"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the democracy of a free state, the right of the people to keep and carry books shall not be infringed."
Change the nouns and one adjective, and it all comes out of the controversy. Now we can see what it means. Clause one is the justification, clause two is the action statement. How fucking difficult is this for you? It's called sentence structure. Jesus, didn't any of you gun-controllers go to college?
I am in the NRA and I also am vehement about the citizenry having the right to own full-auto machine guns, with one note: In order to own a full-auto weapon of any kind, one must undergo a criminal and psycological background test. Then they must pay a HUGE fee in order to own said dangerous weapon, as well as provide the FBI with a reason for ownership. The owner of this rather brutish device must agree to furnish the device at any time without warrant to investigative agencies, and surrender it to the authorities whenever his license is cancelled and for any reason, without due process or warrant issue. He must maintain ownership of this death device, without selling it to anyone else, except those who also hold a current class three license, and must notify the FBI and ATF prior to the transaction. The FBI and ATF have every right to refuse to allow the transaction, even without providing you with a reason for their decision. Oh, wait, we do that already- and nobody has EVER been murdered by a legally owned automatic weapon. Ever EVER EVER. ( BTW, I do not own one, don't want one. Marksmanship, people. Can't shoot straight with a jiggling weapon. Not interested in a spray can for lead. No skill, no sport.) The NRA does NOT support ordinary people owning a machine gun. That's the GOA.
Do you value the sanctity of your eleven year old daughter's hymen more than the life of a criminal? I do. Do you value the throat of your wife over the life of her potential repist? I do. Do you value the security of your home more than you value the lives of the leeches that prey on our society by robbing us? I do. Do you value the safety of the ones you love over the ability of criminal predators to prey on your naivety? I do, in spades. Don't worry though, even if we disagree, If I ever were to be present and armed while one of these scum were attempting to harm you or your family, I would never hesitate to kill to save an innocent's life. I wouldn't torture myself inside or feel bad about it. I don't feel a twinge of guilt picking a mosquito off my neck and squishing its little guts all over my thumb and index finger. My feelings are less compassionate for criminals. Every time a citizen kills a criminal in self defense, it's just one more asshole off the street. It's good for all of us.
I hate (love) to refute your statistically based anf FLAWED conclusions, but:
1. Wouldn't it be rational to say that people who have fast cars are more likely to drive recklessly and faster than say, a guy with an '89 Corolla?
2. Wouldn't it also be reasonable to assume that people who chain smoke are not very health conscious? Wouldn't they be statistically more likely to eat unhealthful foods? Sure, smoking kills, but not all smokers die of smoking related health issues. Some of them drop their cigarette in their crotch while driving and die while frantically trying to save their gonads from immolation??
3. Wouldn't you suppose that people who defend themselves with a firearm are more likely to kill someone else than those who complied with the criminal and were shot execution style on a soccer field with their coworkers?
4. The chain smoking gun owner in the bright red camaro next to you is saving you thousands. He will die young, and spare the system thousands in medical and retirement benefits. You aren't subsidizing anything he does. It is more likely that he is subsidizing your longevity, since more will be spent on you should you live your last ten years in nursing care than you earned in your entire life. Black males average life expectancy is 67. Enjoy your retirement, cracker.
That's right, because if there were no guns, nobody could embezzle from your company or stab you on the street. No-one could ever kill a whole family simply by drinking seven beers in two hours and driving 100 MPH down the wrong side of a divided highway!
And HOW does a peaceful person NOT having a firearm save a life anyway? How many murders were committed by peaceful, law-abiding people this year? NONE.
I lost three cousins in a single day to lawn darts, you insensitive clod! How dare you poke fun at this serious issue! Why in hell do you think they don't sell them anymore, anyway? That's right, my cousins, innocently throwing lawn darts for height and then running in circles all over the lawn. You unfeeling bufoon!
I would have to agree in theory with you. And I do so while logged in. However, I will say that RACE alone is not the issue in my opinion. I would say biology and culture are the more likely suspects. You see, whether we like it or not, although there is probably no "superior" race on this planet, there are certainly superior cultural adaptations. South Africa's ANC is a VERY young system. They haven't worked out how to behave as a civilized nation yet. Black American culture is also young, and burdened by a defeatist mentality supported by well meaning but racist liberal elitists. If someone tells you about the White Conspiracy (TM) enough times, you'll eventually believe that YOU CANNOT SUCCEED. After that, it's a short time before you stop trying to. Then, since your life is a total failure, you can both blame it on someone else, and persecute those who continue to try. In America, blacks who continue to buck the trends and move toward a successful life are branded as race traitors. This, unfortunately for them, is not a cultural attribute which will lead them to success.
For all you blacks who read slashdot (both of you), I want to explain this: In American corporate culture, they don't care if you're fucking GREEN. If hiring you is a benefit to their company, you're HIRED. If I can make a profit by having you, I don't care if you've got ritual beautification scars on your face and clay lip-plates. You're HIRED. In the end, personal bigotries and feelings play little part. If you have the skills I need, I will acquire your work at the price it takes to get it.
NPR for LESS biased information? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha , eh, wot? How about reasonable statistics- like whether having a firearm in the home makes a person more likely to die of gun shot BY THEIR OWN WEAPON- or how about whether it makes them more likely to die of murder? The problem with this is correlation does not mean causation- In other words, having a gun may simply suggest that you fear your life is in danger. Maybe it really is. You can't draw conclusions from a study linking two statistics unless you can PROVE that the two are linked in reality, and that some causative principle links the two together. I could as soon draw links the other way, suggesting that being in danger of murder makes people more likely to own firearms, or that owning a firearm makes people more likely to want to kill you. JEEZ.
You do realize that this is a hacker site, and many of the people here are quite skilled at defeating or modifying such technology-based measures, right? Oh, and any pistol which "brands the shooter and immediately calls police" is going to be an untested weapon at the time it is needed for defense, so most people won't be used to firing it. This means wild shots going through walls, assailants escaping uninjured. You actually need training to operate a firearm with precision. This would be impossible with the implementation you are suggesting. The last thing I want to ever see is a bunch of armed people who have no skill in the proper handling and marksmanship necessary for proper defense. No problems solved in MY opinion, which I respect.
Actually your post regarding nuclear weapons is wishful thinking which is completely at odds with reality. If every nation on earth had nuclear weapons there would never be a conventional war ever again. However, nuclear war would be a regular occurrence. You see, not every country has any kind of restraint in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Some are run by bloodthirsty despotic dictators. Many of these would use a nuke without provocation, if they had them. It's easy for those who live in relatively reasonable countries to expect that level of behavior from other countries. The facts of history do not bear out this reasoning, however well-meaning it is.
I dated a girl who was a supporter of gun control. She assured me that all they sought was reasonable limitations. Then I went to a rally with her. Totally different rhetoric from the pulpit. LISTEN to people like Rosie O'Donnell. She honestly and completely wants all guns banned, and cannot understand why a sane and rational man or woman would want to own one of the horrid things. But she hires a security expert as a bodyguard and he, a private citizen, owns and carries a handgun. What Rosie forgets is that she hires a maid- the rest of us clean up after ourselves. She hires a makeup artist. The rest of us take care of ourselves. She hires a bodyguard to protect her and her family. For the rest of us, that job is our own as well. Here's where the rubber meets the road: If you are OK with the idea of armed bodyguards for the rich and famous, it is an elitist view to deny someone the privelege to carry their own weapon to defend their own life. Rosie is a very sweet and well-meaning woman, but she must disabuse herself of the notion that she lives in the real world now. Her world is different from ours. Hers is a world of bulletproof limousines and private jets. Ours is a world of drive by shootings and airline transportation. We have no control over who we spend our commute time with. She can pick and choose who gets within 50 yards of her. She no longer is made to do her own errands. Most of the time she spends in "our" world now is still carefully controlled by her handlers. We \, meanwhile, spend our lives in this chaos, and we are all infinitely aware that man is the most dangerous and unpredictable predatory animal on this planet. Sorry, Rosie, I know you mean well. It's just, you don't have all the information in front of you when you make your statements of opinion. For the average slob this is of no consequence. For you, it becomes respected opinion.
Yeah, well, most accountants I've dealt with are morons who will fudge the data all up with journal entries without adequate references or explanations. They simply adjust the balances of your expense accounts without leaving a comment behind to tell you why. Don't even get me started on "bookkeepers". Half of them don't know what a debit and credit are. I worked tech support for Intuit and dealt with people's messed up 13 meg data file (that they haven't backed up in 3 years).
I used to do tech support for the Quickbooks and Quickbooks Pro line back in version 4+5. At that time they were a very fun, if low-paying job to have. They moved their entire operations to Tucson, AZ. They closed down the center in Rio Rancho, NM. They catered a big luncheon in a tent and sent all the temps home. The rest of us had to work 90 days more to get our severance pay. I always thought it was an odd way to announce a closure. Other than that, though, I always thought it was a great company. My supervisor, Travis Wheeler, even shaved his head on site after losing a bet. (kinda a dumb stunt, but he's at least honest when he loses a bet he shouldn't have made). He also got us some Nerf Crossbows so we could entertain ourselves by foam-fragging each other in the middle of important calls. I never saw them use this kind of method before. I don't approve. I will say, though, that QB is a great product, but Peachtree has really progressed since 1997 and should probably be checked out as a result of this new tactic. Sorry, Intuit. It was great while it lasted, but only Microsoft could get away with this kind of noncompetitive crap.
1. What is the sensitivity of the Arecibo Dish?
2. What would the power level of a 500 watt isotropic source at 3 GHz 70 light years away as seen from Earth?
3. What are SETI@Home's chances of success if NOBODY is intentionally pointing a high-gain antenna straight at our (future) location in space and firing off a couple of hundred million watts?
4. How much effective power would an RF source on one of Proxima Centauri's planets have to transmit in order for us to detect it?
By the way, I predict the other 10% will be on a technology level that cannot adequately be compared to our own. Not better, not more primitive, just wildly different. Some differences may be due to evolutionary adaptations that give them different needs and abilities than ours.
Actually, statistically, I would estimate a 60% chance of any other life in the universe THAT WE DISCOVER to be behind us in technology, a 1% chance of them being roughly at parity with us, and a 29% chance of them being more advanced than ourselves. Here's my reasoning:
1. It takes millions of years to reach our current state of evolutionary advancement.
2. Once this has happened, it takes a relatively limited set of circumstances for a species to begin to develop technology that builds as the generations pass. An example of this principle would be to compare Chinese, and European/Middle Eastern cultures' technological advancement with Africa and North America's lack of advancement. South America was an unusual circumstance. They had some metallurgy, but lacked the wheel. Some circumstances and cultural features are more conducive to advancement than others.
3. A star system has a limited life of its own, so that a culture more advanced than our own would have a shorter term in their home star system than the period preceding their advancement in many cases. This means that a civilization is in a race against its star, to advance to interstellar travel before their own star annihilates them. Some civilizations will make it, others predictably will not.
I'm not sure where you came up with 33/33/33, but it seems unlikely to break down in this way. But I am neither a statistician or a professional scientist.
America IS different. Our leaders have term limits, don't have absolute power in any way, and living here is entirely voluntary. We have the power to vote, and to leave if we find somewhere we'd rather be. You may be cynical, or don't like the current administration or its policies. In reality, the fact that you CAN criticize the administration proves why it isn't as bad as you say.
SNL can parody CNN's trademark any time they want. Trademarked items and products may be used at any time on TV or anywhere you like. What you can't do is use someone else's trademark to conduct "trade". If I want to call my garage window "Window" I'm allowed to do that. If I want to mention that Microsoft Brand Windows 95 Operating system is, in my opinion, a total piece of crap unworthy of a large customer base, I am allowed to say that. If I want to say "Coors beer tastes like week-old horse piss" I can say that with impunity from prosecution. What I am not permitted to do is market a beer opener by claiming it's perfect for use with Coors beer without asking their permission. I can't make my own beer and call it Coors. I can't make soda and call it Coors . I can't make tires and call them Microsoft. Your point on parody being OK because NBC and CNN have an agreement is factually correct but logically incorrect. Them having an agreement is totally separate from SNL being able to parody their news service.
Re:Mere speculation as of now....
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
I would say your speech recognition device should have its own processor as well. If we ever get that to work, at any rate. It would sure be easier if it was a microprocessor based microphone instead of relying on the host computer for proc power. Multiple specialized processors is the way to go, IMHO. System should be comprised of (at minimum)
1 GP processor for nonspecialized computing (user processes)
1 encryption processor (encrypts data to hdd, external connections)
1 graphics processor (for rendering and output to video card processor)
1 interface processor
1 environment processor (system functions, user functions in idle time)
That way you could upgrade your graphics processor or add another one to the system and build a system with strengths in areas that you do most. If you did mostly 3d rendering, you could have multiple graphics processors (not just video cards but real rendering processors), if you were handicapped you could add more interface processors so the machine would be better able to understand you. The reason I suggested one user processor and one environment processor is to protect us from operating system bloat. The environment processor should be the only one that OS consumes time from. The user processes should get the user processor(s). That way nobody really has to unload findfast and all the other crap MS loads in by default in order to get decent performance from the apps they want to use.
a copper foil bag would be much better for RF between 30 and 900 MHz. I also agree with your second statement. All I want my washer to do is start when I turn the knob and press the button. I don't need an LCD screen to wash my laundry or dishes- you hear that, Maytag? I just want a decent washer for less than 500 bucks and a dryer that dries my laundry in one try. I seriously doubt that I would want my bandwidth gobbled up by appliances that worked for 70 years without internet connectivity.
In addition to this, LCD panels have a polarization filter overlay. So do the glasses. even with perfect alignment of the polarization axes, you would lose 60 percent of the light from the monitor. LCD glasses and LCD monitor=black screen from both eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the democracy of a free state, the right of the people to keep and carry books shall not be infringed."
Change the nouns and one adjective, and it all comes out of the controversy. Now we can see what it means. Clause one is the justification, clause two is the action statement. How fucking difficult is this for you? It's called sentence structure. Jesus, didn't any of you gun-controllers go to college?
I am in the NRA and I also am vehement about the citizenry having the right to own full-auto machine guns, with one note: In order to own a full-auto weapon of any kind, one must undergo a criminal and psycological background test. Then they must pay a HUGE fee in order to own said dangerous weapon, as well as provide the FBI with a reason for ownership. The owner of this rather brutish device must agree to furnish the device at any time without warrant to investigative agencies, and surrender it to the authorities whenever his license is cancelled and for any reason, without due process or warrant issue. He must maintain ownership of this death device, without selling it to anyone else, except those who also hold a current class three license, and must notify the FBI and ATF prior to the transaction. The FBI and ATF have every right to refuse to allow the transaction, even without providing you with a reason for their decision.
Oh, wait, we do that already- and nobody has EVER been murdered by a legally owned automatic weapon. Ever EVER EVER. ( BTW, I do not own one, don't want one. Marksmanship, people. Can't shoot straight with a jiggling weapon. Not interested in a spray can for lead. No skill, no sport.) The NRA does NOT support ordinary people owning a machine gun. That's the GOA.
Do you value the sanctity of your eleven year old daughter's hymen more than the life of a criminal? I do. Do you value the throat of your wife over the life of her potential repist? I do. Do you value the security of your home more than you value the lives of the leeches that prey on our society by robbing us? I do. Do you value the safety of the ones you love over the ability of criminal predators to prey on your naivety? I do, in spades. Don't worry though, even if we disagree, If I ever were to be present and armed while one of these scum were attempting to harm you or your family, I would never hesitate to kill to save an innocent's life. I wouldn't torture myself inside or feel bad about it. I don't feel a twinge of guilt picking a mosquito off my neck and squishing its little guts all over my thumb and index finger. My feelings are less compassionate for criminals. Every time a citizen kills a criminal in self defense, it's just one more asshole off the street. It's good for all of us.
I hate (love) to refute your statistically based anf FLAWED conclusions, but:
1. Wouldn't it be rational to say that people who have fast cars are more likely to drive recklessly and faster than say, a guy with an '89 Corolla?
2. Wouldn't it also be reasonable to assume that people who chain smoke are not very health conscious? Wouldn't they be statistically more likely to eat unhealthful foods? Sure, smoking kills, but not all smokers die of smoking related health issues. Some of them drop their cigarette in their crotch while driving and die while frantically trying to save their gonads from immolation??
3. Wouldn't you suppose that people who defend themselves with a firearm are more likely to kill someone else than those who complied with the criminal and were shot execution style on a soccer field with their coworkers?
4. The chain smoking gun owner in the bright red camaro next to you is saving you thousands. He will die young, and spare the system thousands in medical and retirement benefits. You aren't subsidizing anything he does. It is more likely that he is subsidizing your longevity, since more will be spent on you should you live your last ten years in nursing care than you earned in your entire life. Black males average life expectancy is 67. Enjoy your retirement, cracker.
That's right, because if there were no guns, nobody could embezzle from your company or stab you on the street. No-one could ever kill a whole family simply by drinking seven beers in two hours and driving 100 MPH down the wrong side of a divided highway! And HOW does a peaceful person NOT having a firearm save a life anyway? How many murders were committed by peaceful, law-abiding people this year? NONE.
I lost three cousins in a single day to lawn darts, you insensitive clod! How dare you poke fun at this serious issue! Why in hell do you think they don't sell them anymore, anyway? That's right, my cousins, innocently throwing lawn darts for height and then running in circles all over the lawn. You unfeeling bufoon!
I would have to agree in theory with you. And I do so while logged in. However, I will say that RACE alone is not the issue in my opinion. I would say biology and culture are the more likely suspects. You see, whether we like it or not, although there is probably no "superior" race on this planet, there are certainly superior cultural adaptations. South Africa's ANC is a VERY young system. They haven't worked out how to behave as a civilized nation yet. Black American culture is also young, and burdened by a defeatist mentality supported by well meaning but racist liberal elitists. If someone tells you about the White Conspiracy (TM) enough times, you'll eventually believe that YOU CANNOT SUCCEED. After that, it's a short time before you stop trying to. Then, since your life is a total failure, you can both blame it on someone else, and persecute those who continue to try. In America, blacks who continue to buck the trends and move toward a successful life are branded as race traitors. This, unfortunately for them, is not a cultural attribute which will lead them to success.
For all you blacks who read slashdot (both of you), I want to explain this: In American corporate culture, they don't care if you're fucking GREEN. If hiring you is a benefit to their company, you're HIRED. If I can make a profit by having you, I don't care if you've got ritual beautification scars on your face and clay lip-plates. You're HIRED. In the end, personal bigotries and feelings play little part. If you have the skills I need, I will acquire your work at the price it takes to get it.
NPR for LESS biased information? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha , eh, wot? How about reasonable statistics- like whether having a firearm in the home makes a person more likely to die of gun shot BY THEIR OWN WEAPON- or how about whether it makes them more likely to die of murder? The problem with this is correlation does not mean causation- In other words, having a gun may simply suggest that you fear your life is in danger. Maybe it really is. You can't draw conclusions from a study linking two statistics unless you can PROVE that the two are linked in reality, and that some causative principle links the two together. I could as soon draw links the other way, suggesting that being in danger of murder makes people more likely to own firearms, or that owning a firearm makes people more likely to want to kill you. JEEZ.
You do realize that this is a hacker site, and many of the people here are quite skilled at defeating or modifying such technology-based measures, right? Oh, and any pistol which "brands the shooter and immediately calls police" is going to be an untested weapon at the time it is needed for defense, so most people won't be used to firing it. This means wild shots going through walls, assailants escaping uninjured. You actually need training to operate a firearm with precision. This would be impossible with the implementation you are suggesting. The last thing I want to ever see is a bunch of armed people who have no skill in the proper handling and marksmanship necessary for proper defense. No problems solved in MY opinion, which I respect.
Actually your post regarding nuclear weapons is wishful thinking which is completely at odds with reality. If every nation on earth had nuclear weapons there would never be a conventional war ever again. However, nuclear war would be a regular occurrence. You see, not every country has any kind of restraint in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Some are run by bloodthirsty despotic dictators. Many of these would use a nuke without provocation, if they had them. It's easy for those who live in relatively reasonable countries to expect that level of behavior from other countries. The facts of history do not bear out this reasoning, however well-meaning it is.
I dated a girl who was a supporter of gun control. She assured me that all they sought was reasonable limitations. Then I went to a rally with her. Totally different rhetoric from the pulpit. LISTEN to people like Rosie O'Donnell. She honestly and completely wants all guns banned, and cannot understand why a sane and rational man or woman would want to own one of the horrid things. But she hires a security expert as a bodyguard and he, a private citizen, owns and carries a handgun. What Rosie forgets is that she hires a maid- the rest of us clean up after ourselves. She hires a makeup artist. The rest of us take care of ourselves. She hires a bodyguard to protect her and her family. For the rest of us, that job is our own as well. Here's where the rubber meets the road:
If you are OK with the idea of armed bodyguards for the rich and famous, it is an elitist view to deny someone the privelege to carry their own weapon to defend their own life. Rosie is a very sweet and well-meaning woman, but she must disabuse herself of the notion that she lives in the real world now. Her world is different from ours. Hers is a world of bulletproof limousines and private jets. Ours is a world of drive by shootings and airline transportation. We have no control over who we spend our commute time with. She can pick and choose who gets within 50 yards of her. She no longer is made to do her own errands. Most of the time she spends in "our" world now is still carefully controlled by her handlers. We \, meanwhile, spend our lives in this chaos, and we are all infinitely aware that man is the most dangerous and unpredictable predatory animal on this planet. Sorry, Rosie, I know you mean well. It's just, you don't have all the information in front of you when you make your statements of opinion. For the average slob this is of no consequence. For you, it becomes respected opinion.
Yeah, well, most accountants I've dealt with are morons who will fudge the data all up with journal entries without adequate references or explanations. They simply adjust the balances of your expense accounts without leaving a comment behind to tell you why. Don't even get me started on "bookkeepers". Half of them don't know what a debit and credit are. I worked tech support for Intuit and dealt with people's messed up 13 meg data file (that they haven't backed up in 3 years).
I used to do tech support for the Quickbooks and Quickbooks Pro line back in version 4+5. At that time they were a very fun, if low-paying job to have. They moved their entire operations to Tucson, AZ. They closed down the center in Rio Rancho, NM. They catered a big luncheon in a tent and sent all the temps home. The rest of us had to work 90 days more to get our severance pay. I always thought it was an odd way to announce a closure. Other than that, though, I always thought it was a great company. My supervisor, Travis Wheeler, even shaved his head on site after losing a bet. (kinda a dumb stunt, but he's at least honest when he loses a bet he shouldn't have made). He also got us some Nerf Crossbows so we could entertain ourselves by foam-fragging each other in the middle of important calls. I never saw them use this kind of method before. I don't approve. I will say, though, that QB is a great product, but Peachtree has really progressed since 1997 and should probably be checked out as a result of this new tactic. Sorry, Intuit. It was great while it lasted, but only Microsoft could get away with this kind of noncompetitive crap.
I always wondered if that thing was heavy, and whether they had to glue it in her ear canal. It kinda looks like an old Astatic microphone head.
1. What is the sensitivity of the Arecibo Dish? 2. What would the power level of a 500 watt isotropic source at 3 GHz 70 light years away as seen from Earth? 3. What are SETI@Home's chances of success if NOBODY is intentionally pointing a high-gain antenna straight at our (future) location in space and firing off a couple of hundred million watts? 4. How much effective power would an RF source on one of Proxima Centauri's planets have to transmit in order for us to detect it?
By the way, I predict the other 10% will be on a technology level that cannot adequately be compared to our own. Not better, not more primitive, just wildly different. Some differences may be due to evolutionary adaptations that give them different needs and abilities than ours.
Actually, statistically, I would estimate a 60% chance of any other life in the universe THAT WE DISCOVER to be behind us in technology, a 1% chance of them being roughly at parity with us, and a 29% chance of them being more advanced than ourselves. Here's my reasoning:
1. It takes millions of years to reach our current state of evolutionary advancement. 2. Once this has happened, it takes a relatively limited set of circumstances for a species to begin to develop technology that builds as the generations pass. An example of this principle would be to compare Chinese, and European/Middle Eastern cultures' technological advancement with Africa and North America's lack of advancement. South America was an unusual circumstance. They had some metallurgy, but lacked the wheel. Some circumstances and cultural features are more conducive to advancement than others.
3. A star system has a limited life of its own, so that a culture more advanced than our own would have a shorter term in their home star system than the period preceding their advancement in many cases. This means that a civilization is in a race against its star, to advance to interstellar travel before their own star annihilates them. Some civilizations will make it, others predictably will not.
I'm not sure where you came up with 33/33/33, but it seems unlikely to break down in this way. But I am neither a statistician or a professional scientist.
Anonymous cowards are dolts. Self-righteous ones, at that.
America IS different. Our leaders have term limits, don't have absolute power in any way, and living here is entirely voluntary. We have the power to vote, and to leave if we find somewhere we'd rather be. You may be cynical, or don't like the current administration or its policies. In reality, the fact that you CAN criticize the administration proves why it isn't as bad as you say.
SNL can parody CNN's trademark any time they want. Trademarked items and products may be used at any time on TV or anywhere you like. What you can't do is use someone else's trademark to conduct "trade". If I want to call my garage window "Window" I'm allowed to do that. If I want to mention that Microsoft Brand Windows 95 Operating system is, in my opinion, a total piece of crap unworthy of a large customer base, I am allowed to say that. If I want to say "Coors beer tastes like week-old horse piss" I can say that with impunity from prosecution.
What I am not permitted to do is market a beer opener by claiming it's perfect for use with Coors beer without asking their permission. I can't make my own beer and call it Coors. I can't make soda and call it Coors . I can't make tires and call them Microsoft. Your point on parody being OK because NBC and CNN have an agreement is factually correct but logically incorrect. Them having an agreement is totally separate from SNL being able to parody their news service.
I would say your speech recognition device should have its own processor as well. If we ever get that to work, at any rate. It would sure be easier if it was a microprocessor based microphone instead of relying on the host computer for proc power. Multiple specialized processors is the way to go, IMHO. System should be comprised of (at minimum) 1 GP processor for nonspecialized computing (user processes) 1 encryption processor (encrypts data to hdd, external connections) 1 graphics processor (for rendering and output to video card processor) 1 interface processor 1 environment processor (system functions, user functions in idle time) That way you could upgrade your graphics processor or add another one to the system and build a system with strengths in areas that you do most. If you did mostly 3d rendering, you could have multiple graphics processors (not just video cards but real rendering processors), if you were handicapped you could add more interface processors so the machine would be better able to understand you. The reason I suggested one user processor and one environment processor is to protect us from operating system bloat. The environment processor should be the only one that OS consumes time from. The user processes should get the user processor(s). That way nobody really has to unload findfast and all the other crap MS loads in by default in order to get decent performance from the apps they want to use.
a copper foil bag would be much better for RF between 30 and 900 MHz. I also agree with your second statement. All I want my washer to do is start when I turn the knob and press the button. I don't need an LCD screen to wash my laundry or dishes- you hear that, Maytag? I just want a decent washer for less than 500 bucks and a dryer that dries my laundry in one try. I seriously doubt that I would want my bandwidth gobbled up by appliances that worked for 70 years without internet connectivity.
In addition to this, LCD panels have a polarization filter overlay. So do the glasses. even with perfect alignment of the polarization axes, you would lose 60 percent of the light from the monitor. LCD glasses and LCD monitor=black screen from both eyes.
all the computers I've used had a bit size of 1. their byte sizes did differ, though.
- doesn't
work at, ok?