Isn't the whole point of the scroll wheel being able to scroll without moving the mouse all the way down to the scroll bar? I believe you're missing the point here.
Comparing C to BASIC? On the off chance that you're not a troll, C syntax becomes very natural once you've been working with it for a while. It's like anything, there are tradeoffs between usability and raw power, and C leans more towards power and the cost of some ease of use. However, C (and more so C++) code tends to be a little less obsfucated in my experience - be it due to syntax, culture, whatever. I can definitely understand why this guy would lean towards mimmicking it when possible. Either way, the languages in question are for accomplishing very different goals, and if a programmer can find a way of making an unfamiliar language easier for them, this is generally a Good Thing(TM).
But here's the key - when most people see a Mexican around here, they automatically assume that they're an illegal alien, and it's not uncommon for them to crack some stupid green card joke, regardless of their legal status, which is something that, from just seeing a person, you can't really know. As I said, they tend to be treated as sub-human because they are guilty until proven innocent, and that's what I have a problem with.
You've missed the point of my post. I was not attributing massive worldwide killing to the US. I was stating, however, that the US has been behind a greater number of military operations in recent times than any of the European nations, or for that matter, quite possibly all of Europe combined.
In short, civil wars are tradgedies, and the US often has nothing to do with them, but this wasn't a "the US is killing everyone!!!11" type of post, and civil wars fall outside the context of the point I was making.
I didn't mean for my list to be all inclusive, so yes there were ommissions. However (fortunately) Iraq-Iran and Iraq-Kuwait are the only ones that blew up into full scale conflict during this time period. That aside, my focus was on the US and European powers, so these ommissions could also be seen as deliberate if I were to choose than much of an asshat.:)
By that logic, not only would saying "Stupid latinos need to go back home" be OK, but so would "Stupid niggers need to get back in the cotten fields." Mainstream Americans have a tendency to look upon anyone non-white, non-American, and/or non-Christian as sub-human. That's what I was talking about.
Agreed that it's usually been as part of a joint force, however, as you point out, the US has almost always been the spearheading force, which was the point I was trying to make.
Somolia, Kosovo, and Bosnia were in many ways, humanitarian missions, Somolia being the most overtly so, with the least military-minded goal of them all, despite the disasterous results. Bosnia was to help bring an extremely bloody civil war to an end. Kosovo was to stop a madman from committing systematic genocide. While it may be true that the world had to talk us into going in, I feel that the goal behind these campaigns would be perfectly justified.
I should note here that I am aware of the African situation, which is very dire indeed. From warlords to rampaging disease, if there's a problem to be had, it can likely be found in Africa. However, most of these problems and conflicts have been internal (Somolia being the obvious exception) and the discussion was focusing on the US and Europe, so that's why I ommitted Africa from my previous comments.
If anything, the nature of the Falkland conflict reinforces my argument - it is one of the few 'major' military actions to occur in the last 20 years without US involvement. The fact that it can be argued that Britain was defending British territory only further lends to the idea that the nations of Europe have generally NOT been the aggressors in recent times.
I have to question your suggestion that Europe would have liked to see Hussein remain in power while they made money off the "Oil for Food" programs, since it was the US and close allies Britain who worked to keep the program in place. Both continental Europe and Russia saw the programs as humanitarian disasters and wanted to see them either loosened or liftened. If this was such a great system for them to make money off of, why would they undermine it by working for more open trade with Iraq? While some goods are sure to call for exhorberant prices under such a system, they stand to make far more under a completely open trade system with Iraq. Perhaps they really meant it when they said they were interested in the humanitarian conditions and have voted as such for the past half decade at the UN?
Grenada and Panama under Clinton? Please say you're joking. The invasion of Grenada occured in 1983 under then President Reagan. Panama (Operation 'Just Cause') occured in 1989 under the first President Bush, and was a mission to remove a CIA asset that had made himself a millitary dictator and drug trafficker - one Generalisimo Noreaga. Somolia was a joint humanitarian effort that was poorly executed, and as a joint UN venture. Kosovo was to stop a rampaging mad man, and while we did do the brunt of the work, I wouldn't charactarize the European nations as "begging" us to commit.
And I agree with you on that point. Note that I used the phrase "staged campaigns" instead of "invaded" which I guess was a bit too subtle of a distinction, although it was intended.:)
You are talking about completely different political climates as they are one and the same. If you look at the 20th century, have have the early 20th century up to and including WW1, where most of the tension could likely be attributed to the post-Napoleonic Congress of Vienna. From there you have the worldwide economic downturn of the 20's and 30's, which ultimately lead to WW2. After WW2 you see the reconstruction of Europe, with western Europe aligning with the US as the USSR essentially claims Eastern Europe for itself. Insert a cold war that runs through the late 80's and early 90's. Fast forward to today.
The climate of 1900 next to 1930 is totally different, let alone 1945 to 2003. And as far as 'recent history' goes, I would consider the modern era to be ~1980 to present. In that time, the only major millitary campaigns I can think of not involving the US are the British invading the Falkland Islands (off Argentina, NOT a neighborly dispute) and the Russians in both Afghanistan and Chechnya. The US, in the meantime, has staged campaigns in Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), Somolia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc. In the past 20 years, the US has been far more likely to go out and start a war than ANY European nation. The US has only ourselves to blame for our current disposition.
The last of which was almost 60 years ago. And in both cases the US prefered to play isolationist until they were drug kicking and screaming in. The US was forced to keep friends during the cold war to balance the overarching threat of the USSR, but in the past few years we've seen that thrown completely out the window in a "my way or the highway" approach to international politics. While European nations tend to disagree on many things, they do not exhibit the "well, screw you, I'm doing it my way anyway" attitude that the US administration has as of late.
gave them a piece of land that was not theirs to give
Actually, much of the land in Palestine was legitimately purchased by the Jews, and violence only broke out after a number of Palestinian chieftans became nervous about their loss of control and used religion as an excuse to stir the beehive.
True, but despite our claims to promote tolerance and equality, America often falls quite far from our lofty ideals. Perhaps it's not as bad in other parts of the country (though I doubt it), but I live in the south, and racism still runs rampant here today. The part that scares me is that while I live in a city where it's not as bad, if you go out to some of the more rural areas, the biggotry you'll find is nothing short of appalling.
I have to think that the isolated nature of the United States lends greatly to this, despite the US often being called the great "melting pot" of the world. Whereas Europeans are forced to deal with their neighbors as most European states are smaller than many American states, the US has only two direct neighbors, and we don't even treat them that well. Ever heard disparaging remarks about Mexicans? So really, I have to agree with both of your posts. The Earth is a hateful place, but for whatever reasons, America seems to have a special affinity for hatred.
Despite Bush's religious views, I highly doubt that that's the origin of that statement. By now it's clear that Bush sees the world in a very black and white manner - Good vs Evil, Right and Wrong, etc. There is no gray. That comment was just a manifestation of that perspective.
Re:Some Interesting New Products...
on
Powered by Blood
·
· Score: 1
I have to agree on the basis that with a little experimentation, 6'3, 155lbs turns out to be in the "normal" weight category. I'm 6'3" 205 now, but I used to be around 175, and even at that weight, I was all skin and bone. There's no way in hell 6'3" 155 isn't underweight.
I agree with you on artists never having played live, but depending on the style of music, sometimes voices do just give out. While I can see why it should be something that could be kept under control with an artist like Jewel, I do have sympathy for artists in cases like that. Reason being, I'm personally into more aggressive rock - hot water music-ish if you've ever heard of them - and I play guitar and sing. And there are some days that I can sing every note perfect. And there are others where my voice sounds like complete shit no matter what I do. While there is a level where it becomes unexcusable (Finch's studio vs live performances, for example) I tend to give the artist benefit of the doubt in such cases. ESPECIALLY during a long tour.
Except a Celeron in the range of the 2200+ is going to be a good bit slower considering that at that point, AMDs were still outpacing the P4 at a given rating. And the celeron is more expensive. =)
Oh, I agree with you on that too. It's just that the instant gratification nature of the web happens to work well with the way I work. Not being argumentative at all, I was just exchanging ideas, that being the point of all this instant gratification in my mind and all.:)
Looking at what happens to be sitting on my desk right now, there are at least 9 CDs sitting here that I've bought in the past 3 months. That's just what's in eyeshot - I've got plenty more in the car and scattered around the house. Only one of them is from a major label. The rest are on smaller, independent labels that don't put as much focus on the Next Big Thing(TM) so much as quality acts. Perhaps even more telling is the fact that I buy most of my CDs at concerts, where I usually pick them up for no more than $10 a piece.
Perhaps most telling is the fact that the single RIAA-backed CD in this particular stack is from a band that just signed to a major, and the only reason I bought the CD is because it's a group I previously enjoyed, and who kept true to themselves even with a major label album. Did I mention the fact that I had most of the album in MP3 format before buying it? Same for most of the others. The reason why most of my CDs are not on RIAA labels is because what the RIAA wants to offer doesn't stand up comparitively, and I would rather spend my money on a disc where more money goes to the artist, and where the music will generally be a little purer and less pre-packaged. Until the RIAA realizes that I don't want any of the ultra-processed, mainstream pop or "rock," they won't be getting much business from me. But independent labels will. Supply and demand.
At least you can trace it to the web specifically. It's been impossible for me to focus on anyone task for more than a few minutes since elementary school. (I was diagnosed in 2nd grade I think, though my parents refused to medicate me until middle school, and that was only sporradic to keep me from failing school). My brain just moves too much towards tackling many small problems quickly to focus on solving one on large one for an extended period of time.
There might be some standard way to specify RMS values which implies some THD value, but i wouldt trust that blindly.
I think that may be the case, as similarly rated equipment that I've heard seems to have about equal output levels. But this is only anecdotal and obviously in no way scientific.
And thanks for the info. While I wrote myself off as "a dumb guitarist," EE is one of (far too many) fields that I have an interest in, so I'm always more than happy to learn what I can. =)
Ah, I'm just a dumb guitarist. With guitar amps, I've always heard it refered to as the maximum load before signal distortion begins to occur. The two might be related, or I might just have been mislead. =)
In typical/. fashion, I haven't RTFA, but are there any plans for an AMD based unit? While I understand that the P4 performs better when it comes to MPEG4 encoding, the fact remains that as of this posting, the cheapest 533MHz FSB P4 I'm pricing is a 2.4GHz at $164, which doesn't help those of us looking to build a similar unit on the cheap.
One of these things with, say, a $70 XP 2200+ slapped in it could make for a very nice set top multimedia box for a relatively low amout of outlay.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the whole point of the scroll wheel being able to scroll without moving the mouse all the way down to the scroll bar? I believe you're missing the point here.
Comparing C to BASIC? On the off chance that you're not a troll, C syntax becomes very natural once you've been working with it for a while. It's like anything, there are tradeoffs between usability and raw power, and C leans more towards power and the cost of some ease of use. However, C (and more so C++) code tends to be a little less obsfucated in my experience - be it due to syntax, culture, whatever. I can definitely understand why this guy would lean towards mimmicking it when possible. Either way, the languages in question are for accomplishing very different goals, and if a programmer can find a way of making an unfamiliar language easier for them, this is generally a Good Thing(TM).
But here's the key - when most people see a Mexican around here, they automatically assume that they're an illegal alien, and it's not uncommon for them to crack some stupid green card joke, regardless of their legal status, which is something that, from just seeing a person, you can't really know. As I said, they tend to be treated as sub-human because they are guilty until proven innocent, and that's what I have a problem with.
You've missed the point of my post. I was not attributing massive worldwide killing to the US. I was stating, however, that the US has been behind a greater number of military operations in recent times than any of the European nations, or for that matter, quite possibly all of Europe combined. In short, civil wars are tradgedies, and the US often has nothing to do with them, but this wasn't a "the US is killing everyone!!!11" type of post, and civil wars fall outside the context of the point I was making.
I didn't mean for my list to be all inclusive, so yes there were ommissions. However (fortunately) Iraq-Iran and Iraq-Kuwait are the only ones that blew up into full scale conflict during this time period. That aside, my focus was on the US and European powers, so these ommissions could also be seen as deliberate if I were to choose than much of an asshat. :)
By that logic, not only would saying "Stupid latinos need to go back home" be OK, but so would "Stupid niggers need to get back in the cotten fields." Mainstream Americans have a tendency to look upon anyone non-white, non-American, and/or non-Christian as sub-human. That's what I was talking about.
Agreed that it's usually been as part of a joint force, however, as you point out, the US has almost always been the spearheading force, which was the point I was trying to make.
Somolia, Kosovo, and Bosnia were in many ways, humanitarian missions, Somolia being the most overtly so, with the least military-minded goal of them all, despite the disasterous results. Bosnia was to help bring an extremely bloody civil war to an end. Kosovo was to stop a madman from committing systematic genocide. While it may be true that the world had to talk us into going in, I feel that the goal behind these campaigns would be perfectly justified.
I should note here that I am aware of the African situation, which is very dire indeed. From warlords to rampaging disease, if there's a problem to be had, it can likely be found in Africa. However, most of these problems and conflicts have been internal (Somolia being the obvious exception) and the discussion was focusing on the US and Europe, so that's why I ommitted Africa from my previous comments.
If anything, the nature of the Falkland conflict reinforces my argument - it is one of the few 'major' military actions to occur in the last 20 years without US involvement. The fact that it can be argued that Britain was defending British territory only further lends to the idea that the nations of Europe have generally NOT been the aggressors in recent times.
I have to question your suggestion that Europe would have liked to see Hussein remain in power while they made money off the "Oil for Food" programs, since it was the US and close allies Britain who worked to keep the program in place. Both continental Europe and Russia saw the programs as humanitarian disasters and wanted to see them either loosened or liftened. If this was such a great system for them to make money off of, why would they undermine it by working for more open trade with Iraq? While some goods are sure to call for exhorberant prices under such a system, they stand to make far more under a completely open trade system with Iraq. Perhaps they really meant it when they said they were interested in the humanitarian conditions and have voted as such for the past half decade at the UN?
Grenada and Panama under Clinton? Please say you're joking. The invasion of Grenada occured in 1983 under then President Reagan. Panama (Operation 'Just Cause') occured in 1989 under the first President Bush, and was a mission to remove a CIA asset that had made himself a millitary dictator and drug trafficker - one Generalisimo Noreaga. Somolia was a joint humanitarian effort that was poorly executed, and as a joint UN venture. Kosovo was to stop a rampaging mad man, and while we did do the brunt of the work, I wouldn't charactarize the European nations as "begging" us to commit.
And I agree with you on that point. Note that I used the phrase "staged campaigns" instead of "invaded" which I guess was a bit too subtle of a distinction, although it was intended. :)
You are talking about completely different political climates as they are one and the same. If you look at the 20th century, have have the early 20th century up to and including WW1, where most of the tension could likely be attributed to the post-Napoleonic Congress of Vienna. From there you have the worldwide economic downturn of the 20's and 30's, which ultimately lead to WW2. After WW2 you see the reconstruction of Europe, with western Europe aligning with the US as the USSR essentially claims Eastern Europe for itself. Insert a cold war that runs through the late 80's and early 90's. Fast forward to today.
The climate of 1900 next to 1930 is totally different, let alone 1945 to 2003. And as far as 'recent history' goes, I would consider the modern era to be ~1980 to present. In that time, the only major millitary campaigns I can think of not involving the US are the British invading the Falkland Islands (off Argentina, NOT a neighborly dispute) and the Russians in both Afghanistan and Chechnya. The US, in the meantime, has staged campaigns in Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), Somolia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc. In the past 20 years, the US has been far more likely to go out and start a war than ANY European nation. The US has only ourselves to blame for our current disposition.
The last of which was almost 60 years ago. And in both cases the US prefered to play isolationist until they were drug kicking and screaming in. The US was forced to keep friends during the cold war to balance the overarching threat of the USSR, but in the past few years we've seen that thrown completely out the window in a "my way or the highway" approach to international politics. While European nations tend to disagree on many things, they do not exhibit the "well, screw you, I'm doing it my way anyway" attitude that the US administration has as of late.
The conviction was only for the "bomb making" information, however. While he has admited to the hacking, it was not what he was tried for.
True, but despite our claims to promote tolerance and equality, America often falls quite far from our lofty ideals. Perhaps it's not as bad in other parts of the country (though I doubt it), but I live in the south, and racism still runs rampant here today. The part that scares me is that while I live in a city where it's not as bad, if you go out to some of the more rural areas, the biggotry you'll find is nothing short of appalling.
I have to think that the isolated nature of the United States lends greatly to this, despite the US often being called the great "melting pot" of the world. Whereas Europeans are forced to deal with their neighbors as most European states are smaller than many American states, the US has only two direct neighbors, and we don't even treat them that well. Ever heard disparaging remarks about Mexicans? So really, I have to agree with both of your posts. The Earth is a hateful place, but for whatever reasons, America seems to have a special affinity for hatred.
Despite Bush's religious views, I highly doubt that that's the origin of that statement. By now it's clear that Bush sees the world in a very black and white manner - Good vs Evil, Right and Wrong, etc. There is no gray. That comment was just a manifestation of that perspective.
I have to agree on the basis that with a little experimentation, 6'3, 155lbs turns out to be in the "normal" weight category. I'm 6'3" 205 now, but I used to be around 175, and even at that weight, I was all skin and bone. There's no way in hell 6'3" 155 isn't underweight.
I agree with you on artists never having played live, but depending on the style of music, sometimes voices do just give out. While I can see why it should be something that could be kept under control with an artist like Jewel, I do have sympathy for artists in cases like that. Reason being, I'm personally into more aggressive rock - hot water music-ish if you've ever heard of them - and I play guitar and sing. And there are some days that I can sing every note perfect. And there are others where my voice sounds like complete shit no matter what I do. While there is a level where it becomes unexcusable (Finch's studio vs live performances, for example) I tend to give the artist benefit of the doubt in such cases. ESPECIALLY during a long tour.
Except a Celeron in the range of the 2200+ is going to be a good bit slower considering that at that point, AMDs were still outpacing the P4 at a given rating. And the celeron is more expensive. =)
Oh, I agree with you on that too. It's just that the instant gratification nature of the web happens to work well with the way I work. Not being argumentative at all, I was just exchanging ideas, that being the point of all this instant gratification in my mind and all. :)
Looking at what happens to be sitting on my desk right now, there are at least 9 CDs sitting here that I've bought in the past 3 months. That's just what's in eyeshot - I've got plenty more in the car and scattered around the house. Only one of them is from a major label. The rest are on smaller, independent labels that don't put as much focus on the Next Big Thing(TM) so much as quality acts. Perhaps even more telling is the fact that I buy most of my CDs at concerts, where I usually pick them up for no more than $10 a piece.
Perhaps most telling is the fact that the single RIAA-backed CD in this particular stack is from a band that just signed to a major, and the only reason I bought the CD is because it's a group I previously enjoyed, and who kept true to themselves even with a major label album. Did I mention the fact that I had most of the album in MP3 format before buying it? Same for most of the others. The reason why most of my CDs are not on RIAA labels is because what the RIAA wants to offer doesn't stand up comparitively, and I would rather spend my money on a disc where more money goes to the artist, and where the music will generally be a little purer and less pre-packaged. Until the RIAA realizes that I don't want any of the ultra-processed, mainstream pop or "rock," they won't be getting much business from me. But independent labels will. Supply and demand.
At least you can trace it to the web specifically. It's been impossible for me to focus on anyone task for more than a few minutes since elementary school. (I was diagnosed in 2nd grade I think, though my parents refused to medicate me until middle school, and that was only sporradic to keep me from failing school). My brain just moves too much towards tackling many small problems quickly to focus on solving one on large one for an extended period of time.
And thanks for the info. While I wrote myself off as "a dumb guitarist," EE is one of (far too many) fields that I have an interest in, so I'm always more than happy to learn what I can. =)
Ah, I'm just a dumb guitarist. With guitar amps, I've always heard it refered to as the maximum load before signal distortion begins to occur. The two might be related, or I might just have been mislead. =)
But this wouldn't be /. if I didn't ask questions before reading the article! =)
In typical /. fashion, I haven't RTFA, but are there any plans for an AMD based unit? While I understand that the P4 performs better when it comes to MPEG4 encoding, the fact remains that as of this posting, the cheapest 533MHz FSB P4 I'm pricing is a 2.4GHz at $164, which doesn't help those of us looking to build a similar unit on the cheap.
One of these things with, say, a $70 XP 2200+ slapped in it could make for a very nice set top multimedia box for a relatively low amout of outlay.