Stick w/ 2 laptops but require X number of consecutive right answers. For example, there's a 1/32 chance they get 5 consecutive right answers by chance. Or get 5 laptops and go three rounds -- 1/125 chance. Obviously this wouldn't eliminate luck, but it would make it much less a part of the equation. Be a lot cheaper than 50 laptops too.
a) go to jail for six months, b) go to jail for six years, or c) choose neither "a" nor "b" and receive "b" by default.
Assume no wiggling out of the choice, no escape from jail. Which do you chose? Based on your post, sounds like you would prefer a 6 year option. I fail to see the wisdom.
Principles? A proxy vote for Bush? You know, you can live in a fantasy world or you can make the most of a situation. Some people live in a world where they can understand that sometimes you have to make a choice that isn't perfect. I for example vote Libertarian any chance I can get. But when it comes to something as crucial as the US Presidency, I'm also capable of understanding that the "least worst" choice can be miles better than the worst when there is no realistic chance the third party candidate will win. If you want to support third parties, start locally -- city council, then mayor, then state rep., then governor... only after you have a real base does it make sense to go for the Lotto. And it sure doesn't make sense to convince otherwise reasonable voters that Gore and Bush were fungible. So yes, I do blame Nader as a spoiler, and the nuckleheads who helped him along.
How many recall all those Nader voters who believed it didn't matter which party won the White House back in 2000? They were warned but instead stuck their fingers up their.... in their ears. Anyway, it's not just this bit of anti-consumer judicial activism, so too is free speech under attack if recent decisions are indicative of the future. Next thing, they'll be backing Cheney's notions he's not part of the executive branch. It's going to be rough 10-15 years.
In fact, I recall that the guy I talked to used a phrase along the lines of "like OSX does" when describing the pc-bsd packaging system. So you are quite correct.
I tried this out recently after being given a disc at a linux fest. It's pretty nice. The guy giving out the discs explained that when you install applications, the applications come bundled with all of their dependencies included. This makes the apps use a little bit more disc space, but avoids the issue of two apps requiring two incompatible dependencies. That's pretty nice.
The downside, at least a couple months ago, was that the disc is an install disc rather than a live one. I think he said it takes over the whole drive as well, but I won't swear to that and it may have changed since then. Anyway, I had it in parallels for a while and although it wasn't enough to convince me to abandon ubuntu, I will say that installing software was brain dead easy -- not that synaptic is hard, but with synaptic you do need to know the name of what you want. With PC-BSD, you just pick from a menu of shiny icons and descriptions.
We can't have the whole story on the appeal. In CA apparently, he can appeal to superior court for a new trial. Random info off the web. After a verdict there, I bet the same appellate procedures that apply to any trial would apply to his, i.e., he could appeal to the CA Supreme Court, and if he's really lucky, it could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. I should say though, I have no actual knowledge of CA law.
Some other people might say, we've been killing whales with canoes and spears for thousands of years and it's never been a problem.
From TFA:
It was probably shot at the whale from a heavy shoulder gun around 1890. The small metal cylinder was filled with explosives fitted with a time-delay fuse so it would explode seconds after it was shot into the whale. The bomb lance was meant to kill the whale immediately and prevent it from escaping....
The 49-foot male whale died when it was shot with a similar projectile last month, and the older device was found buried beneath its blubber as hunters carved it with a chain saw for harvesting.
Apparently, we aren't talking about native peoples hunting with canoes and spears -- we're talking about native peoples hunting with explosive body penetrating grenades and "carving" with chainsaws. Somehow, I don't have much of an issue trampling on the rights of native groups to use modern weaponry in a hunt most people find appalling. If they want to use canoes and spears -- more power to them -- at the least the whales have a reasonable chance of getting even AND that fits with traditional practice. Power boats, grenades, and chainsaws though -- the native groups might as well be anyone at that point.
She makes some good points. One point is that if an objective can be achieved by brute force alone, i.e., without cooperation from the conquered people, that bodes well for success by the brute. As an example, she points to the first gulf war which had the objective of expelling Iraqi troops from Quwait. In contrast, the current mess, i.e., installing a government, requires the cooperation of a population interested to a large degree in not accepting whatever we try to impose. Hence the poor chance of success. It has nothing to do with secret weapons really -- except that if Iraqis did have some kind of secret weapon, they could become the brute-forcers. But it isn't even necessary to chalk up a loss for the Iraqis to have such a weapon -- their cooperation, or lack thereof, is all that they need. In other words, we lose without cooperation, AND we lose if they come up with a secret weapon to expel us. The secret weapon only speeds the process, but doesn't change the result.
Actuall, my gp said " The cops are on duty, their income is supplied by individuals like this man." My parent said no, the city is their employer, not you, or something similar. Ticket revenue was not part of our discussion.
I'm from Washington State (the real Washington with trees and mountains, not the one to the east, AKA "Mordor"). Anyway, I've heard that phrase from time to time.
If rich wives don't really love their husband why is that?
She's a dishonest prostitute. The man who wins is the one who doesn't marry and visits with honest prostitutes. Probably cheaper and more fun in the long run.
I'm more interested in 10.5 -- multiple desktops finally integrated (not some overpriced add-on or underfeatured free add-on). I can only hope they add middle-click-paste as well, but I'll probably have to wait for 10.6.
Although Sony has been on my "Do Not Buy" list for some time, I sure hope they fight this rather than pay shut up money. It sounds like Target patented the mirror and it would be nice if someone showed them their own vile reflection in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Stick w/ 2 laptops but require X number of consecutive right answers. For example, there's a 1/32 chance they get 5 consecutive right answers by chance. Or get 5 laptops and go three rounds -- 1/125 chance. Obviously this wouldn't eliminate luck, but it would make it much less a part of the equation. Be a lot cheaper than 50 laptops too.
Imagine you have a choice to make:
a) go to jail for six months,
b) go to jail for six years, or
c) choose neither "a" nor "b" and receive "b" by default.
Assume no wiggling out of the choice, no escape from jail. Which do you chose? Based on your post, sounds like you would prefer a 6 year option. I fail to see the wisdom.
Principles? A proxy vote for Bush? You know, you can live in a fantasy world or you can make the most of a situation. Some people live in a world where they can understand that sometimes you have to make a choice that isn't perfect. I for example vote Libertarian any chance I can get. But when it comes to something as crucial as the US Presidency, I'm also capable of understanding that the "least worst" choice can be miles better than the worst when there is no realistic chance the third party candidate will win. If you want to support third parties, start locally -- city council, then mayor, then state rep., then governor ... only after you have a real base does it make sense to go for the Lotto. And it sure doesn't make sense to convince otherwise reasonable voters that Gore and Bush were fungible. So yes, I do blame Nader as a spoiler, and the nuckleheads who helped him along.
How many recall all those Nader voters who believed it didn't matter which party won the White House back in 2000? They were warned but instead stuck their fingers up their .... in their ears. Anyway, it's not just this bit of anti-consumer judicial activism, so too is free speech under attack if recent decisions are indicative of the future. Next thing, they'll be backing Cheney's notions he's not part of the executive branch. It's going to be rough 10-15 years.
how does this work if you don't want a public facing web server?
Ok, so voice is mostly good with some bad spots. Sounds like any phone. What I really want to know -- how's the ssh client?
In fact, I recall that the guy I talked to used a phrase along the lines of "like OSX does" when describing the pc-bsd packaging system. So you are quite correct.
I tried this out recently after being given a disc at a linux fest. It's pretty nice. The guy giving out the discs explained that when you install applications, the applications come bundled with all of their dependencies included. This makes the apps use a little bit more disc space, but avoids the issue of two apps requiring two incompatible dependencies. That's pretty nice.
The downside, at least a couple months ago, was that the disc is an install disc rather than a live one. I think he said it takes over the whole drive as well, but I won't swear to that and it may have changed since then. Anyway, I had it in parallels for a while and although it wasn't enough to convince me to abandon ubuntu, I will say that installing software was brain dead easy -- not that synaptic is hard, but with synaptic you do need to know the name of what you want. With PC-BSD, you just pick from a menu of shiny icons and descriptions.
We can't have the whole story on the appeal. In CA apparently, he can appeal to superior court for a new trial. Random info off the web. After a verdict there, I bet the same appellate procedures that apply to any trial would apply to his, i.e., he could appeal to the CA Supreme Court, and if he's really lucky, it could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. I should say though, I have no actual knowledge of CA law.
Besides the bomb lance you mention (aka, body penetrating explosive device) -- they were carved with chainsaws.
Did their tradition include body penetrating explosive grenades and chainsaws? RTFA.
From TFA:
Apparently, we aren't talking about native peoples hunting with canoes and spears -- we're talking about native peoples hunting with explosive body penetrating grenades and "carving" with chainsaws. Somehow, I don't have much of an issue trampling on the rights of native groups to use modern weaponry in a hunt most people find appalling. If they want to use canoes and spears -- more power to them -- at the least the whales have a reasonable chance of getting even AND that fits with traditional practice. Power boats, grenades, and chainsaws though -- the native groups might as well be anyone at that point.
She makes some good points. One point is that if an objective can be achieved by brute force alone, i.e., without cooperation from the conquered people, that bodes well for success by the brute. As an example, she points to the first gulf war which had the objective of expelling Iraqi troops from Quwait. In contrast, the current mess, i.e., installing a government, requires the cooperation of a population interested to a large degree in not accepting whatever we try to impose. Hence the poor chance of success. It has nothing to do with secret weapons really -- except that if Iraqis did have some kind of secret weapon, they could become the brute-forcers. But it isn't even necessary to chalk up a loss for the Iraqis to have such a weapon -- their cooperation, or lack thereof, is all that they need. In other words, we lose without cooperation, AND we lose if they come up with a secret weapon to expel us. The secret weapon only speeds the process, but doesn't change the result.
Actuall, my gp said " The cops are on duty, their income is supplied by individuals like this man." My parent said no, the city is their employer, not you, or something similar. Ticket revenue was not part of our discussion.
Somehow, I doubt this law would be applied the same in 83 as it is being applied today.
If I give a donut to person A and say "give this to person B", and A does as I request, you would say I didn't give B a donut.
I'm from Washington State (the real Washington with trees and mountains, not the one to the east, AKA "Mordor"). Anyway, I've heard that phrase from time to time.
You mentioned happy marriage. The original post talked much about women who married not for love but for money.
Why would you be happy with a person who loved your money but not you? There are cheaper forms of self-delusion.
google john wayne bobbit
Or violence in real life. For that they sell yellow ribbon bumper stickers.
I'm more interested in 10.5 -- multiple desktops finally integrated (not some overpriced add-on or underfeatured free add-on). I can only hope they add middle-click-paste as well, but I'll probably have to wait for 10.6.
Sure, we can all RTFG, but the blurb really should include a link to all the videos.
Although Sony has been on my "Do Not Buy" list for some time, I sure hope they fight this rather than pay shut up money. It sounds like Target patented the mirror and it would be nice if someone showed them their own vile reflection in it.