I don't know ANYTHING about this, so take this as a genuine query for information: why is it called a "sedition" law if it merely covers incitement to violence? Sedition normally refers to words, not actions or incitement to actions. (Wikipedia seems to agree with your interpretation of the law, by the way.)
*Note that Yahoo! mail SSL-enables only their login page. Anybody in the middle running a packet sniffer or checking their web proxy logs can see your mail when you read it. They just can't see your Yahoo! password.
Since smtp is an unencrypted protocol, anybody between the sender and yahoo running a packet sniffer can see your mail before you read it. SSL-encryption of email after it hits your mailbox is a placebo; if you are really worried about people intercepting your email, use PKI or PGP.
The canonical version of Brazil is 142 minutes. The *bad* version of Brazil, the censored and rejiggered-beyond-comprehensibility, so-called "Love Conquers All" version, is 94 minutes. Other versions (less than 142 minutes) may be tinkered with in ways that undercut the story (I think the 137 minute version is the one that was shown in US theatres, and it is not quite right, though it is nowhere near as mangled as the "Love Conquers All" version). This stuff taken from the Criterion Collection edition, which is a must-have if you like Terry Gilliam.
In order (most to least): the user interface (especially the wheel - works beautifully), the physical size, the integration with OS X, and, yes, the aesthetics helped.
Have you considered a mechanism for filtering stories by submitter?
Add a "like this story/hate this story" button for subscribers only. If a particular submitter gets a net score of 5 "hate this story" clicks from a given subscriber, his postings are excluded from the front page for that subscriber only. Also, this would give you a hidden karma count for individual submitters.
I was under the impression that the US re-launch will change the DRM terms to permanent ownership, not the 30 or 60 day rentals they had in Japan. Is that wrong?
The original Griffin iTrips worked very, very well on 87.9 FM; the new dock-connector based ones are not as good, even on 87.9 FM (which many radios can tune, but which can't be used for broadcast in the States).
Yes, when OS X 10.6 (or OS Xi, or whatever they call it) comes out Intel only (and it will), Yellow Dog will be the obvious alternative. That said, even Apple boxes don't last forever: most of those machines will go out of daily use by 2011, and by 2016, the Apple PPC market will be only slightly larger than the Amiga market is today.
One minor correction: the speed of light *in a vacuum* is always c. The speed of light in other media can be much, much lower. Google "Cherenkov radiation."
It is also important to note that in the beginning, the First Amendment read simply that Congress would make no law establishing an official religion. After a number of meetings not on the floor of the Congress, the language of the amendment, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" was chosen. The reason for the more expansive language isn't known, but it is a reasonable argument to say that Madison (you know, the guy who wrote the Bill of Rights with the support of Jefferson, after writing the Constitution itself with the support of Hamilton and others) was concerned that a restrictive interpretation of the amendment would be followed which would allow the government to give any support it wished to the preferred religion, short of declaring it an official religion (as we have done with English, giving it every possible support short of declaring it the official language).
Well, ID is a religion - it is a belief about a supernatural being who has an omnipotent effect upon the world. For a government in the United States to teach a religious doctrine as fact violates the establishment clause. And ANY government in the US is subject to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights; that was determined way back in the Reconstruction.
There, I said it. Make your design work at any resolution from 640x480 to 1600x1200, and any aspect ratio. I have a 1280x1024 screen - but I never enlarge my browser beyond 1024x768 because I like to have extra cascading room.
In the current political environment in the US, liberal means simply Democrat, conservative means Republican. The old ideological meanings are completely gone. Historically, though, those who are more sympathetic to labor and social welfare in the US are called liberals, those who are more sympathetic to business interests (which in the US means the military-industrial complex) are called conservatives.
Today, a political conservative in the US is opposed to taxes (not just high taxes, but taxes tout court - no conservative politician since 1980 has ever said that there is a minimum acceptable tax rate) and social spending, opposed to affirmative action (programs that try to compensate for historic discrimination against "racial" and ethnic minorities by adjusting hiring and school admission criteria to account for the more limited opportunities those minorities have had to meet such criteria), opposed to legalized abortion in any circumstance and at any stage (a few do allow exceptions for the life of the mother, and a few others allow exceptions in cases of incest or rape), and any form of birth control that is effective after conception, opposed to extending the legal advantages reserved for married straight couples to gay couples (and to allowing those couples to formalize their relationships through civil union, let alone marriage) - indeed, I think one could easily argue that they favor discrimination against gays. Conservatives in the US reject most of the social and political developments of the 1960s: most of the support for the current occupation of Iraq is from people who think the problem in Vietnam was that the war protestors and liberals in Congress (and that oh-so-liberal president, Richard Nixon) didn't let the Army do their jobs and finish off the Viet Cong. Conservatives tend to be hawks, and isolationist when it comes to international cooperation, but interventionist when it comes to trade and military security. Conservatives tend to favor broadening the powers of the police, military, and executive branch to make it easier for them to do what they want to do. Conservatives are opposed to any form of nationalized health care or national health insurance; they are pro-oil and anti-alternative energy (the budget for energy conservation research at the Department of Energy was just cut by nearly 16%, while fossil fuel research was increased). They oppose most consumer protection legislation, most environmental legislation. Basically, they want to roll things back to the 1950s, and so strictly speaking are reactionaries, not conservatives. The one thing I will grant them is that this administration, at least, is not racist, though some of their supporters are. It's worth noting that many of the President's supporters are strongly criticizing him for sending out Christmas cards that say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas," and have a quote from the Old Testament, not the New - as though this is not the most Christian of presidents since Jimmy Carter.
Liberals - well, a liberal is anyone who supports any view a conservative opposes, or opposes any view a conservative supports. The liberals (the Democrats, mostly) have simply given up any attempt to define the political debate in the US. They aren't in favor of social welfare any more, they're simply in favor of smaller cuts. They aren't in favor of gay marriage, only in favor of granting some rights to gay couples. They aren't in favor of maintaining affirmative action until it solves the problems it was intended to address, they're in favor of slowing the rollback. They favor skewing tax cuts to lower income taxpayers, not raising them on higher income taxpayers (in the US, the maximum income tax rate is 35%). They basically favor preserving the status quo of 1979, maybe adding public health care for children, a few education programs, and letting gay couples register with the government so they can share each other's health insurance.
If you're British, it might help you to understand that we Americans would consider Tony Blair a pretty fierce "liberal"; a "conservative" is what we would call Nick Griffin. No, I'm not kidding.
I don't hate Bill Gates. I hate a few of the things Bill Gates has done to the computer industry, and disapprove of many more. On the other hand, at least the man knows what to do with his money. So while I won't buy his operating system, he's got my respect for his philanthropic work. Is that too complex a position for people to understand?
The point here is that there's a whole host of laws that W and Cheney have violated. Some of them are felonies, others misdemeanors, but I think they meet the impeachment standard. Unfortunately, no impeachment would get past this Senate or this Congress, so the Democrats have to win the '06 elections (and to take the Senate, they may have to convince moderates like Snow and Chaffee and Collins, or true conservatives like McCain, to break with the Bushites formally and refuse to vote for Republican leadership - follow the Jeffords path, basically), then file impeachment articles against Cheney, then W. The problem is that this would be assumed to be a coup, rather than what it would be in truth: the valid and legal expulsion of two men who have violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.
But the Democrats don't have the balls, so I don't know what the hell is going to happen.
Ken Mehlman and JoAnn Davidson are part of the problem; there's no reason they'd be ashamed. This is where the Republican Party has been headed since 1980: divine right of kings.
There are a lot of things in PL 102-88. Which part of it are you saying that Bush & Clinton ignored?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm only interested in three things -
Mind you, if it could also read various eBook formats, RTF files, &c., it would be close to perfect.
He's selling SnapStream. Last I checked, there's no SnapStream for Linux.
How exactly do you think the mail gets from your GMail account to someone else's Yahoo mail account?
I don't know ANYTHING about this, so take this as a genuine query for information: why is it called a "sedition" law if it merely covers incitement to violence? Sedition normally refers to words, not actions or incitement to actions. (Wikipedia seems to agree with your interpretation of the law, by the way.)
*Note that Yahoo! mail SSL-enables only their login page. Anybody in the middle running a packet sniffer or checking their web proxy logs can see your mail when you read it. They just can't see your Yahoo! password.
Since smtp is an unencrypted protocol, anybody between the sender and yahoo running a packet sniffer can see your mail before you read it. SSL-encryption of email after it hits your mailbox is a placebo; if you are really worried about people intercepting your email, use PKI or PGP.
The canonical version of Brazil is 142 minutes. The *bad* version of Brazil, the censored and rejiggered-beyond-comprehensibility, so-called "Love Conquers All" version, is 94 minutes. Other versions (less than 142 minutes) may be tinkered with in ways that undercut the story (I think the 137 minute version is the one that was shown in US theatres, and it is not quite right, though it is nowhere near as mangled as the "Love Conquers All" version). This stuff taken from the Criterion Collection edition, which is a must-have if you like Terry Gilliam.
In order (most to least): the user interface (especially the wheel - works beautifully), the physical size, the integration with OS X, and, yes, the aesthetics helped.
Sorry if someone else has suggested this.
Have you considered a mechanism for filtering stories by submitter?
Add a "like this story/hate this story" button for subscribers only. If a particular submitter gets a net score of 5 "hate this story" clicks from a given subscriber, his postings are excluded from the front page for that subscriber only. Also, this would give you a hidden karma count for individual submitters.
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
I don't know - I have a 15 GB 3G iPod, a 60 GB 5G iPod, and 2300 books in four languages.
I was under the impression that the US re-launch will change the DRM terms to permanent ownership, not the 30 or 60 day rentals they had in Japan. Is that wrong?
If you've ever accidentally plugged that hole, you don't need this warning.
The original Griffin iTrips worked very, very well on 87.9 FM; the new dock-connector based ones are not as good, even on 87.9 FM (which many radios can tune, but which can't be used for broadcast in the States).
Yes, when OS X 10.6 (or OS Xi, or whatever they call it) comes out Intel only (and it will), Yellow Dog will be the obvious alternative. That said, even Apple boxes don't last forever: most of those machines will go out of daily use by 2011, and by 2016, the Apple PPC market will be only slightly larger than the Amiga market is today.
One minor correction: the speed of light *in a vacuum* is always c. The speed of light in other media can be much, much lower. Google "Cherenkov radiation."
Oh, and notice how a driver just became avail for Airport extreme under Linux?
No, I didn't. Where?
By the way, I have a Rev A dual-usb iBook, and no logic board failure yet (fingers crossed) - going on 4 1/2 years.
It is also important to note that in the beginning, the First Amendment read simply that Congress would make no law establishing an official religion. After a number of meetings not on the floor of the Congress, the language of the amendment, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" was chosen. The reason for the more expansive language isn't known, but it is a reasonable argument to say that Madison (you know, the guy who wrote the Bill of Rights with the support of Jefferson, after writing the Constitution itself with the support of Hamilton and others) was concerned that a restrictive interpretation of the amendment would be followed which would allow the government to give any support it wished to the preferred religion, short of declaring it an official religion (as we have done with English, giving it every possible support short of declaring it the official language).
Well, ID is a religion - it is a belief about a supernatural being who has an omnipotent effect upon the world. For a government in the United States to teach a religious doctrine as fact violates the establishment clause. And ANY government in the US is subject to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights; that was determined way back in the Reconstruction.
that constituents are property, and thereby force them to tax themselves accordingly.
There, I said it. Make your design work at any resolution from 640x480 to 1600x1200, and any aspect ratio. I have a 1280x1024 screen - but I never enlarge my browser beyond 1024x768 because I like to have extra cascading room.
In the current political environment in the US, liberal means simply Democrat, conservative means Republican. The old ideological meanings are completely gone. Historically, though, those who are more sympathetic to labor and social welfare in the US are called liberals, those who are more sympathetic to business interests (which in the US means the military-industrial complex) are called conservatives.
Today, a political conservative in the US is opposed to taxes (not just high taxes, but taxes tout court - no conservative politician since 1980 has ever said that there is a minimum acceptable tax rate) and social spending, opposed to affirmative action (programs that try to compensate for historic discrimination against "racial" and ethnic minorities by adjusting hiring and school admission criteria to account for the more limited opportunities those minorities have had to meet such criteria), opposed to legalized abortion in any circumstance and at any stage (a few do allow exceptions for the life of the mother, and a few others allow exceptions in cases of incest or rape), and any form of birth control that is effective after conception, opposed to extending the legal advantages reserved for married straight couples to gay couples (and to allowing those couples to formalize their relationships through civil union, let alone marriage) - indeed, I think one could easily argue that they favor discrimination against gays. Conservatives in the US reject most of the social and political developments of the 1960s: most of the support for the current occupation of Iraq is from people who think the problem in Vietnam was that the war protestors and liberals in Congress (and that oh-so-liberal president, Richard Nixon) didn't let the Army do their jobs and finish off the Viet Cong. Conservatives tend to be hawks, and isolationist when it comes to international cooperation, but interventionist when it comes to trade and military security. Conservatives tend to favor broadening the powers of the police, military, and executive branch to make it easier for them to do what they want to do. Conservatives are opposed to any form of nationalized health care or national health insurance; they are pro-oil and anti-alternative energy (the budget for energy conservation research at the Department of Energy was just cut by nearly 16%, while fossil fuel research was increased). They oppose most consumer protection legislation, most environmental legislation. Basically, they want to roll things back to the 1950s, and so strictly speaking are reactionaries, not conservatives. The one thing I will grant them is that this administration, at least, is not racist, though some of their supporters are. It's worth noting that many of the President's supporters are strongly criticizing him for sending out Christmas cards that say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas," and have a quote from the Old Testament, not the New - as though this is not the most Christian of presidents since Jimmy Carter.
Liberals - well, a liberal is anyone who supports any view a conservative opposes, or opposes any view a conservative supports. The liberals (the Democrats, mostly) have simply given up any attempt to define the political debate in the US. They aren't in favor of social welfare any more, they're simply in favor of smaller cuts. They aren't in favor of gay marriage, only in favor of granting some rights to gay couples. They aren't in favor of maintaining affirmative action until it solves the problems it was intended to address, they're in favor of slowing the rollback. They favor skewing tax cuts to lower income taxpayers, not raising them on higher income taxpayers (in the US, the maximum income tax rate is 35%). They basically favor preserving the status quo of 1979, maybe adding public health care for children, a few education programs, and letting gay couples register with the government so they can share each other's health insurance.
If you're British, it might help you to understand that we Americans would consider Tony Blair a pretty fierce "liberal"; a "conservative" is what we would call Nick Griffin. No, I'm not kidding.
Multiple languages is easy. Multiple key layouts is hard, very hard. I know, I've tried.
So, what part of Safari did you not understand? Were you confused by the lack of a "Go" button?
[Troll.]
I don't hate Bill Gates. I hate a few of the things Bill Gates has done to the computer industry, and disapprove of many more. On the other hand, at least the man knows what to do with his money. So while I won't buy his operating system, he's got my respect for his philanthropic work. Is that too complex a position for people to understand?
The point here is that there's a whole host of laws that W and Cheney have violated. Some of them are felonies, others misdemeanors, but I think they meet the impeachment standard. Unfortunately, no impeachment would get past this Senate or this Congress, so the Democrats have to win the '06 elections (and to take the Senate, they may have to convince moderates like Snow and Chaffee and Collins, or true conservatives like McCain, to break with the Bushites formally and refuse to vote for Republican leadership - follow the Jeffords path, basically), then file impeachment articles against Cheney, then W. The problem is that this would be assumed to be a coup, rather than what it would be in truth: the valid and legal expulsion of two men who have violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.
But the Democrats don't have the balls, so I don't know what the hell is going to happen.
Ken Mehlman and JoAnn Davidson are part of the problem; there's no reason they'd be ashamed. This is where the Republican Party has been headed since 1980: divine right of kings.
There are a lot of things in PL 102-88. Which part of it are you saying that Bush & Clinton ignored?