Right you are about hanging, it is quite instantaneous nowadays, however you're a bit off base on the "those days" part about firing squads.
The interesting thing about Utah is that they still have execution by firing squad as one of the methods that are available for the mortal punishment of the death row inmates. The famous case is that of Gary Gilmore who chose that exact fate in 1977. Gilmore is also famous for being the first person executed after the Supreme Court's moratorium on the death penalty ended in the 70's.
Thus the weapons used to carry out the execution were quite accurate, and the executioners all were able to aim directly at the chest of Gilmore, making it quite quick. Also you are a bit off on the "only one gun has a live round" part. That is sometimes the case, but in Utah and in general the practice is to only put one blank in one of the rifles being used. The rest of the squad has live rounds. This makes the death of the inmate much more assured than just having one live round. Also an experienced rifleman can easily tell the difference between a live round and a blank based on recoil as well as other factors. However the hope is that in the heat of the moment even an experienced rifleman will probably be too caught up in the execution to pay attention to the recoil and actually give much thought to whether or not he fired a live round.
Quite right. A clause that was insisted upon by the bill's opponents. By taken out I refer to a consensus being reached that the bill was unconstitutional and should be reversed. As was not the case until 1840. At that time the law was in effect reversed and those who who fined under the Acts were repaid. A long overdue step in taking out the unconstitutional practices of the government.
by 1803, when the Act expired, Federalists and Republicans alike
agreed that the Republic was better protected by a free press than a vigorous Sedition Law.
In the wake of the crisis, the other two branches, in their own time, also declared the
Act unconstitutional. Congress in 1840, secure now in an understanding of the Sedition Act's
unconstitutionality, formally declared the Act unconstitutional and appropriated funds to
re-pay all the fines levied under the Act. The Supreme Court, in the 1964 case New York
Times v. Sullivan, completed the sweep by declaring that the Sedition Act was
unconstitutional.
I should have been more clear in my post, but I chose to summarize and be less than 100% accurate by not defining all of my terms. Since you are well versed in the history of said events I'm sure you got the gist of my points. Thank you however for clarifying, the more informed we are the better.
Has Chomsky perhaps mellowed somewhat (snip) Has he perhaps tried to see something of both sides in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, some merit, no matter how small, in the cause of the Israeli people?
Why should he see merit in the side of the Israelis? Is there some kind of requirement that you must do so or you are anti-semitic or somehow a bad person? Is it wrong for people to support the Palestinians and hope that they gain their independence?
But for Chomsky it has been suffering for the Palestinians, period. (snip) [H]e is concerned over what he calls "killings" and "atrocities," all of which, according to him, are killings of Arabs by Jews.
Entirely fallacious. Obviously Chomsky knows that the Israelis are suffering. He chooses champion the cause of the side that he feels is in the right. The statement is loaded with the implication that Chomsky does not care about or somehow condones the deaths of Israelis. Also it contains the connotation that perhaps Chomsky dies not even acknowledge that Israelis are dying or being killed, obviously an attempt to draw a parallel with Holocaust-deniers.
Not a word of any suffering by Jews, not a word of Arab violence.
Chomsky has spoken at length about suicide bombings, and many of the clashes in the region. Why must he speak about what we all know in every single speech that he gives? As this "point" by Cohn only applies to one particular speech given at MIT. Once again this attempts to portray Chomsky as having the view that Israelis are not being killed and Arabs do not commit violent acts. Another attempt to make a Holocaust-denier link.
Instead, a repeated demand for a Palestinian "right to resist," and a criticism of Arafat for having signed away that right at Oslo.
So? That is his view. That the Palestinians are indeed fighting for independence. There is a difference between resistance and terrorism. Chomsky does not and has not supported terrorism, instead he acknowledges that the Palestinians are an occupied people, and as such deserve the right to fight for their freedom, as any other occupied people have the right to do.
Arafat, as Chomsky has opined many times before, is far too easy on the Jews.
Once again an attempt to make it seem as if Chomsky is demanding that suicide bombers be unleashed upon Israel by the thousands. Instead "too easy on the Jews" refers to the negotiations and demands that are made by the Palestinians. He believes that Israel is the side that should be making the concessions, as they are the party that is in the wrong. Instead of saying that Cohn makes it seem as if Noam is a blood-thirsty maniac by trying to bring up terrorist and Holocaust links that do not exist.
a repetition of Nazi crimes
Quite the loaded statement when taken out of context. Nazi crimes included making some citizens "second-class" citizens, taking away their rights, giving them special areas to live in, taking away their freedoms to work and travel without restrictions... etc. It goes on and on. Obviously the link is once again drawn that Chomsky is anti-semitic. Drawing any kind of link to Nazi Germany is unacceptable to the Zionists and cannot be done, especially by a "self-hating" Jew. Nevermind the fact that it is an appeal to the Jews that they should not go down the same path as the country that so terribly murdered their people.
I suggest that anyone who wants to see what Chomsky's true views on these issues should refer to This link
Well it was just the first link that popped up and it had a snappy title. A little more searching turns up many other links on the subject. Plenty of American ones... although I wish it was on the order of thousands and the that they were purely historical instances.
This is a good one from the Christian Science Monitor that includes a nice history on the subject, as well as an examination of the current situation.
Of course I do agree with you assessment of the current state of affairs. I just wanted to point out that we're not entirely screwed in this country yet.
The ACLU fights for us all. The KKK, pedophiles, religious minorities, racial minorities, those who are subjected to illegal DUI-check roadblocks, Nazis, those who are threatened by the DMCA, etc.
They fight for freedom, the freedom for everyone. Not just whatever group that happens to be popular. If they did not defend the rights of the most despised amongst us they would not be for liberty at all, just selective liberty.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - wrongly attributed to Voltaire
It's like the whole Noam Chmosky/holocaust denier controversy. Because Noam defended the right of Faurisson to write whatever the hell he wanted even if it is considered to be "evil and bigoted" Noam was labeled a Holocaust-denier. Obviously Noam was for freedom, and the rights of us all to be free. Even those considered to not "deserve" the right to be free.
So now Chomsky gets called an anti-semite all the time because of his defense of the rights of free speech. It is an unfair connection to make, just as trying to paint the ACLU as a terrible group because of who they defend is unfair.
A criminal defense attorney is not a bad person because they represent murderers, sex offenders, and war criminals. They are fighting to maintain liberty for us all, even the worst of us deserve the same rights that we enjoy. Otherwise those rights are meaningless.
There are numerous precedents for things such as the Patriot Act. They have usually been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but they have always stuck around until they reached the point of being struck down. For example the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were blatantly unconstitutional and designed to give the government the power to crack down on their opponents. Of course it wasn't taken out until 1840, not exactly a quick response.
Then of course we had the Espionage Act and Sedition Acts during WW1. Similar things in WW2, the relocation of Japanese-Americans... all sorts of precedents have been set in this regard.
The goverment does not care if the laws that they pass or the actions that they take are unconstitutional. That is the one thing history has taught us again and again. It doesn't matter at all unless the Supreme Court is going to rule against them. These sorts of unconstitutional practices will be allowed almost without fail. Perhaps years later public opinion will shift and people will add another chapter to the history books on unconsitutional precedents.
Hopefully the SCOTUS gets the balls to do something about it. Although I highly doubt that our current court will become involved. We already know how they rule on major issues that affect our country. The precedent is to allow the govt to do whatever the hell they want, worry about the Constitution later. Especially when the ideologies of the different branches of govt meet.
Chemical weapons - (mustard gas, phosgene, and others) - WW1 - The US used considerable amounts of chemical weapons during the was.
Biological - (smallpox?) - Britain's Lord Amherst bragged about the use of smallpox-contaminated blankets to infect and "vaccinate" American-Indian tribes during the French-Indian War. "I may try to inoculate the Indians by way of blankets," he wrote, "taking care, however, not to get the disease myself." Some historians accept as a truism that this was also done by the US government as well as settlers going west. As for concrete proof and consensus on this issue, none has been reached. Some call such claims conspiracy theories, others cite various records to make the case. I'd say it is somewhat inconclusive.
Also the US has been, (still is?) at the fore-front of biological weapons research. Tests are known to have been done on military volunteers who were infected with a vast range of diseases.
When Iraq votes you can bet that there will be shiny new voting machines from Diebold or someone else of their kind if "we" have our way. Since they are supposed to elmininate doubt they would be the perfect thing for a country in need of "quality assurance". We are getting them nationalized healthcare, new everything, and roads and such, so why not give them the "best" in voting technology?
Some time in the future...
The people of Iraq didn't really want an Islamic government. The polls were just wrong... I mean if the machines say that's who they voted for then that's who they voted for. Conspiracy theories are for the paranoid and anti-american malcontents.
"Read science fiction. Go to science fiction conventions (a good way to meet hackers and proto-hackers)."
This is under the "Bonus Points for Style" section of the HOWTO. I see nothing about 'Heinlein' mentioned there. Simply a command to go to sci-fi conventions and read sci-fi. The majority of which just plain sucks. Most of the books of that genre I read just outright bite. I won't even get into how much I hate David Weber and some of the other hacks. Of course the diamonds in the rough in this particular genre make it worthwile for me to read it.
My comment was merely a ribbing of the arrogance and ridiculousness of ESR's whole deal. The guy is on a major power-trip.
That's what it stands for now. When the term daemon was first invented it was merely in reference to the mythological form of use. As in a daemon lurking in the background waiting to do something, or doing it behind the scenes.
The adoption of "disk and execution monitor" was a rationalization of the term, as computer geeks always need to do things like that.
Quoth the Jargon File - "[from Maxwell's Demon, later incorrectly retronymed as 'Disk And Execution MONitor'] A program that is not invoked explicitly, but lies dormant waiting for some condition(s) to occur."
What about native readers of Hebrew, Chinese, and Japanese to name just a few of the non left-to-right languages?
My Japanese Aunt gave me quite a few Japanese comic books and other reading material that is read starting at what we Americans consider to be the "back" of the book.
The way that we read and the directions that our eyes travel when doing so are dependant on cultural norms. There is nothing instinctual or natural about the left-to-right viewing convention as far as I know.
Although since as ESR says all hackers must learn English I guess the whole cultural bias thing doesn't matter much.
Also we must all read sci-fi and go to conventions dealing in the same... at least if we want ESR bonus points.
How can you say that about all the hard work ESR put into designing this amazingly wonderful logo?
I for one hope it gains the same level of popularity as the term "Gandhicon".
Real junkies love pharmeceuticals. Dilaudid, Demerol, Oxycodone and Oxymorphone all can be cooked up and shot. Dilaudid, (Hydromorphone) for example is almost 10 times as powerful as morphine on a milligram basis. Oxycontin is also often snorted in order to get the quick-rush of euphoria that results. I know heroin addicts who prefer Hydromorphone to alomst anything else. Reasons? You always know what you're getting, and it's consistently powerful, more so than morphine which is also a big favorite of junkies.
Solution? Start a campaign/website to promote the use of foil in all packages that everyone sends out. A massive wave of civil protest against the invasion of our privacy. If even a tiny percentage of all packages are "invisible" to the techniques used to scan said packages then trying to find anything amongst the haystack of foil-wrapped cookies from Mom will be impossible.
It's kind of like when Reagan tried to promote anonymous tips to the police from citizens to bust drug criminals. High Times told it's readers to call in and report lawyers for doing cocaine... the result? The lawyers started filing lawsuits and the whole thing was tossed aside like the trash that it was.
Quoth skajake - "the attackers are primarily Syrian, Jordanian, and Iranian"
From the article you linked to to try and prove that point -
"U.S. and coalition officials have attributed nearly all attacks against them to former Saddam loyalists, not foreign fighters such as al Qaeda members or militants from surrounding nations."
"We have not seen any attacks that we could directly attribute to foreign fighters (in the past)"
So WTF are you talking about? You say the attackers are "primarily" foreigners, but the material you provided directly contradicts your statement. The military specifically states that "nearly all" attacks in Iraq were carried out by Iraqis. And there was no evidence at all before yesterday that foreigners were involved in any of the attacks.
Did you not read the article you linked to? Or were you just trying to find any proof of any foreign insurgents carrying out these kinds of attacks? Nevermind the fact that the proof shows your earlier post to be completely false.
"I am not ingnorant (sic)"
Pretty funny. I'd say you're either trolling, extremely ignorant, or an utter moron. Possibly all three.
But the page you are quoting links to a definition that specifically says this about the possible punishments for being AWOL -
"For more than 30 days. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year."
I'd bitch at the webmaster for not having his facts straight instead of the AC. The AC seemed to be using the term correctly, and the only fault in his post was perhaps that he did not check his post against the faulty defintion provided by the link.
Or I imagine you could make a case that linking to a site that has an incorrect definition was a mistake and not good for his case. What is strange though is that they call the site "awolbush" but then give an improper definition that makes the site's name seem incorrect.
What really makes it easy for the Bush administration is the infighting amongst it's opponents.
I watch FOX (must not mis-spell word to keep you from bitching and forming opinions on my personal politics) every now and then. I probably absorb a "good" 10 or so minutes of it every day. I watch and read all the kinds of news that I can. My own observation is that FOX is utterly disgusting in almost all ways. Not that any other mainstream corporate news channel is much better, but as you said, "I know their biases".
In other words they are so openly biased that we all know their position, at least any of us who are not blinded by claims of "no spin-zone" and "fair and balanced". It is precisely those claims that I have the biggest problem with. They attempt to portray themselves as paragons of journalistic integrity, forget anything else that is terribly wrong about them, that attempt alone is enough for me to *almost* dismiss them outright.
I remember during "Operation Iraqi Freedom" when the first reports of possible WMD came in FOX was the only channel to plaster "Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq" across the bottom of the screen. There are numerous examples of other outright yellow-journalism from FOX. The term "FAUX" is simply an acknowledgement of how insane their entire channel is. All the way from Fox and Friends in the morning to freakin Geraldo. The channel is a joke, so I will refer to it jokingly if I feel like it.
With everyone else, you can't be sure
I find the BBC to be fairly objective. They report on the Israel/Palestine issue about as straight as they can and then get accused of being anti-semitic because it's not flattering to Israel. Add in Reuters, the AP, the internet and all the major "News" networks and I feel that I can get a good view of the day's issues. I don't just watch one clearly-biased network and imagine that since I know the network's biases I am properly informed. I watch it all and if I feel that a media outlet is doing a disservice to the truth then I will call a spade a spade and use a perhaps-funny version of their name to ridicule them.
Hearst's papers were garbage too, but if I were alive back then I should just grin and bear it since I know his biases. Don't dare call it yellow-journalism, that's stupid discrimination.
Ever heard of Tauzin-Dingell? He co-sponsored that bill, one that would allow the Bells to provide broadband over their networks in a monopoly-like fashion.
He favors DRM and other similar schemes.
His voting record on issues pertaining to the revocation of our rights is troubling - ACLU voting guide
He used to be a Democrat, then he switched to the Republican party.
I've seen the guy on C-SPAN, CNN, FAUX, etc. for years. Other than his attempts to act as if he knows what's going on in the "tech" world he is just another sleazy politician. The same garbage debate tactics and fallacies that almost all of his kind use.
I have an LG CED-8080B. It's worked great for me for the couple years I've had it. I think I've only burnt a handful of coasters with it out of literally over one thousand burns. Works like that on Linux or Windows. I have no complaints about it, other than the fact that I'm partially finished with the 9.2 torrent and now I get this news. At least I heard it from/. I know I wouldn't have gone to Mandrake's errata page.
You didn't have to always kill everyone and take no booty.
"[The Israelites] warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. [...] And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. [...] And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? [...] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
(Numbers 31:7-18, KJV)
It's a joke-troll friend. A variation of the classic consultant troll.
The first line is lifted straight from the spiralx troll archive, (and as it happens an actual spiralx troll) - Maybe they need to change their name
Another example was posted yesterday, (although it is an old troll) -
True costs of Linux
In fact I found it so obvious that I'm amazed you got modded up for responding to an off-topic troll.
Some examples -
Linux 9.0 with the Kool Desktop Environment
Information Technology
Technology Support
strange hacks in the 'Preferences' section (apparently a reference to simply changing an option!)
hack in the Konsole program (a terminal command)
arcane nuances (another classic line, especially when referring to the simple tasks done on a purely GUI desktop)
I know that we all expect consultants to be dumb as a box of rocks, but this troll was over the top ignorant, although it was perhaps a bit more subtle than the "VB kernel programming" in the other troll.
Who the hell capitalizes and spells out all of the various terms used in the troll? Total Cost of Ownership, File-Browser, Web-Browser, Desktop, Operating System, Operating Costs, Company, Office Suite, etc.
And the part at the end about H1-B Visa workers, (in the Company's Technology Support Division), being a better idea than using Linux is just so obviously a troll that I can't imagine how anyone could overlook it. It is clearly designed to incite. Flamebait mixed with troll.
No wonder so many trolls congregate here on/. If the troll had been done better it no doubt could have been modded up, or caught many more pigeons.
Think people! Or failing that give the spiralx /. Troll HOWTO a read.
In other news - The October 15th deadline to get the official Darl-tested, SCO-approved Linux license at the bargain basement price of just $699 has passed us by. Woe unto us all!
Hey Guy, it's not my opinion. I merely clarified the article's position so that the AC who didn't RTFA would understand that they were talking about a future where many Linux projects are dependent on Mono.
So the AC's point - "Mono is a work in progress and really isn't embedded itself into Linux yet or probably will for a long while" - does not apply at all, since they are precisely talking about that "long while" away.
I also would like to know if you have a real refutation of the point of the article other than "No... Dr. Goofy".
If everything comes to pass as they say, and MS tries to shut down the Mono project, (not that I agree that this is at all likely to happen), then how is the article's point "[The projects that are dependant on Mono] would have to be abandoned or migrated to the Windows.NET platform" not correct?
It sounds like you merely wanted to bitch about GNU/Linux instead of actually talking about this article and being on-topic. I only use, and used the term GNU/Linux jokingly. I happen to agree with your view on the GNU/Linux naming stupidity, so please keep your trolls away from my posts, or at least try and argue the points intelligently.
Slashdot Mirror
Right you are about hanging, it is quite instantaneous nowadays, however you're a bit off base on the "those days" part about firing squads.
The interesting thing about Utah is that they still have execution by firing squad as one of the methods that are available for the mortal punishment of the death row inmates. The famous case is that of Gary Gilmore who chose that exact fate in 1977. Gilmore is also famous for being the first person executed after the Supreme Court's moratorium on the death penalty ended in the 70's.
Thus the weapons used to carry out the execution were quite accurate, and the executioners all were able to aim directly at the chest of Gilmore, making it quite quick. Also you are a bit off on the "only one gun has a live round" part. That is sometimes the case, but in Utah and in general the practice is to only put one blank in one of the rifles being used. The rest of the squad has live rounds. This makes the death of the inmate much more assured than just having one live round. Also an experienced rifleman can easily tell the difference between a live round and a blank based on recoil as well as other factors. However the hope is that in the heat of the moment even an experienced rifleman will probably be too caught up in the execution to pay attention to the recoil and actually give much thought to whether or not he fired a live round.
Why should he see merit in the side of the Israelis? Is there some kind of requirement that you must do so or you are anti-semitic or somehow a bad person? Is it wrong for people to support the Palestinians and hope that they gain their independence?
Entirely fallacious. Obviously Chomsky knows that the Israelis are suffering. He chooses champion the cause of the side that he feels is in the right. The statement is loaded with the implication that Chomsky does not care about or somehow condones the deaths of Israelis. Also it contains the connotation that perhaps Chomsky dies not even acknowledge that Israelis are dying or being killed, obviously an attempt to draw a parallel with Holocaust-deniers.
Chomsky has spoken at length about suicide bombings, and many of the clashes in the region. Why must he speak about what we all know in every single speech that he gives? As this "point" by Cohn only applies to one particular speech given at MIT. Once again this attempts to portray Chomsky as having the view that Israelis are not being killed and Arabs do not commit violent acts. Another attempt to make a Holocaust-denier link.
So? That is his view. That the Palestinians are indeed fighting for independence. There is a difference between resistance and terrorism. Chomsky does not and has not supported terrorism, instead he acknowledges that the Palestinians are an occupied people, and as such deserve the right to fight for their freedom, as any other occupied people have the right to do.
Once again an attempt to make it seem as if Chomsky is demanding that suicide bombers be unleashed upon Israel by the thousands. Instead "too easy on the Jews" refers to the negotiations and demands that are made by the Palestinians. He believes that Israel is the side that should be making the concessions, as they are the party that is in the wrong. Instead of saying that Cohn makes it seem as if Noam is a blood-thirsty maniac by trying to bring up terrorist and Holocaust links that do not exist.
Quite the loaded statement when taken out of context. Nazi crimes included making some citizens "second-class" citizens, taking away their rights, giving them special areas to live in, taking away their freedoms to work and travel without restrictions... etc. It goes on and on. Obviously the link is once again drawn that Chomsky is anti-semitic. Drawing any kind of link to Nazi Germany is unacceptable to the Zionists and cannot be done, especially by a "self-hating" Jew. Nevermind the fact that it is an appeal to the Jews that they should not go down the same path as the country that so terribly murdered their people.
I suggest that anyone who wants to see what Chomsky's true views on these issues should refer to This link
Well it was just the first link that popped up and it had a snappy title. A little more searching turns up many other links on the subject. Plenty of American ones... although I wish it was on the order of thousands and the that they were purely historical instances.
This is a good one from the Christian Science Monitor that includes a nice history on the subject, as well as an examination of the current situation.
Google! Has quite a few.
Of course I do agree with you assessment of the current state of affairs. I just wanted to point out that we're not entirely screwed in this country yet.
The ACLU fights for us all. The KKK, pedophiles, religious minorities, racial minorities, those who are subjected to illegal DUI-check roadblocks, Nazis, those who are threatened by the DMCA, etc.
They fight for freedom, the freedom for everyone. Not just whatever group that happens to be popular. If they did not defend the rights of the most despised amongst us they would not be for liberty at all, just selective liberty.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - wrongly attributed to Voltaire
It's like the whole Noam Chmosky/holocaust denier controversy. Because Noam defended the right of Faurisson to write whatever the hell he wanted even if it is considered to be "evil and bigoted" Noam was labeled a Holocaust-denier. Obviously Noam was for freedom, and the rights of us all to be free. Even those considered to not "deserve" the right to be free.
So now Chomsky gets called an anti-semite all the time because of his defense of the rights of free speech. It is an unfair connection to make, just as trying to paint the ACLU as a terrible group because of who they defend is unfair.
A criminal defense attorney is not a bad person because they represent murderers, sex offenders, and war criminals. They are fighting to maintain liberty for us all, even the worst of us deserve the same rights that we enjoy. Otherwise those rights are meaningless.
There are numerous precedents for things such as the Patriot Act. They have usually been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but they have always stuck around until they reached the point of being struck down. For example the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were blatantly unconstitutional and designed to give the government the power to crack down on their opponents. Of course it wasn't taken out until 1840, not exactly a quick response.
Then of course we had the Espionage Act and Sedition Acts during WW1. Similar things in WW2, the relocation of Japanese-Americans... all sorts of precedents have been set in this regard.
Reflections of Unconstitutional Precedence
TImeline of American Hegemony
The goverment does not care if the laws that they pass or the actions that they take are unconstitutional. That is the one thing history has taught us again and again. It doesn't matter at all unless the Supreme Court is going to rule against them. These sorts of unconstitutional practices will be allowed almost without fail. Perhaps years later public opinion will shift and people will add another chapter to the history books on unconsitutional precedents.
Hopefully the SCOTUS gets the balls to do something about it. Although I highly doubt that our current court will become involved. We already know how they rule on major issues that affect our country. The precedent is to allow the govt to do whatever the hell they want, worry about the Constitution later. Especially when the ideologies of the different branches of govt meet.
Chemical weapons - (mustard gas, phosgene, and others) - WW1 - The US used considerable amounts of chemical weapons during the was.
Biological - (smallpox?) - Britain's Lord Amherst bragged about the use of smallpox-contaminated blankets to infect and "vaccinate" American-Indian tribes during the French-Indian War. "I may try to inoculate the Indians by way of blankets," he wrote, "taking care, however, not to get the disease myself." Some historians accept as a truism that this was also done by the US government as well as settlers going west. As for concrete proof and consensus on this issue, none has been reached. Some call such claims conspiracy theories, others cite various records to make the case. I'd say it is somewhat inconclusive.
Also the US has been, (still is?) at the fore-front of biological weapons research. Tests are known to have been done on military volunteers who were infected with a vast range of diseases.
Some time in the future...
Let me refer you to HOWTO Be a Hacker courtesy of ESR.
"Read science fiction. Go to science fiction conventions (a good way to meet hackers and proto-hackers)."
This is under the "Bonus Points for Style" section of the HOWTO. I see nothing about 'Heinlein' mentioned there. Simply a command to go to sci-fi conventions and read sci-fi. The majority of which just plain sucks. Most of the books of that genre I read just outright bite. I won't even get into how much I hate David Weber and some of the other hacks. Of course the diamonds in the rough in this particular genre make it worthwile for me to read it.
My comment was merely a ribbing of the arrogance and ridiculousness of ESR's whole deal. The guy is on a major power-trip.
That's what it stands for now. When the term daemon was first invented it was merely in reference to the mythological form of use. As in a daemon lurking in the background waiting to do something, or doing it behind the scenes.
The adoption of "disk and execution monitor" was a rationalization of the term, as computer geeks always need to do things like that.
Quoth the Jargon File - "[from Maxwell's Demon, later incorrectly retronymed as 'Disk And Execution MONitor'] A program that is not invoked explicitly, but lies dormant waiting for some condition(s) to occur."
What about native readers of Hebrew, Chinese, and Japanese to name just a few of the non left-to-right languages?
My Japanese Aunt gave me quite a few Japanese comic books and other reading material that is read starting at what we Americans consider to be the "back" of the book.
The way that we read and the directions that our eyes travel when doing so are dependant on cultural norms. There is nothing instinctual or natural about the left-to-right viewing convention as far as I know.
Although since as ESR says all hackers must learn English I guess the whole cultural bias thing doesn't matter much.
Also we must all read sci-fi and go to conventions dealing in the same... at least if we want ESR bonus points.
Mod parent up! Mod me down offtopic. Mod the third post you read after this one troll. That is all.
How can you say that about all the hard work ESR put into designing this amazingly wonderful logo? I for one hope it gains the same level of popularity as the term "Gandhicon".
Real junkies love pharmeceuticals. Dilaudid, Demerol, Oxycodone and Oxymorphone all can be cooked up and shot. Dilaudid, (Hydromorphone) for example is almost 10 times as powerful as morphine on a milligram basis. Oxycontin is also often snorted in order to get the quick-rush of euphoria that results. I know heroin addicts who prefer Hydromorphone to alomst anything else. Reasons? You always know what you're getting, and it's consistently powerful, more so than morphine which is also a big favorite of junkies.
Solution? Start a campaign/website to promote the use of foil in all packages that everyone sends out. A massive wave of civil protest against the invasion of our privacy. If even a tiny percentage of all packages are "invisible" to the techniques used to scan said packages then trying to find anything amongst the haystack of foil-wrapped cookies from Mom will be impossible. It's kind of like when Reagan tried to promote anonymous tips to the police from citizens to bust drug criminals. High Times told it's readers to call in and report lawyers for doing cocaine... the result? The lawyers started filing lawsuits and the whole thing was tossed aside like the trash that it was.
Quoth skajake - "the attackers are primarily Syrian, Jordanian, and Iranian"
From the article you linked to to try and prove that point -
"U.S. and coalition officials have attributed nearly all attacks against them to former Saddam loyalists, not foreign fighters such as al Qaeda members or militants from surrounding nations."
"We have not seen any attacks that we could directly attribute to foreign fighters (in the past)"
So WTF are you talking about? You say the attackers are "primarily" foreigners, but the material you provided directly contradicts your statement. The military specifically states that "nearly all" attacks in Iraq were carried out by Iraqis. And there was no evidence at all before yesterday that foreigners were involved in any of the attacks.
Did you not read the article you linked to? Or were you just trying to find any proof of any foreign insurgents carrying out these kinds of attacks? Nevermind the fact that the proof shows your earlier post to be completely false.
"I am not ingnorant (sic)"
Pretty funny. I'd say you're either trolling, extremely ignorant, or an utter moron. Possibly all three.
But the page you are quoting links to a definition that specifically says this about the possible punishments for being AWOL -
"For more than 30 days. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year."
I'd bitch at the webmaster for not having his facts straight instead of the AC. The AC seemed to be using the term correctly, and the only fault in his post was perhaps that he did not check his post against the faulty defintion provided by the link.
Or I imagine you could make a case that linking to a site that has an incorrect definition was a mistake and not good for his case. What is strange though is that they call the site "awolbush" but then give an improper definition that makes the site's name seem incorrect.
What really makes it easy for the Bush administration is the infighting amongst it's opponents.
In other words they are so openly biased that we all know their position, at least any of us who are not blinded by claims of "no spin-zone" and "fair and balanced". It is precisely those claims that I have the biggest problem with. They attempt to portray themselves as paragons of journalistic integrity, forget anything else that is terribly wrong about them, that attempt alone is enough for me to *almost* dismiss them outright.
I remember during "Operation Iraqi Freedom" when the first reports of possible WMD came in FOX was the only channel to plaster "Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq" across the bottom of the screen. There are numerous examples of other outright yellow-journalism from FOX. The term "FAUX" is simply an acknowledgement of how insane their entire channel is. All the way from Fox and Friends in the morning to freakin Geraldo. The channel is a joke, so I will refer to it jokingly if I feel like it.
I find the BBC to be fairly objective. They report on the Israel/Palestine issue about as straight as they can and then get accused of being anti-semitic because it's not flattering to Israel. Add in Reuters, the AP, the internet and all the major "News" networks and I feel that I can get a good view of the day's issues. I don't just watch one clearly-biased network and imagine that since I know the network's biases I am properly informed. I watch it all and if I feel that a media outlet is doing a disservice to the truth then I will call a spade a spade and use a perhaps-funny version of their name to ridicule them.
Hearst's papers were garbage too, but if I were alive back then I should just grin and bear it since I know his biases. Don't dare call it yellow-journalism, that's stupid discrimination.
Ever heard of Tauzin-Dingell? He co-sponsored that bill, one that would allow the Bells to provide broadband over their networks in a monopoly-like fashion.
He favors DRM and other similar schemes.
His voting record on issues pertaining to the revocation of our rights is troubling - ACLU voting guide
He used to be a Democrat, then he switched to the Republican party.
I've seen the guy on C-SPAN, CNN, FAUX, etc. for years. Other than his attempts to act as if he knows what's going on in the "tech" world he is just another sleazy politician. The same garbage debate tactics and fallacies that almost all of his kind use.
I have an LG CED-8080B. It's worked great for me for the couple years I've had it. I think I've only burnt a handful of coasters with it out of literally over one thousand burns. Works like that on Linux or Windows. I have no complaints about it, other than the fact that I'm partially finished with the 9.2 torrent and now I get this news. At least I heard it from /. I know I wouldn't have gone to Mandrake's errata page.
And a fuzzy goat belly is the medium of satire.
In other news - The October 15th deadline to get the official Darl-tested, SCO-approved Linux license at the bargain basement price of just $699 has passed us by. Woe unto us all!
Hey Guy, it's not my opinion. I merely clarified the article's position so that the AC who didn't RTFA would understand that they were talking about a future where many Linux projects are dependent on Mono.
.NET platform" not correct?
So the AC's point - "Mono is a work in progress and really isn't embedded itself into Linux yet or probably will for a long while" - does not apply at all, since they are precisely talking about that "long while" away.
I also would like to know if you have a real refutation of the point of the article other than "No... Dr. Goofy".
If everything comes to pass as they say, and MS tries to shut down the Mono project, (not that I agree that this is at all likely to happen), then how is the article's point "[The projects that are dependant on Mono] would have to be abandoned or migrated to the Windows
It sounds like you merely wanted to bitch about GNU/Linux instead of actually talking about this article and being on-topic. I only use, and used the term GNU/Linux jokingly. I happen to agree with your view on the GNU/Linux naming stupidity, so please keep your trolls away from my posts, or at least try and argue the points intelligently.