And then all, or at least the vast majority of the Democrats of the time who voted against it (the Dixiecrats) joined the Republican party, so it's kind of a moot point. Neither party has the same constituency that it did in 1964 (I'm not saying they completely flipped, but there was some back and forth). In other words, it says nothing about the parties today and is a moot point.
Whoop-dee-doo. A macaca is also a type of monkey, be it in French, or North Africa, or what have you. It's still a racial slur, so I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Telling a racial, ethnic, or sexist joke in close company is one thing. Referring to a member of your opponent's campaign with a racial slur on camera is another thing entirely.
There already is a DoA movie in the works. And yes, it has beach volleyball. And yes, it looks god-fucking-awful. I don't care about the videogames at all, and it's bad enough that they're popular. But the movie really just makes me want to cry for future of humanity.
Honestly, is this stuff that we have to sign into law? One of the many things about that show that's unrealistic is that Jack Bauer is the only person in law enforcement who'll do whatever it takes to protect American lives. That's not true. If there was really a ticking bomb situation (and there hasn't been in the war on terror that anyone knows of anyways) people will do what it takes to get the information. And that's fine.
So why do we have to make laws saying the president has the right to indefinitely detain anyone deemed to be an "enemy combatant." Would you really trust George W. Bush with that power?
To be fair, our congress critters could be doing a lot more to combat this sort of thing--Democrats and Republicans alike. The executive branch may be to blame, but I also fault congress for not doing more to maintain the balance of power. And the judiciary is just a joke when "laws" are made in the form of signing statements and can't even be challenged effectively in court.
First of all, I haven't bought any guns yet. My point was just that I'm glad the option is there should I feel that it's become necessary.
Second of all, as another commenter pointed out, all the modern military equipment the US has doesn't seem to have been terribly effective against Iraqi insurgents. They just keep coming. Similarly, regardless of the effectiveness of SWAT teams, I really doubt there are enough of them to deal with *MILLIONS* of rednecks with guns without being overwhelmed.
Well of course you have to aim, just less precisely as you said. I also agree it's not a bad idea to have a backup.
And if I ever did get scared enough to buy a gun, I would go to target practice and at least work on developing some idea of how to use it.
Now, if you're a hunter, and enjoy guns just for the collection aspect, then all power to you. But for the average person that much arsenal is just ridiculous.
I think that in general gun ownership should be discouraged--not that there aren't plenty of people capable of being responsible gun owners. It's just that current laws make it too easy for irresponsible gun owners to get a hold of them. But in times like these, where I genuinely am worried about my own government's actions, I am for once glad that the 2nd ammendment gives me the right to arm myself should I choose to.
Whenever a Republican brings up the "you want the terrorists to win" talking point, I usually ask them "would you want Hillary Clinton to declare anyone an enemy combatant and detain them indefinately?"
I have yet to receive a response to that question.
As a 'leftist gun grabber' (at least, what I think you mean, is someone who wants to take your guns away) I did have this epiphany not too long ago. Maybe a year or so ago, if not less.
I used to think that citizen militias were all a bunch of kooks (and let's face it, a lot of them are), but they seem to have the right idea as far as defending themselves from their government. I still think that gun laws should be strictly enforced and that gun ownership should be limited. I think that it's silly to own a gun for "protection", unless, as I've realized, it's to protect yourself from the government. I do fear there may come a day when Americans are forced to rise against the federal government. I wouldn't *like* that, but when I see news stories like this, my paranoid side really kicks in and tells me to go out and buy a gun (and learn how to use it).
It has become clear to me that you're not a native English speaker, so I apologize for harassing you over that. However:
Table layouts are quite fantastic if one knows how to use them and what not to do.
Between this, and a comment you made further down about writing routines from scratch for parsing websites, it is quite clear that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about with regards to web design, or programming in general.
Re:We don' need no steenking standards...
on
Slashdot's Vastu
·
· Score: 1
It kind of depends... Working on dynamic web sites, most of the XHTML I write has special template syntax embedded in it. For example, the project I'm currently working on uses ClearSilver templates.
So I almost never write XHTML just by itself--it's always gummed up with ClearSilver syntax. I doubt an XML editor would take kindly to something like that. It's just that the end result has to be valid XHTML.
This is the case for much of web design done today.
I'm unclear as to whether or not you even have a point. Your English is virtually unintelligible.
In an accessible website, it should be possible to increase the size of all text without making the site unusable.
If content is properly separated from presentation using CSS, it should not matter how the web designer chooses to lay out a website, whether in a column format or something more interesting. It doesn't change how the screen reader parses the content, so I'm not sure I get your point. God forbid you're talking about table-based layouts, because that's where a lot of the trouble with accessibility comes from.
Wikipedia pages are constantly viewed by people. If thousands of people see a wikipedia page and don't change it for a month, I would be inclined to trust the information presented in the page. However, if the page was edited in the last 24 hours, I might be more skeptical. Longer or shorter times would lead to more trust or skepticism.
There is a problem with that. Just because a page hasn't been updated in a while doesn't mean it's necessarily closer to the truth. This goes especially for science-related articles that are updated with new findings all time time. In that case, a more recently edited article may actually be more accurate. In fact, that is most likely to be the case. There are also many more obscure pages that can be vandalized without anyone noticing for months, and this is a big problem. Generally, if I read something that seems questionable, I check the the article's history to see who put in the questionable content, and check their user page to see if I can get anything about their background that backs up said questionable content. Or I also check the talk page to see if there has been any controversy over the article. Finally, if I still think something seems fishy, I'll look for other sources, whether on the internet or at the library (OMG BOOKS).
Thank god. I had a rendering bug for a website in IE because of that, and it took like half an hour to explain to my boss that it's a bug in IE and there was really nothing I could do about it. Okay, if I tried really hard I might have been able to found a workaround, but as I told him "I'm sorry, I can't fix IE."
It depends on the lesbians. I have met plenty of genuine lesbians who were also quite hot. But anyways this is all completely off-topic, so I'll just leave it at that.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said anything about that?
And then all, or at least the vast majority of the Democrats of the time who voted against it (the Dixiecrats) joined the Republican party, so it's kind of a moot point. Neither party has the same constituency that it did in 1964 (I'm not saying they completely flipped, but there was some back and forth). In other words, it says nothing about the parties today and is a moot point.
Whoop-dee-doo. A macaca is also a type of monkey, be it in French, or North Africa, or what have you.
It's still a racial slur, so I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Yeah, what the hell? I'm really wondering what the background of this is. It doesn't seem right...
Telling a racial, ethnic, or sexist joke in close company is one thing.
Referring to a member of your opponent's campaign with a racial slur on camera is another thing entirely.
You wouldn't if you lived in Florida. Honestly, Catherine Harris?
There already is a DoA movie in the works. And yes, it has beach volleyball. And yes, it looks god-fucking-awful. I don't care about the videogames at all, and it's bad enough that they're popular. But the movie really just makes me want to cry for future of humanity.
Some people have been watching too much 24.
Honestly, is this stuff that we have to sign into law? One of the many things about that show that's unrealistic is that Jack Bauer is the only person in law enforcement who'll do whatever it takes to protect American lives. That's not true. If there was really a ticking bomb situation (and there hasn't been in the war on terror that anyone knows of anyways) people will do what it takes to get the information. And that's fine.
So why do we have to make laws saying the president has the right to indefinitely detain anyone deemed to be an "enemy combatant." Would you really trust George W. Bush with that power?
To be fair, our congress critters could be doing a lot more to combat this sort of thing--Democrats and Republicans alike. The executive branch may be to blame, but I also fault congress for not doing more to maintain the balance of power. And the judiciary is just a joke when "laws" are made in the form of signing statements and can't even be challenged effectively in court.
First of all, I haven't bought any guns yet. My point was just that I'm glad the option is there should I feel that it's become necessary.
Second of all, as another commenter pointed out, all the modern military equipment the US has doesn't seem to have been terribly effective against Iraqi insurgents. They just keep coming. Similarly, regardless of the effectiveness of SWAT teams, I really doubt there are enough of them to deal with *MILLIONS* of rednecks with guns without being overwhelmed.
Well of course you have to aim, just less precisely as you said. I also agree it's not a bad idea to have a backup.
And if I ever did get scared enough to buy a gun, I would go to target practice and at least work on developing some idea of how to use it.
Now, if you're a hunter, and enjoy guns just for the collection aspect, then all power to you. But for the average person that much arsenal is just ridiculous.
I think that in general gun ownership should be discouraged--not that there aren't plenty of people capable of being responsible gun owners. It's just that current laws make it too easy for irresponsible gun owners to get a hold of them. But in times like these, where I genuinely am worried about my own government's actions, I am for once glad that the 2nd ammendment gives me the right to arm myself should I choose to.
I would if I could afford to ;)
Who said anything about pistols? I was thinking more like shotgun (I can't aim).
Whenever a Republican brings up the "you want the terrorists to win" talking point, I usually ask them "would you want Hillary Clinton to declare anyone an enemy combatant and detain them indefinately?"
I have yet to receive a response to that question.
As a 'leftist gun grabber' (at least, what I think you mean, is someone who wants to take your guns away) I did have this epiphany not too long ago. Maybe a year or so ago, if not less.
I used to think that citizen militias were all a bunch of kooks (and let's face it, a lot of them are), but they seem to have the right idea as far as defending themselves from their government. I still think that gun laws should be strictly enforced and that gun ownership should be limited. I think that it's silly to own a gun for "protection", unless, as I've realized, it's to protect yourself from the government. I do fear there may come a day when Americans are forced to rise against the federal government. I wouldn't *like* that, but when I see news stories like this, my paranoid side really kicks in and tells me to go out and buy a gun (and learn how to use it).
It has become clear to me that you're not a native English speaker, so I apologize for harassing you over that.
However:
Table layouts are quite fantastic if one knows how to use them and what not to do.
Between this, and a comment you made further down about writing routines from scratch for parsing websites, it is quite clear that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about with regards to web design, or programming in general.
It kind of depends... Working on dynamic web sites, most of the XHTML I write has special template syntax embedded in it. For example, the project I'm currently working on uses ClearSilver templates.
So I almost never write XHTML just by itself--it's always gummed up with ClearSilver syntax. I doubt an XML editor would take kindly to something like that. It's just that the end result has to be valid XHTML.
This is the case for much of web design done today.
Wow, that's...really special.
Let me have your name so that I can make sure that neither I nor any company I ever work for hires you.
I'm unclear as to whether or not you even have a point. Your English is virtually unintelligible.
In an accessible website, it should be possible to increase the size of all text without making the site unusable.
If content is properly separated from presentation using CSS, it should not matter how the web designer chooses to lay out a website, whether in a column format or something more interesting. It doesn't change how the screen reader parses the content, so I'm not sure I get your point. God forbid you're talking about table-based layouts, because that's where a lot of the trouble with accessibility comes from.
Wikipedia pages are constantly viewed by people. If thousands of people see a wikipedia page and don't change it for a month, I would be inclined to trust the information presented in the page. However, if the page was edited in the last 24 hours, I might be more skeptical. Longer or shorter times would lead to more trust or skepticism.
There is a problem with that. Just because a page hasn't been updated in a while doesn't mean it's necessarily closer to the truth. This goes especially for science-related articles that are updated with new findings all time time. In that case, a more recently edited article may actually be more accurate. In fact, that is most likely to be the case. There are also many more obscure pages that can be vandalized without anyone noticing for months, and this is a big problem. Generally, if I read something that seems questionable, I check the the article's history to see who put in the questionable content, and check their user page to see if I can get anything about their background that backs up said questionable content. Or I also check the talk page to see if there has been any controversy over the article. Finally, if I still think something seems fishy, I'll look for other sources, whether on the internet or at the library (OMG BOOKS).
I believe this actually *was* on slashdot well over a year ago. I can't find the original article, but I am quite certain that this is a dupe.
Thank god. I had a rendering bug for a website in IE because of that, and it took like half an hour to explain to my boss that it's a bug in IE and there was really nothing I could do about it.
Okay, if I tried really hard I might have been able to found a workaround, but as I told him "I'm sorry, I can't fix IE."
And provided you have gobs of memory, and stability isn't an issue.
I fail to see how the acts would be any different.
It depends on the lesbians. I have met plenty of genuine lesbians who were also quite hot. But anyways this is all completely off-topic, so I'll just leave it at that.