Exactly. Let's not forget that to those of Easten European descent (or their parents if not old enough):
Communism == evil form of dictator-controlled government intent on repressing their people.
And before you dismiss those people as "wrong", try to remember that they have lived in a Communist country, and usually have many bad memories of that system, and aren't likely to differentiate too closely between Communism as a political or economic system. I don't think that it's a coincidence that many of the staunchest supporters of Democratic-Capitalism have roots in former Eastern Bloc countries.
OTOH, In the 2000 elections 29.2% of the Russian electorate voted for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation candidate Gennadiy Andreyevich Zyuganov. Likewise, the Communists received 12.7% of the vote for the Duma (lower house of parliament, the upper house is not directly elected). Putin, garnered 52.9% of the presidential and The United Russia Party 37.1% of the Duma vote. And this was a significant defeat for the Communists, who had polled much more strongly in the previous elections.
The name is Budweiser, and it (the name, at least) is Czech. The original Budweiser is called "Anheuser Busch" or some such in most parts of the world. I'd agree about rather drinking Paulaner out of a plastic bottle, though, even if I still prefer a Jever Pils out of a glass bottle (I happen to prefer beer out of 0.5 liter glass bottles over everything else).
As a German, does "Budweiser" sound Czech to you? The Czech name is Budvar. Budweiser is what Bohemia's Austrian overlords named it and in most countries the name has stuck. In the US you can get Buvar under the name Czechvar. They are contractually precluded from using Bud* here. I am not sure the AB Budweiser is really "the original." It predates the current Budvar/Budweiser by about 20 years, but it seems pretty evident that a beer named after Bud?jovice, a town Adlphus Bush did not hail from, was probably an homage to a pre-existing Czech product, or at least style.
I personally prefer another Czech bee the Germans renamed, Plzensky Prazdroj, a.k.a. Pilsner Urquell. It has gone way downhill in recent years, but is still a nice brew.
Do I have an appropriate user name for this comment or what?
For what it is worth, my father tells me there was no corporate culture of anti-semitism at IBM when he went there in the late fifties. He advanced rapidly and never encountered prejudice from the younger Tom Watson or any of his superiors. This was the exception rather than the rule in corporate America at that time. By contrast a large (now mega) financial institution whose offer he had previously accepted actually called to un-hire him after they discovered he was a Jew. He wasn't phased because he had his sights set on Big Blue anyway. In his opinion, IBM was the best of corporate America, and that was where he wanted to be.
He worked on Mercury, Gemini and some military programs (including triple redundant proto-mini-computers for B52s) while he was there. Although he loved the company, he left in 1966 to form a startup selling prepackaged accounting software to financial institutions. AFAIK his company was the first to sell software as a commodity rather than a service.
Nation-states have territory that can be bombed, invaded, nuked, salted, etc. Al-Queda does not.
But the victims of state terror are invariably powerless to bomb or invade. Most often they are citizens of the terrorist state, or of territory it has conquered. Although countries often invoke the rhetoric of humanitarianism when they go to war, true humanitarian military interventions against state terrorism are nearly unheard of. Kosovo is about as close as you are going to get. And even there, the means (bombing civilian targets in Belgrade) were not exactly blameless. I suppose you could argue that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was a humanitarian intervention, but that is a stretch.
To a degree, a nation-state has more to lose since it can lose its territorial sovereignty.
Sovereignty trumps humanitarianism in international law. The UN charter only allows for military intervention when the a threat to international peace and security. That includes humanitarian interventions. So essentially, the UN considers humanitarian intervention legal when the violations create enough disorder to threaten the integrity and sovereignty of other states. IIRC, the Security Council ruled this was the case in Kosovo. Although they declined to intervene themselves they issued this ruling in support of NATO's actions. Had the Security Council not felt the Kosovo situation threatened the stability of the region, NATO's intervention would have been illegal under the UN charter. The people who created the UN felt that the main problem of World War Two was sovereignty violation, not genocide.
I won't disagree that nation-states have more power to do more damage, but at least they represent clear targets. If you were pissed at Stalin for killing your family, there were plenty of ways you could attempt to fight the Soviet government.
If your family member died on 9/11, there really aren't clear targets for you to fight.
Well, the NKVD would be easier to find. It took millions of people to kill Stalin's twenty million victims. But your chances of success are pretty slim. And more to the point, your chances of a foreign humanitarian intervention saving you are virtually nil.
Since you mention it, I did have a friend on Pan Am 103. Eventually they caught and convicted at least one of her murders.
I stand by my original statement. State terrorism kills millions more people worldwide than private-political and religious terrorism. Unlike private-political and religious terrorism, there are practically no legal sanctions against it. You may feel you would personally have a better chance exacting revenge against the CPSU than against Al Qaeda, but that is a pyrrhic victory at best, and no victory at all to state terrorism's millions of victims worldwide.
The militants would buy their weaponry from Israeli gangsters, who most likely would have stolen it from the IDF.
Typically these gangsters are serving IDF officers. If you watch TV, you'll notice that Palestinian guerillas are almost always armed with Israeli issue M16s. By contrast, Palestinian security forces carry Kalashnikovs.
What makes 'terrorism' (violent incidents perpetrated for a politcal purpose by non-state actors) so dangerous is that there is no clear seat of responsibility.
Quite the opposite. What makes state terrorism so much more dangerous than private-political terrorism and religious terrorism (aside from the far greater scale on which it is practiced) is that it can hide behind the veil of state sovereignty and legitimacy. Private-political terrorists and religious terrorists are simply criminals, at least until they win. Then, like Begin and Shamir (Irgun and Lehi respectively) they become heads of state. State terrorists like Stalin, wielding powerful armies and police forces, are thousands of times more destructive than the most successful religious terrorists in history, but they are essentially immune from prosecution. Unless, like Hitler, they lose a big war, effectively sacrificing their sovereignty.
Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
Actually, and more importantly, piss off a majority of its viewers
Actually, piss off a majority of its advertisers is more accurate.Why would the majority of viewers be pissed off by a commercial complaining about the ballooning deficit and describing the burden of debt service it will create for our children? That is what this commercial is about.
You are right of course, although I still think the link between the press and the reformation is important. Erasmus called the printing press "the greatest of all discoveries." Then again, he wasn't exactly a protestant, although certainly a reformer.
And because they have already engineered the new PA-RISC machine to accept Itanium. You can even run them in the same box, although not on the same partition. I don't know anything about Opteron, so I can't say if it is otherwise application appropriate.
Certainly not if HPaq has anything to say about it. The worlds largest computer company is in the process of migrating their whole HP-UX line from PA-RISC to Itanium.
That depends entirely on the utilization and physical layout of the network you are sniffing. Since the the RC4 vulnerability in WEP presents itself in a percentage of packets, crack time decreases proportionally with the number of packets you can capture. I found that on a three node network pinging continuously 24/7 it took me about a month to gather enough packets to crack my 128bit key. Since my home network is only in use maybe two hours a day, I can estimate it would take as much as a year of aggregate sniffing to crack my key. I'm not too worried about anyone sitting outside my house for a year.
That said, you shouldn't rely on link level security for privacy. For one thing, there is no link level security on the internet, so it doesn't help outside your doors. You need to use transport or application level encryption (IPSec,SSL, SSH). WEP is only supposed to provide wired equivalence. You wouldn't rely on wire to secure your sensitive internet communications, so why rely on WEP? OTOH, WEP is pretty good at keeping people from using your network to download kiddy porn.
I'd say not, since I came out against prescriptive grammar. Parliament is actually a collective noun. And according to this source, it is one the British often treat as plural.
It should be pointed out that there is a strong tendency in American English to treat collective nouns as singular. Even in British English the plural reading is not favoured unless there are special reasons for doing so. Note, however, the common British use of the plural with names of sports teams:
26. Arsenal were playing brilliantly in the second half.
Names of legislative bodies, organisations, companies, and the like may also be treated as plural: the Commons has/have. .., Ford is/are. ..
I had to send back my PB a few times as well. But hey, at least it comes back really quick. Send it Monday, get it back Wednesday or Thursday.
I sent mine out at noon on the Saturday before MLK's birthday and it was back on my doorstep Tuesday morning. Zero working days is pretty good turnaround if you ask me.
Remember, this was way before dictionaries, and the idea that there would be one 'correct' spelling, making all others 'wrong' hadn't yet quite entered.
It was later, during the reformation, the Bible was translated, and often ended up serving as the 'offical' way of writing and spelling.
IANAL(inguist), however, in between teaching me to sit quitely in rows, my teachers told me that the movement to standardized spelling derived from the advent of the printing press. On the one hand lead type made granular standardization much easier. Arguably, standardization also made typesetting easier. If nothing else it allowed printers to more accurately estimate their type needs.
Of course, the introduction of the printing press in Europe is coincidental and inextricably linked with the vulgarization of the Bible (Guttenberg) so you are essentially correct.
OTOH, I have no material explanation for the advent of prescriptive grammer. I just hope it goes away. An ex of mine who is a linguist once told me that the British Parliament at one point passed a law mandating the use of the masculine singular pronoun in sex ambiguous cases. Apparently they felt threatened by the tendency of speakers to use the plural they in such cases, i.e. "If a person was frightened, they might flee." Her position was that it was easier to derive number than sex from context in most sentences, and pretty much all paragraphs. She was designing expiriments with eye scanners to test this hypothesis.
While I gave high marks to Master and Commander for their coverage of the tiniest technical details of period naval warfare
Actually, I had a couple of problems with the historicity of the movie.
For one thing, the ship they used, the HMS Rose, is clearly frigate. But they repeatedly referred to her as a "Ship of the Line." Frigates are not ships of the line. They were not placed in the line of battle for naval engagements. Depending on the era, ship of the line had either more than 50, or more than 64 guns. Frigates like Rose were used as couriers, scouts, and for blockading and harassing shipping.
In addition, I don't think there ever existed a privateer which could compete in displacement and armament with Royal Navy frigate. British frigates were on the light side by American standards, but they were still quite a bit more powerful and expensive than even the best financed privateer.
Not having read the books, I was a bit put off. But I have since seen the paperback jacket, which makes it clear that the ship in question was not a frigate, but a brig. That would put solidly in the class of your average privateer.
So they got those two bits all wrong in the movie. But it was worth it to see Rose put through her paces on film. My dad took me aboard her when I was a kid. My she's yar!
Also, since it uses Flash memory, it doesn't skip when you're jogging, unlike the full sized iPod.
Huh? I have never gotten my iPods (first a 5Gig, now a 10 Gig) to skip while jogging or commuting by 25 year old European (read poor suspension) motorcycle. That is what the 32 Meg of buffer RAM is for.
The 7100/80 was an adequate machine. All other NuBus PowerMacs were pretty much crap, IMHO. Likewise the 7200, although PCI, was a horrid piece of junk. Buggy chipset.
I used to run a 7100/66 as an MkLinux based web and Netatalk server circa 1999. That was my first Linux machine. I quickly moved to LinuxPPC on an 8600/200 and RedHat 5.1 on an HP Vectra/200.
Well, then they changed it. Waaaay back in 1984, it was AppleTalk,
Not the same thing. AFP was a single protocol in the AppleTalk stack. The filing protocol to be specific. It was designed from jump to be portable to other network and transport protocols, such as TCP/IP. The whole stack was designed to be portable to different cabling standards. They started with their in house LocalTalk cabling standard because the commercially available systems of the day were too expensive and/or bulky. But when the cost of Ethernet and Token Ring fell, AppleTalk was ready for them (TokenTalk, EtherTalk). When TCP/IP became common, AFP was ready for it.
It's a product of the "we are Apple, so we will reinvent the wheel rather than use a mere industry standard" era.
What exactly was "industry standard" in PC networking in 1984? My memory is that ethernet and token ring cards cost close to $1,000 at that point. That was actually the year 10Base2 (thinwire) came out. The Mac would have looked pretty funny with a chunk of thickwire hanging off the back. Likewise TCP/IP had just fully pervaded the internet in 1983. It wasn't available on any PC platform that I know of. Apple was actually the first (well second after Xerox) PC vendor to build ethernet into their product (1988, IIRC).
Lots of people complain about AppleTalk, but it has never really caused problems on our 10,000 node network, despite the fact that our network admins don't have a clue about how it works. Wish I could say the same about NetBIOS and Novell.
If you have a x100 lying around, or a 7200, your options consist of MKLinux or MacOS. Unless developers have made serious progress on that front, and personally, I can't imagine there being much motivation to do so.:)
Actually, monolithic Linux has run on NuBus powermacs for several years. TerraSoft says you can get Yellow Dog to run on them with some extra effort. The 7200 is supported hardware on YDL.
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, In the 2000 elections 29.2% of the Russian electorate voted for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation candidate Gennadiy Andreyevich Zyuganov. Likewise, the Communists received 12.7% of the vote for the Duma (lower house of parliament, the upper house is not directly elected). Putin, garnered 52.9% of the presidential and The United Russia Party 37.1% of the Duma vote. And this was a significant defeat for the Communists, who had polled much more strongly in the previous elections.
In seconds I found these seven to ten (three unix) titles.. MacUpdate also had BeerStack and BeerMeister.
The real question is, what platform does Fritz Maytag use?
I also have no problems with version 3.6 under Panther, connecting to a VPN3005 (IIRC). I use Mathey Wieseck's VPNConnect 1.0.4 GUI.
I personally prefer another Czech bee the Germans renamed, Plzensky Prazdroj, a.k.a. Pilsner Urquell. It has gone way downhill in recent years, but is still a nice brew.
Do I have an appropriate user name for this comment or what?
For what it is worth, my father tells me there was no corporate culture of anti-semitism at IBM when he went there in the late fifties. He advanced rapidly and never encountered prejudice from the younger Tom Watson or any of his superiors. This was the exception rather than the rule in corporate America at that time. By contrast a large (now mega) financial institution whose offer he had previously accepted actually called to un-hire him after they discovered he was a Jew. He wasn't phased because he had his sights set on Big Blue anyway. In his opinion, IBM was the best of corporate America, and that was where he wanted to be.
He worked on Mercury, Gemini and some military programs (including triple redundant proto-mini-computers for B52s) while he was there. Although he loved the company, he left in 1966 to form a startup selling prepackaged accounting software to financial institutions. AFAIK his company was the first to sell software as a commodity rather than a service.
But the victims of state terror are invariably powerless to bomb or invade. Most often they are citizens of the terrorist state, or of territory it has conquered. Although countries often invoke the rhetoric of humanitarianism when they go to war, true humanitarian military interventions against state terrorism are nearly unheard of. Kosovo is about as close as you are going to get. And even there, the means (bombing civilian targets in Belgrade) were not exactly blameless. I suppose you could argue that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was a humanitarian intervention, but that is a stretch. Sovereignty trumps humanitarianism in international law. The UN charter only allows for military intervention when the a threat to international peace and security. That includes humanitarian interventions. So essentially, the UN considers humanitarian intervention legal when the violations create enough disorder to threaten the integrity and sovereignty of other states. IIRC, the Security Council ruled this was the case in Kosovo. Although they declined to intervene themselves they issued this ruling in support of NATO's actions. Had the Security Council not felt the Kosovo situation threatened the stability of the region, NATO's intervention would have been illegal under the UN charter. The people who created the UN felt that the main problem of World War Two was sovereignty violation, not genocide. Well, the NKVD would be easier to find. It took millions of people to kill Stalin's twenty million victims. But your chances of success are pretty slim. And more to the point, your chances of a foreign humanitarian intervention saving you are virtually nil.
Since you mention it, I did have a friend on Pan Am 103. Eventually they caught and convicted at least one of her murders.
I stand by my original statement. State terrorism kills millions more people worldwide than private-political and religious terrorism. Unlike private-political and religious terrorism, there are practically no legal sanctions against it. You may feel you would personally have a better chance exacting revenge against the CPSU than against Al Qaeda, but that is a pyrrhic victory at best, and no victory at all to state terrorism's millions of victims worldwide.
Actually, piss off a majority of its advertisers is more accurate.Why would the majority of viewers be pissed off by a commercial complaining about the ballooning deficit and describing the burden of debt service it will create for our children? That is what this commercial is about.
You are right of course, although I still think the link between the press and the reformation is important. Erasmus called the printing press "the greatest of all discoveries." Then again, he wasn't exactly a protestant, although certainly a reformer.
Different product line. They will not be putting Opterons in Superdomes anytime soon.
And because they have already engineered the new PA-RISC machine to accept Itanium. You can even run them in the same box, although not on the same partition. I don't know anything about Opteron, so I can't say if it is otherwise application appropriate.
Certainly not if HPaq has anything to say about it. The worlds largest computer company is in the process of migrating their whole HP-UX line from PA-RISC to Itanium.
That depends entirely on the utilization and physical layout of the network you are sniffing. Since the the RC4 vulnerability in WEP presents itself in a percentage of packets, crack time decreases proportionally with the number of packets you can capture. I found that on a three node network pinging continuously 24/7 it took me about a month to gather enough packets to crack my 128bit key. Since my home network is only in use maybe two hours a day, I can estimate it would take as much as a year of aggregate sniffing to crack my key. I'm not too worried about anyone sitting outside my house for a year.
That said, you shouldn't rely on link level security for privacy. For one thing, there is no link level security on the internet, so it doesn't help outside your doors. You need to use transport or application level encryption (IPSec,SSL, SSH). WEP is only supposed to provide wired equivalence. You wouldn't rely on wire to secure your sensitive internet communications, so why rely on WEP? OTOH, WEP is pretty good at keeping people from using your network to download kiddy porn.
I'd say not, since I came out against prescriptive grammar. Parliament is actually a collective noun. And according to this source, it is one the British often treat as plural.
., Ford is/are. . .
It should be pointed out that there is a strong tendency in American English to treat collective nouns as singular. Even in British English the plural reading is not favoured unless there are special reasons for doing so. Note, however, the common British use of the plural with names of sports teams:
26. Arsenal were playing brilliantly in the second half.
Names of legislative bodies, organisations, companies, and the like may also be treated as plural: the Commons has/have. .
I sent mine out at noon on the Saturday before MLK's birthday and it was back on my doorstep Tuesday morning. Zero working days is pretty good turnaround if you ask me.
Make that "grammar" and "experiments."
IANAL(inguist), however, in between teaching me to sit quitely in rows, my teachers told me that the movement to standardized spelling derived from the advent of the printing press. On the one hand lead type made granular standardization much easier. Arguably, standardization also made typesetting easier. If nothing else it allowed printers to more accurately estimate their type needs.
Of course, the introduction of the printing press in Europe is coincidental and inextricably linked with the vulgarization of the Bible (Guttenberg) so you are essentially correct.
OTOH, I have no material explanation for the advent of prescriptive grammer. I just hope it goes away. An ex of mine who is a linguist once told me that the British Parliament at one point passed a law mandating the use of the masculine singular pronoun in sex ambiguous cases. Apparently they felt threatened by the tendency of speakers to use the plural they in such cases, i.e. "If a person was frightened, they might flee." Her position was that it was easier to derive number than sex from context in most sentences, and pretty much all paragraphs. She was designing expiriments with eye scanners to test this hypothesis.
Even in mediocre translation, that book changed my life.
While I gave high marks to Master and Commander for their coverage of the tiniest technical details of period naval warfare
Actually, I had a couple of problems with the historicity of the movie.
For one thing, the ship they used, the HMS Rose, is clearly frigate. But they repeatedly referred to her as a "Ship of the Line." Frigates are not ships of the line. They were not placed in the line of battle for naval engagements. Depending on the era, ship of the line had either more than 50, or more than 64 guns. Frigates like Rose were used as couriers, scouts, and for blockading and harassing shipping.
In addition, I don't think there ever existed a privateer which could compete in displacement and armament with Royal Navy frigate. British frigates were on the light side by American standards, but they were still quite a bit more powerful and expensive than even the best financed privateer.
Not having read the books, I was a bit put off. But I have since seen the paperback jacket, which makes it clear that the ship in question was not a frigate, but a brig. That would put solidly in the class of your average privateer.
So they got those two bits all wrong in the movie. But it was worth it to see Rose put through her paces on film. My dad took me aboard her when I was a kid. My she's yar!
Huh? I have never gotten my iPods (first a 5Gig, now a 10 Gig) to skip while jogging or commuting by 25 year old European (read poor suspension) motorcycle. That is what the 32 Meg of buffer RAM is for.
The 7100/80 was an adequate machine. All other NuBus PowerMacs were pretty much crap, IMHO. Likewise the 7200, although PCI, was a horrid piece of junk. Buggy chipset.
I used to run a 7100/66 as an MkLinux based web and Netatalk server circa 1999. That was my first Linux machine. I quickly moved to LinuxPPC on an 8600/200 and RedHat 5.1 on an HP Vectra/200.
Not the same thing. AFP was a single protocol in the AppleTalk stack. The filing protocol to be specific. It was designed from jump to be portable to other network and transport protocols, such as TCP/IP. The whole stack was designed to be portable to different cabling standards. They started with their in house LocalTalk cabling standard because the commercially available systems of the day were too expensive and/or bulky. But when the cost of Ethernet and Token Ring fell, AppleTalk was ready for them (TokenTalk, EtherTalk). When TCP/IP became common, AFP was ready for it.
What exactly was "industry standard" in PC networking in 1984? My memory is that ethernet and token ring cards cost close to $1,000 at that point. That was actually the year 10Base2 (thinwire) came out. The Mac would have looked pretty funny with a chunk of thickwire hanging off the back. Likewise TCP/IP had just fully pervaded the internet in 1983. It wasn't available on any PC platform that I know of. Apple was actually the first (well second after Xerox) PC vendor to build ethernet into their product (1988, IIRC).
Lots of people complain about AppleTalk, but it has never really caused problems on our 10,000 node network, despite the fact that our network admins don't have a clue about how it works. Wish I could say the same about NetBIOS and Novell.
Actually, monolithic Linux has run on NuBus powermacs for several years. TerraSoft says you can get Yellow Dog to run on them with some extra effort. The 7200 is supported hardware on YDL.