Bah. If you're going to really nitpick grammar, you'd know that there isn't a masculine plural pronoun. You can't really change from plural to singular in mid sentence ('anyone/their' -> 'his') so you have to keep using 'their' even if you're talking about a group that is exclusively male.
I'm just a dumb American with asthma, but my insurance and medical bills (including prescriptions) over the last 5 years have averaged about $1000 / year, which works out to less than 1.5% of my annual income
Okay, now what if you had also had a car accident 5 years ago and had also spent the last 5 years having twice-weekly physiotherapy and reconstructive surgery? I seriously doubt that you could manage that for $1000 a year...
I don't, however, think that waving the Magical Socialism Wand at the American government will make it better overnight. The main problem it suffers from, in my opinion, is that it's too monolithic and centralised. In the case of the British government, the various tasks of state (Health, Education, etc) are looked after by their respective minister. And, until recently, the Prime Minister pretty much left them to it and didn't meddle. So it's more like a dozen smaller governments all coordinated from Number 10.
I would be significantly more likely to trust the Israeli intelligence services than the American...
... I'm aware that the Israelis were very happy to nod in agreement with everything we said about Iraq--whether that was because they believed it or because they just wanted us to do it is up for debate...
So, by your own admission, they are not to be trusted at all then? If, as you say, they agreed even though they knew what they were saying to be inaccurate, in order to further their own agenda, then I question how you or anyone else can trust a word they say.
Just as an example, from the other foot. The very first thing we did during the siege of Fallujah was take out the hospitals... We siezed the main hospital, bombed a smaller one flat, and shot up half a dozen ambulances.
Now, I'm not certain of this, but I believe that this just/might/ have been a war crime. You talk of the insurgents, so I presume you are American? You say "we", did nobody object to this?
I may be missing the "usability" point here, but just how is this a big deal? I don't think it really makes that mush difference what the name is, as people pay much more attention to the position a link is in the menu and the icon rather than its actual name. Not to mention that once someone uses it once or twice, they very quickly learn exactly what it is and what it does.
Furthermore, I realise that this is aimed at people who have absolutely no experience in either computers in general and at least linux specifically, but a name like "xine" should not be an impediment to progress. For instance, any distro worth anything ought to be set up with some useful file associations. Most people play a movie or mp3 by clicking on/it/ rather than opening a player and then opening the file within it.
Not to be insulting, because your post makes a lot of sense, but I find it slightly concerning that you claim to be a "buddist" but cannot even spell buddhism or muslim or even testament properly. Maybe these are the accepted spellings in your part of the world - though you sound like you come from america - but I have never come across these alternate spellings before...
I do hope that for the sakes of a lot of people in the world that they are wrong in their religious beliefs because if they are right quite a few are going to burn. I can't see God taking kindly to raping small boys and murdering people for financial gain
This does not seem like a very buddhist sentiment to me, to be honest. I thought it was only for god to judge? I like to think that I try and follow the buddhist philosophy as much as possible too, and I know that it does not do us any good to spend our days judging others.
The language would be even further impoverished if not for us damn yankees
Erm, that is a pretty amusing statement. I don't mean to be offensive, but round these parts it is pretty much "common knowledge" that the english language is dying a slow and horribly painful death at the hands of the Americans. Now, whether or not this is a justified view, I shall leave as a subject for discussion.
As for the rest of your post, I heartily agree with everything you said. I mourn the loss of some fantastic words too, and also believe that words are not sacred and bloody well should be fluid.
Personally, it is the brutal and sustained attack on the fundamental rules of grammar (commonly attributed, but not unique, to America) that gets my goat.
Oh dear god! I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. What have you americans *done* to yourselves; and more pertinently: (how) can it be undone?
More seriously... In times gone by, people found themselves in a situation that they didn't like (take the highland clearances for example) so they left to try their luck in a new country. Possibly the problem is that they didn't leave human nature, but brought it with them and have begun the whole process over again. Now, however, there are no new "empty" countries left to flee to.
I feel that I have to jump in at this point and point out that, your "good" source notwithstanding, the RAF itself agrees that the USAAF was involved in the bombing of Dresden to the tune of 311 B-17s, apparently during daylight hours. They go on to state that "Part of the American Mustang-fighter escort was ordered to strafe traffic on the roads around Dresden to increase the chaos".
Perhaps I can recommend a very well constructed and researched article on wikipedia. It appears to have a great number of quoted references, such as the Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University.
I can't speak to the rest of your assertions, as I do not know enought about the details of the American involvement in the latter parts of the War.
China's changing, but in a stepwise evolutionary fashion rather than an all-at-once revolutionary fashion
Yes, exactly. In the embryonic stages of a new social and political model, stability is the key rather than personal freedoms.
To a certain extent, the new state requires it's citizens to sacrifice their rights in order to help construct the infrastructure of the new system.
As we see in Iraq, there are very few stable institutions present. It is this lack of stability which is making the reconstruction of the society so difficult.
Once the infrastructures have been built, then the people can start to direct their energies towards giving themselves (or taking, depending on which way you look at it) various rights and freedoms.
I like Alastair Reynolds' explanation for the seeming lack of intelligent life: something is either stopping life from developing intelligence, or eradicating it wherever and whenever it is found.
*SPOILER*:)
The story goes that it is forseen that at some distant point in time, our galaxy will suffer a devastating cataclysm, eradicating for all time the potential for intelligent life. This cataclysm will, in some part, be caused by the very presence of intelligent life (ironically, trying to avert the event). It is predicted that if all intelligence can be prevented from developing until after this event, the future will be secured. To this end, machines, calld Inhibitors, are created. Their task is to stop or inhibit intelligence.
It makes for a thrilling story, and happens to be quite an interesting (if slightly implausible) explanation for the silent skies.
Hmm, well first off, there is a very big difference between HIV and AIDS. AIDS absolutely cannot be transmitted through kissing, or any other bodily contact for that matter.
Secondly, HIV can (theoretically) be passed on through kissing, but since saliva is perhaps the bodily fluid with the lowest incidence of HIV, one would have to drink vast quantities of it to ensure a successful transfer. It would only seem to be within the realm of feasibility if both you and your partner had cuts or sores in your mouth, but again this is one of the more unlikely ways to catch HIV. I believe there has only been one confirmed case of infection through mouth to mouth contact.
Where should i read up more? You failed to mention some recommended sources of information. In their absence, i was forced to do my own research. Thesesites are quite useful.
...They don't cover you for kissing, blowjobs and the like
Please tell me you don't *actually* believe that AIDS (sic) can be transmitted by kissing. I thought this propaganda lost it's effectiveness in the 80s.
Surely remaining "pure" is at least an order of magnitude more effective than monogamy?
To say that you have "recovered" from those dark times when you have not actually *learned* from them is a bit of a fallacy.
After the McCarthyism era, when it was considered anathema to even mantion communism in polite society, things haven't really changed fundamentally. That era left a deep scar on the american psyche; to this day, there is an unhealthy disparity between the left and the right. Half the country *hates* liberals and the other half *hates* religious types.
With much of the country so easily hoodwinked into cowering under the bed (with the reds) for fear of the bogeyman-du-jour, I think it's a little too early to say that history has ceased to repeat itself.
I won't even mention the Japanese internment camps...
If the normal behaviour of atoms is to whizz about individually, what does this new observation imply for the density of the material? If all the atoms are stacked up in some sort of lattice type structure (though they're not actually connected), then they'd be super-dense, not to mention super-strong right?
Surely the correct usage and spelling in the summary would be more of an achievement? What with the recent(ly more obvious) trend of the submitter not even reading the linked article and all.
...requiring the US to issue such warrants and gather evidence and hand it over to foreign police - for activities which are LEGAL in the US (for example France could demand investigations and data for Nazi item auctions)...
Well, why should you have to physically be in France to be breaking it's laws. It may be legal to sell Nazi souvenirs in America, but it's illegal in France and Germany. If I try to sell Nazi items in France, I'm breaking French law whether I'm in France or not.
I suspect that the French government is not interested in people selling such items simply from America, which would be available to the whole world France included. The are most likely interested in people selling the items specifcally to France.
It's a bit of a grey area, and I haven't explained myself as well as I might, but it seems to me that such people are intentionally breaking French law, albeit remotely.
If we were talking about any reasonable and legitimate crime then the US would have it as criminal as well
I'm not sure that I agree with your assertion that, if the US doesn't have a specific law, then it is by definition a spurious, unreasonable law. That level of arrogance continues to amaze me, even now.
Having said that, this wasn't my point. I was talking about intentionally breaking the law in another country from a "safe" state. It's like standing in your backgarden and throwing stones at your neighbour's windows. When you get in trouble, you claim that your neighbour cannot blame or punish you because you are allowed to throw stones in your own garden.
Whatever you're allowed to do in your own garden, it's still wrong to break your neighbour's windows. Must your neighbour simply suffer the occasional broken window because your parents allow you to break their windows?
Re:Be curious to find out if the code's any cleane
on
Enlightenment Lives
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, that may be so. However, the topic at hand here is enlightenment not evolution.
I agree that such computer systems would be a Bad Thing(tm). But it will never come to pass. The only people who would allow this to happen to them are the complete beginners. The office workers who need tech-support to switch their computer on and off. Ironically, they are the people least likely to "require" (in the RIAA, Microsoft sense of the word) trusted computing. They wouldn't know how to do something illegal on a computer anyway. The rest of us, those who have a modicum of common sense and savvy, would simply avoid that avenue. And there will always be software and hardware capable of running properly. Open Source and non american hardware manufacturers (there are other markets than simply the US, the world is much larger than mainland America).
I'm not sure that I agree with your assertion that, if the US doesn't have a specific law, then it is by definition a spurious, unreasonable law. That level of arrogance continues to amaze me, even now.
Having said that, this wasn't my point. I was talking about intentionally breaking the law in another country from a "safe" state. It's like standing in your backgarden and throwing stones at your neighbour's windows. When you get in trouble, you claim that your neighbour cannot blame or punish you because you are allowed to throw stones in your own garden.
Whatever you're allowed to do in your own garden, it's still wrong to break your neighbour's windows. Must your neighbour simply suffer the occasional broken window because your parents allow you to break their windows?
Slashdot Mirror
masculine singular
Bah. If you're going to really nitpick grammar, you'd know that there isn't a masculine plural pronoun. You can't really change from plural to singular in mid sentence ('anyone/their' -> 'his') so you have to keep using 'their' even if you're talking about a group that is exclusively male.
I don't, however, think that waving the Magical Socialism Wand at the American government will make it better overnight. The main problem it suffers from, in my opinion, is that it's too monolithic and centralised. In the case of the British government, the various tasks of state (Health, Education, etc) are looked after by their respective minister. And, until recently, the Prime Minister pretty much left them to it and didn't meddle. So it's more like a dozen smaller governments all coordinated from Number 10.
So, by your own admission, they are not to be trusted at all then? If, as you say, they agreed even though they knew what they were saying to be inaccurate, in order to further their own agenda, then I question how you or anyone else can trust a word they say.
Hammer, meet Nail.
Now, if only I had a mod point...
Furthermore, I realise that this is aimed at people who have absolutely no experience in either computers in general and at least linux specifically, but a name like "xine" should not be an impediment to progress. For instance, any distro worth anything ought to be set up with some useful file associations. Most people play a movie or mp3 by clicking on /it/ rather than opening a player and then opening the file within it.
As for the rest of your post, I heartily agree with everything you said. I mourn the loss of some fantastic words too, and also believe that words are not sacred and bloody well should be fluid.
Personally, it is the brutal and sustained attack on the fundamental rules of grammar (commonly attributed, but not unique, to America) that gets my goat.
Moderators: The parent is an over-reaction and has no sense of humour.
More seriously... In times gone by, people found themselves in a situation that they didn't like (take the highland clearances for example) so they left to try their luck in a new country. Possibly the problem is that they didn't leave human nature, but brought it with them and have begun the whole process over again. Now, however, there are no new "empty" countries left to flee to.
Perhaps I can recommend a very well constructed and researched article on wikipedia. It appears to have a great number of quoted references, such as the Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University.
I can't speak to the rest of your assertions, as I do not know enought about the details of the American involvement in the latter parts of the War.
Yes, exactly. In the embryonic stages of a new social and political model, stability is the key rather than personal freedoms.
To a certain extent, the new state requires it's citizens to sacrifice their rights in order to help construct the infrastructure of the new system.
As we see in Iraq, there are very few stable institutions present. It is this lack of stability which is making the reconstruction of the society so difficult.
Once the infrastructures have been built, then the people can start to direct their energies towards giving themselves (or taking, depending on which way you look at it) various rights and freedoms.
*SPOILER* :)
The story goes that it is forseen that at some distant point in time, our galaxy will suffer a devastating cataclysm, eradicating for all time the potential for intelligent life. This cataclysm will, in some part, be caused by the very presence of intelligent life (ironically, trying to avert the event). It is predicted that if all intelligence can be prevented from developing until after this event, the future will be secured. To this end, machines, calld Inhibitors, are created. Their task is to stop or inhibit intelligence.
It makes for a thrilling story, and happens to be quite an interesting (if slightly implausible) explanation for the silent skies.
Secondly, HIV can (theoretically) be passed on through kissing, but since saliva is perhaps the bodily fluid with the lowest incidence of HIV, one would have to drink vast quantities of it to ensure a successful transfer. It would only seem to be within the realm of feasibility if both you and your partner had cuts or sores in your mouth, but again this is one of the more unlikely ways to catch HIV. I believe there has only been one confirmed case of infection through mouth to mouth contact.
Where should i read up more? You failed to mention some recommended sources of information. In their absence, i was forced to do my own research. These sites are quite useful.
Surely remaining "pure" is at least an order of magnitude more effective than monogamy?
If you're not british and you get this, reply here...
After the McCarthyism era, when it was considered anathema to even mantion communism in polite society, things haven't really changed fundamentally. That era left a deep scar on the american psyche; to this day, there is an unhealthy disparity between the left and the right. Half the country *hates* liberals and the other half *hates* religious types.
With much of the country so easily hoodwinked into cowering under the bed (with the reds) for fear of the bogeyman-du-jour, I think it's a little too early to say that history has ceased to repeat itself.
I won't even mention the Japanese internment camps...
Me
Yeah, that's a pretty stupid sentiment.
If the normal behaviour of atoms is to whizz about individually, what does this new observation imply for the density of the material? If all the atoms are stacked up in some sort of lattice type structure (though they're not actually connected), then they'd be super-dense, not to mention super-strong right?
Surely the correct usage and spelling in the summary would be more of an achievement? What with the recent(ly more obvious) trend of the submitter not even reading the linked article and all.
And a second post
I'm not sure that I agree with your assertion that, if the US doesn't have a specific law, then it is by definition a spurious, unreasonable law. That level of arrogance continues to amaze me, even now.Having said that, this wasn't my point. I was talking about intentionally breaking the law in another country from a "safe" state. It's like standing in your backgarden and throwing stones at your neighbour's windows. When you get in trouble, you claim that your neighbour cannot blame or punish you because you are allowed to throw stones in your own garden. Whatever you're allowed to do in your own garden, it's still wrong to break your neighbour's windows. Must your neighbour simply suffer the occasional broken window because your parents allow you to break their windows?
Well, that may be so. However, the topic at hand here is enlightenment not evolution.
I agree that such computer systems would be a Bad Thing(tm). But it will never come to pass. The only people who would allow this to happen to them are the complete beginners. The office workers who need tech-support to switch their computer on and off. Ironically, they are the people least likely to "require" (in the RIAA, Microsoft sense of the word) trusted computing. They wouldn't know how to do something illegal on a computer anyway. The rest of us, those who have a modicum of common sense and savvy, would simply avoid that avenue. And there will always be software and hardware capable of running properly. Open Source and non american hardware manufacturers (there are other markets than simply the US, the world is much larger than mainland America).
Having said that, this wasn't my point. I was talking about intentionally breaking the law in another country from a "safe" state. It's like standing in your backgarden and throwing stones at your neighbour's windows. When you get in trouble, you claim that your neighbour cannot blame or punish you because you are allowed to throw stones in your own garden.
Whatever you're allowed to do in your own garden, it's still wrong to break your neighbour's windows. Must your neighbour simply suffer the occasional broken window because your parents allow you to break their windows?