use the service prior to the user firing up a browser. Maybe that's what you had in mind, now that I reread your message.
Upping the bandwidth limits for paying users is probably a given.
Of course, the whole idea of a nationwide Google WiFi system is probably someone's hallucination anyhow. WiFi is too short range and WiMAX is vaporware until I see a finished working system.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Let's say we want FTTH Internet service. Guess what, that means ripping out the old "monopoly" copper network or building around it. The existing telcos and cable companies have the advantage of being already there and financial might but they're not invincible, especially if they're incompetent and especially if we aren't foolish enough to allow the extension of their legal monopoly to data networks (which I don't see happening). Streamlining the right-of-way regs for laying new cable would be a good use of federal legislation; heck, there have been far worse abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause. (IANAL, but I'm guessing the feds would claim rights under the ICC to justify such a law.)
And then there's wireless...
Remember, the cable companies built their networks from scratch, what, 20 years ago, give or take? Before then there was no Comcast/etc. It could be done again with data. Just don't grant legal monopolies this time!
You want a better network than the telcos and cable companies provide? Build one. Roll out new FTTH. Or wireless. Or carrier pigeon. Whatever. This is the Internet, a network of networks. We can build more than one.
Don't force another company that spent $millions or $billions on their network to "share" with their competitors at government-dictated rates. The expense is in the network, not the backend and marketing layers. I wouldn't spend $gigabucks building new plant if I knew the government was going to force me to hand it over to competitors either.
Readers should check out Christopher Hitchens, that old Trotskyist, who is another great writer that isn't a "Useful Idiot", and calls it like it is.
Absolutely! Here's a good starting point.
The NRA's point is that gun-control laws applied to all citizens are only effective against law-abiding citizens. Criminals (felons), who aren't allowed to own firearms to begin with, aren't going to obey the new laws any more than they obeyed the old ones.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party used Germany's existing gun registration laws, selectively enforced, to pave the way for the Holocost. They didn't have to make additional laws until late in the game. The lesson here is to distrust politicians who want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Giving the government a handy list of who to target is considered Bad.
From Orwell's letter Pacifism and the War:
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
Orwell is respected by the Right, his socialist credentials notwithstanding, because he wasn't a Useful Idiot.
Clevo D900K. It's an update of the Clevo D470K w/Radeon 9700 that various vendors have been selling under their own brands (GamePC, Sager, etc). No Turion, since it's Socket 939 (the D470K can take Turions), but with AMD's excellent power management that's not too big a deal in a behemoth like this. Definitely go with an Athlon 64 X2 dualcore CPU.
Or it's because it's been replaced with the Acer Ferrari 4000, which is a much nicer design.
Though if you're looking for Overkill, you can't beat the Clevo D900K series.
Yeah, gotta watch out for those Nazi book burners. Next thing you know they'll take your guns away and then the real trouble begins. Oh, wait...
You do know that Nazi is short for National Socialist Workers' Party, right?
Geeze, get a grip. If this really were a Nazi police state, would you have the cajones to say anything about it in public? Would the gutless wonders in Hollywood invest $millions producing a movie that you think matches the voices in your head?
Pacifism and the War. Quite a few other essays by Orwell are available on that site.
From the essay:
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
The ammount of therory in CS is what is killing these programs. What is needed is job training.
I used to think that too, but I eventually figured out my professors' point. University is for learning things you aren't likely to teach yourself. Applied stuff is relatively easy to learn on your own or on the job. Theory isn't.
Now, using a broad definition of the word theory, courses do need to do a better job of keeping up with current CompSci practices. Design patterns, testing, etc.