Another thought about Democrats: why are so many techies and scientists Democrat? Do they understand that the people they are voting for are the people most likely to take their livlihoods away for non-techie and non-scientific purposes?
Heh, looking out for them all the way to the bank. Sure, the'll take more home, but they'll end up getting far less in terms of services that they otherwise would. It's still a net loss for them.
Another thought about Democrats: why are so many techies and scientists Democrat? Do they understand that the people they are voting for are the people most likely to take their livlihoods away for non-techie and non-scientific purposes?
Could you be more spesific? It wasn't the democrats who banned stem cell research, you know.
This is a "feature" of MS windows, designed to allow sys-admins to message everyone at in their workgroups or things like that. It's been there since '95 at least, if not longer.
TV ads are part of the programming on TV. If you don't like 'em, just don't watch TV. Why should you be forced not to use your own computer so that someone who has nothing to do with you can't harras you?
The constitution guarentees Freedom of Speech, and the vast majority of speach is considered protected. You can't "as a society" simply decide something is too offensive, it's up to the courts to decide if it's "protected", even if you are offended. And the standards for protection are very low.
I mean, at some point someone might try recompiling the compiler from the begining. And eventualy someone might simply change the compiler code so much that the back door no longer works.
Regardless of your opinion on the above (some of which is highly speculative), this leads us to the vision of a computer technology where not not only electronics states are used for data processing, but magnetic ones as well.
It's not an animation tool, trying to do Homestar Runner in SVG would kill you and be so inefficient that you'd be better off doing the whole thing with animated GIFs.
Flash actually uses Javascript (Their own implementation) as the internal scripting language, although they are planning on moving to a more type safe language (similar to java). That language probably includes all the animation primitives you'd need done in machine code, but there's no reason SVG couldn't include those primitives in their spec as well, eventually.
If Digital sales quickly surpass physical disk sales, perhaps rather then the RIAA suing 12 year olds, RIAA stockholders can start suing the RIAA for fucking up their stock value for so long by resisting digital distribution.
(I know that the RIAA is made up of multiple companies, but they pretty much act as one..)
Maybe if Redhat had been sensible and used KDE like every other distro they wouldn't think the desktop was so imposible for linux!
/flamebait.
Seriously though, Redhat obviously makes a lot more money off the corporate stuff then they do with their desktop versions, but the haven't really been working on their desktop either. Obviously the Lindows people feel differently.
How about taking the intent of those doing the killing into account?
What's the point in that? Dead is dead. An unarmed man with a family to feed, a woman, a child. What difference does it make what was going through their attackers head when it happened? What difference does it make if they were targeted or just ignored?
whilst the Israeli military does not.
Yup, they just ignore them completely and slaughter thousands.
If you fail to properly secure your website, do you lose copyright interest in your information?
What the hell kind of question is that? Of course not.
If I was a (hypothetical) member of the Diebold mailing list, and there were a few e-mails in that bunch that I authored, do I retain copyright on my e-mail?
If you work for a company, then the stuff you produce on your job is owned by your company, basically. And what illegal election fraud conspirator is going to try to publish their stuff anyway? I'm sure diebold is representing the interests of the authors here...
When the media reports on specific items in the memos, do lawyers/judges figure the toothpaste is pretty much out of the tube at this point or is there the possibility of going after reporters?
What difference does it make? You can quote copyrighted materials all you want to, within reason. If a bunch of reporters quote parts of Cryptonomicon in their reviews, I can't scan it and start selling PDFs.
There are lots of interesting questions, here but you didn't ask any. Probably because you have no understanding of copyright at all.
You don't actualy need to take away guns to have a dictatorship. People will fear you if they have a gun or not. Saddamn never did a damn thing about guns and his people never caused him any problems.
That sentence is horribly written both logically and grammatically. Why not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Why have the extra crap at all. Four commas is not good, no matter how you slice it.
It's also logically inconsistent, it begs the question: "Will the people bearing arms lead to a well regulated militia".
The amendment should read "When people are allowed to arm themselves freely, a well regulated militia is formed. Because this is needed to secure a free state, the right of the people shall not be infringed."
Clearly we have the right to bear arms, however the constitution dictates government action, not reality. The begged question, "Will the people having the right to bear arms create a well regulated militia" is not necessarily true. Perhaps the framers didn't realize that.
Certainly, gun laws in Iraq where much more liberal* and less enforced then in the United states. People had assault rifles, mortars, RPGs, and Saddam didn't try to stop them. In fact he encouraged it (especially leading up the war). People who think gun ownership prevents dictatorships is living in a fantasy world.
If you're wondering, my position on the issue is basically "I don't give a fuck" followed by "I wish everyone who ever debated this issue wasn't so damn disingenuous". Maybe that's why I don't give a fuck. What's the point in choosing sides between a bunch of liars.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
This is an English sentence that states two facts. One: A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and Two: the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There is a logical implication that people bearing arms will create a well regulated militia (in fact, it begs the question).
It doesn't matter what the subject of the sentence is, or how garbled or logically inconsistent it is. The constitution does not define reality (and cannot control the development of well regulated militias or our security) but what it does do is restrict the federal (and state) government actions. One action that they cannot take is to infringe the right of the the people to keep and bare arms.
If you disagree with it, see the other parts of the constitution that deal with changing it.
It might be a better idea to contact your state and county governments, who control those things now and make sure they know how you feel before the election.
Where are you getting gun ownership data from? Iraq had much more liberal gun laws (as in, letting people have more access to guns) then the US, and they were not nearly as well enforced. Lots of people had pistols and even Kalishnakov assault rifles. Even today you see people who still have plenty of missiles and mortars and grenades and such.
I know the CPA has been trying to crack down on gun ownership, but I'd be surprised if there is less gun ownership there then here.
(so much for an armed populous preventing dictatorships as the NRA people seem to think)
Slashdot Mirror
Got any links, assertion boy?
Language changes. Deal.
Another thought about Democrats: why are so many techies and scientists Democrat? Do they understand that the people they are voting for are the people most likely to take their livlihoods away for non-techie and non-scientific purposes?
Heh, looking out for them all the way to the bank. Sure, the'll take more home, but they'll end up getting far less in terms of services that they otherwise would. It's still a net loss for them.
Another thought about Democrats: why are so many techies and scientists Democrat? Do they understand that the people they are voting for are the people most likely to take their livlihoods away for non-techie and non-scientific purposes?
Could you be more spesific? It wasn't the democrats who banned stem cell research, you know.
So I guess you're OK with SPAM as well? I mean, if you don't want it, just stop using email.
This is a "feature" of MS windows, designed to allow sys-admins to message everyone at in their workgroups or things like that. It's been there since '95 at least, if not longer.
TV ads are part of the programming on TV. If you don't like 'em, just don't watch TV. Why should you be forced not to use your own computer so that someone who has nothing to do with you can't harras you?
The constitution guarentees Freedom of Speech, and the vast majority of speach is considered protected. You can't "as a society" simply decide something is too offensive, it's up to the courts to decide if it's "protected", even if you are offended. And the standards for protection are very low.
That's like saying the entire email system is broken. Well, actualy the entire email system pretty much is broken, now that I think about it...
If they arn't running as root, they won't let you do what they want. Unless there is a local exploit....
I mean, at some point someone might try recompiling the compiler from the begining. And eventualy someone might simply change the compiler code so much that the back door no longer works.
Regardless of your opinion on the above (some of which is highly speculative), this leads us to the vision of a computer technology where not not only electronics states are used for data processing, but magnetic ones as well.
Magnetic feilds come from electrons.
It's not an animation tool, trying to do Homestar Runner in SVG would kill you and be so inefficient that you'd be better off doing the whole thing with animated GIFs.
Flash actually uses Javascript (Their own implementation) as the internal scripting language, although they are planning on moving to a more type safe language (similar to java). That language probably includes all the animation primitives you'd need done in machine code, but there's no reason SVG couldn't include those primitives in their spec as well, eventually.
I AM MRS. HAJIAH HASSAN AHMED, THE WIFE OF LATE CHIEF ALHAJI HASSAN AHMED...I SEEK IN CONFIDENCE THAT YOU ASSIST ME TO INVEST THIS US$34,000,000 ...
Nigerians don't have Arabic names. If you're going to make fun of a people, you should at least try not to look like a jackass!
If Digital sales quickly surpass physical disk sales, perhaps rather then the RIAA suing 12 year olds, RIAA stockholders can start suing the RIAA for fucking up their stock value for so long by resisting digital distribution.
(I know that the RIAA is made up of multiple companies, but they pretty much act as one..)
Maybe if Redhat had been sensible and used KDE like every other distro they wouldn't think the desktop was so imposible for linux!
/flamebait.
Seriously though, Redhat obviously makes a lot more money off the corporate stuff then they do with their desktop versions, but the haven't really been working on their desktop either. Obviously the Lindows people feel differently.
How about taking the intent of those doing the killing into account?
What's the point in that? Dead is dead. An unarmed man with a family to feed, a woman, a child. What difference does it make what was going through their attackers head when it happened? What difference does it make if they were targeted or just ignored?
whilst the Israeli military does not.
Yup, they just ignore them completely and slaughter thousands.
If you fail to properly secure your website, do you lose copyright interest in your information?
What the hell kind of question is that? Of course not.
If I was a (hypothetical) member of the Diebold mailing list, and there were a few e-mails in that bunch that I authored, do I retain copyright on my e-mail?
If you work for a company, then the stuff you produce on your job is owned by your company, basically. And what illegal election fraud conspirator is going to try to publish their stuff anyway? I'm sure diebold is representing the interests of the authors here...
When the media reports on specific items in the memos, do lawyers/judges figure the toothpaste is pretty much out of the tube at this point or is there the possibility of going after reporters?
What difference does it make? You can quote copyrighted materials all you want to, within reason. If a bunch of reporters quote parts of Cryptonomicon in their reviews, I can't scan it and start selling PDFs.
There are lots of interesting questions, here but you didn't ask any. Probably because you have no understanding of copyright at all.
Dunno if you were around, anyway it was eventualy ruled that laws cannot be copyrighted, and those works were copyrighted in error.
You don't actualy need to take away guns to have a dictatorship. People will fear you if they have a gun or not. Saddamn never did a damn thing about guns and his people never caused him any problems.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, by "liberal" I mean the correct use of the word, not the useage of MORONS. (which is liberal = democrat/progressive)
That sentence is horribly written both logically and grammatically. Why not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Why have the extra crap at all. Four commas is not good, no matter how you slice it.
It's also logically inconsistent, it begs the question: "Will the people bearing arms lead to a well regulated militia".
The amendment should read "When people are allowed to arm themselves freely, a well regulated militia is formed. Because this is needed to secure a free state, the right of the people shall not be infringed."
Clearly we have the right to bear arms, however the constitution dictates government action, not reality. The begged question, "Will the people having the right to bear arms create a well regulated militia" is not necessarily true. Perhaps the framers didn't realize that.
Certainly, gun laws in Iraq where much more liberal* and less enforced then in the United states. People had assault rifles, mortars, RPGs, and Saddam didn't try to stop them. In fact he encouraged it (especially leading up the war). People who think gun ownership prevents dictatorships is living in a fantasy world.
If you're wondering, my position on the issue is basically "I don't give a fuck" followed by "I wish everyone who ever debated this issue wasn't so damn disingenuous". Maybe that's why I don't give a fuck. What's the point in choosing sides between a bunch of liars.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
This is an English sentence that states two facts. One: A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and Two: the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There is a logical implication that people bearing arms will create a well regulated militia (in fact, it begs the question).
It doesn't matter what the subject of the sentence is, or how garbled or logically inconsistent it is. The constitution does not define reality (and cannot control the development of well regulated militias or our security) but what it does do is restrict the federal (and state) government actions. One action that they cannot take is to infringe the right of the the people to keep and bare arms.
If you disagree with it, see the other parts of the constitution that deal with changing it.
It might be a better idea to contact your state and county governments, who control those things now and make sure they know how you feel before the election.
Where are you getting gun ownership data from? Iraq had much more liberal gun laws (as in, letting people have more access to guns) then the US, and they were not nearly as well enforced. Lots of people had pistols and even Kalishnakov assault rifles. Even today you see people who still have plenty of missiles and mortars and grenades and such.
I know the CPA has been trying to crack down on gun ownership, but I'd be surprised if there is less gun ownership there then here.
(so much for an armed populous preventing dictatorships as the NRA people seem to think)