I don't think you really understand what KDE does. KWin is the part that draws borders and titlebars on windows. It also consists of an entire application framework to make writing applications easier to write. KDE is an enormous amount of code, implementing a lot of functionality.
A balance has to be struck between aid and investment. You can't just spend all your available money on aid, for the simple reason that your money sources will stay constant while the need for aid will grow. Japan, until it hit economic troubles in the 1990s, was the single biggest donor of aid in the entire world. It's still the second biggest. To the extent that this sort of investment can help Japan's economy on the future, it's ultimately better for those who need aid that Japan strikes this balance.
Becuase there is an enormous gulf between what Saudi Arabian's believe and what Muslims believe. In Islam, you're supposed to have some say in who your leaders are, yet Saudi Arabia is a hereditary monarchy. Islam, as a system of belief, has been corrupted by Arabic culture, which is often in direct contradiction to it.
Two, you could look at it as an inevitable mistake inherent in a government run by humans, and have faith that the system will eventually correct itself.
The "tinfoil hat" people are the mechanism through which the system corrects itself. The only reason our system can correct itself is because the people are left free to fight against injustices. The federal government will never willingly right a wrong without someone bringing them to task for it. It is precisely through this mechanism that this happens.
No, I'm saying that the current electronic equipment is inferior to punch-style ballots, because of their gross security vulnerabilities. I am also suggesting that just because they haven't failed yet doesn't mean that they won't in the future.
I'm an engineer, I don't see "try it and pray" as a valid problem-solving approach. If my analysis shows that a design has a weakness (eg: a bridge will be loaded 5% above the yield point of its steel girders), I don't consider it a good idea to use it anyway and just hope for the best.
You're dodging the subject. We're talking about debates between the president and Kerry, not between democrats. You're also ignoring the fact that Bush tried the same ploy in the 2000 elections too, when there were no evil democratic debates.
Did you really learn anything from the debates? Did you even tune in?
Yes, for all three. I learned quite a lot, mainly that Bush was a poor speaker, a trait I consider a sign of intellectual weakness and a lack of mental and moral clarity. I also saw him expose his unjustifiable ideological positions, and repeatedly conflate Iraq and Al Queda. The man is an ideologue, not a realist. The debates proved this to me repeatedly.
Good call, media-boy.
This "liberal media" thing is getting really old. After 9/11, the media has bent over for the Bush administration. Prior to the war, they did everything they could to play up Iraq as a threat and support Mr. Bush. It was disgusting.
Did you realize that the 'Red Scare' was a real problem to be dealt with?
The "domino theory" was obviously wrong, because we *lost* the Vietnam war and the consequences it predicated didn't come to pass. More generally, the idea of "spreading democracy through war will lead to peace" is one that has been studied greatly and shown to be lacking. It was an ideology adopted by a certain class of liberals (notably Mazzini), but failed then as it will fail now. There is an excellent paper by Michael Doyle analyzing this particular ideology, long before Bush flip-flopped from 2000 and bought into it.
so as to stop Russia from gobbling up surrounding countries.
What a delightfully naive conception of the balance of power. Russia gobbling up countries was a danger to the extent that it upset the power balance. Vietnam was not a strategically important location, merely an ideologically important one. Controlling Vietnam, a country quite a distance from Russia, and not contiguous with it, a country with no industrial base and few natural resources, would not do anything to make Russia more powerful. That's why Vietnam was a wrong war, because we were just chasing ideological victory, not a strategic one.
Ask a Ukranian how that feels; ask'em if they'd like to go back.
Frankly, I don't care about the Ukranians. Our president's job is to ensure our own security, not freedom for mankind.
As to the casualties, there's no comparison, only in Ted Kennedy's sloshed mind.
The comparison isn't in the casualties, it's in the way the war was legitimized.
You're aware that we found at least 400,000 dead in the desert, right?
What does that have to do with how many we killed? And where did you get *that* figure?
Where did you get these numbers, anyway?
The estimates are an older figure from here. I hadn't checked the number recently, it's up to 16,000 now. Of course, you'll inevitably dismiss the figure as biased, but they go into a great deal of detail, so at least read the site.
Do the Iraqi people appear to mind the losses, whatever they are?
Okay, so the argument is that killing civilians is justified, as long as the ones left don't care? Well, then you must have loved Saddam. Because the Iraqi population really didn't care when he gassed the Kurds, for the simple reason that the vast majority of the population was never affected by the killings, while the instability before his rule had affected everyone. In any case, a poll done several months ago showed that 40% of people wanted Saddam back. This is simple to understand: a dictator is bad for a certain 1%, and better than chaos for the other 99%. A fledgling democracy is dangerous and thus undesirable for everyone.
Why do you insist that this has anything to do with skin color?
Because Americans are pretty damn racist. (Hell, jus
ARGH! That's not the point. The point is that electronic mechanisms are weak, just from a first-order analysis. The fact that it hasn't changed the outcome of an election yet doesn't change the fact that it's a danger that might fuck up a future election if we don't fix it.
Remember which candidate it was that wanted to minimize the number of debates in this particular election?
Remember when both parties agreed a thing had to be done, but differed on the way to get there?
It was never like this. Only the rose-colored glasses of history show a picture like this.
The Democrats have clearly thrown away any pretense of being for America;
And the Republicans have maintained that pretense. But at the end of the day, it's just that --- a pretense. Anybody with half a brain knows that both sides care only about getting elected.
They pose Iraq as Vietnam;
That's because it was. Both countries were ones we waged war in, but who hadn't attacked us. In both countries, we tried to impose an ideology, because we didn't agree with theirs. The fact that the casualty statistics
In fact, I'd bet there are more killings in NYC than Baghdad.
Not if you factor in the number of Iraqi's we killed. The blood-lust of Americans should have been satisfied --- they liked 3000 white people, and we retaliated by killion 10,000+ brown people. We're way more than even.
Does anyone think they can be reasoned with?
No, and nobody is claiming that we should reason with terrorists, either. But terrorism is a symptom, not a cause in itself. If fighting terrorism exacerbates its root causes, then we're just screwing ourselves over. It's like trying to fight a fever by putting the person in an ice bath. It's a temporary remedy, but if you just leave them in there without fighting the root cause, you just end up killing the person.
Slightly inaccurate. The bill says that ex-felons who have completed parole would be able to vote. That's just standardizing an existing practice, not starting a new one. Only 14 states currently deny ex-felons the right to vote.
Your line of argument is deeply flawed. The fact that the bill would help the democrats is irrelevent*. It's ad hominem. The bill must be evaluated on the merits of its argument alone.
I disagree that forcing states to standardize their handling of ex-felons is a bad thing. The vast lack of uniformity in the voting process between states is an abhorance. National elections should be held to a national standards. Whether that means allowing all ex-cons to vote, or preventing all ex-cons from voting is a seperate issue. I'd argue that, having served their debt to society, they should be reinstated with the privelege of voting. Certainly, there are less desirable people than ex-cons who are allowed to vote...
I also support the idea of making election day a federal holidy. Voting is the single most important duty a citizen has to their country. The fact that half our citizens don't vote is a mark of shame upon our nation. Making election day a federal holidy would hopefully increase voter turnout. It's inaccurate to say that people who don't work for the government would not have the day off. Federal holidays are holidays that most employers respect. Unless you work in certain fields (like retail), which habitually disrespect federal holidays, you'll get the day off.
I agree with you that the last point is a dangerous step to take --- stupidity on the part of the voter should disqualify them from voting. Again, voting is your single most important duty --- don't forget to bring your proof of citizenship to the poll!
* even if it might --- both parties use every opportunity available to help themselves.
That's exactly my point. If you define a kilogram to be a liter of water, you have to define it to be a liter of water at a certain temperature. A 1 liter container holds more water at 1-degree C than at 25-degrees C.
The second and the meter have long since been based off of more fundemental measures. The second is defined as how long it takes for 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light to be emitted by the hyperfne transition of cesium-133 atoms. The meter is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.
There are a couple of issues here. First, one liter of water at what temperature? Water does expand slightly as temperature increases. Second, how accurately can you measure one liter? Lastly, one litre of water doesn't weight exactly a kilo, it's like 0.99998 kilos.
Does your son by any chance model jet engine compressors on that thing? It's a total apples to oranges comparison! It's like saying that a 777 is more expensive more expensive than your Toyota. Strictly, it's true, but it's a meaningless statement.
No, that's what revisionist historians do. Well, *true* revisionist historians do. And this has been only popular for the last 60 years or so.
All historians are revisionist historians to various degrees. Herodotus was well-known for exaggerating battle statistics for effect. More generally, all history is written in the context of a particular culture, consciously or unconsiously, and often with good reason. For example, American historians don't usually pay a lot of attention to Chinese history, because it really isn't very relavent to the understanding of American culture. If you read American history books, you're getting a particular view of the world.
As for me, in high school I had 1 year of American History, 2 year of Euro and then "global studies.
Where'd you go to high-school? In Virginia, we got several years of native americans and slaves in K-8, then a year of American history (more slaves) and two years of world history (most river valley civilizations and other useless stuff). The only European history we got was some scant coverage of Christian Europe in world history, and tangential references in world history. What he did not get was detailed coverage of the European history. We never went deep into the ideology of Christian Europe pre-1500, we never went into the European international relations in the 1500s-1900s (which shaped modern ideas of the balance of power, etc), we never went into the deep philosophical wells that existed in Britain, France, and the German states, etc. Basically, all the information regarding the historical, philosophical, and ideological roots of American culture were ignored, thus undermining the whole point of teaching history to K-12 students!
Heh. The RAMDAC is the digital to analog converter used to drive a CRT display. The 400Mhz doesn't refer to processing power, but the bandwidth of the converter. A higher-bandwidth converter is capable of driving a display with more pixels at higher refresh rates.
And it is a knee-jerk reaction because he assumed because Google was an American company, it only served the good of America and because of all this it wouldn't scan French books. That's a pretty knee-jerk reaction to me.
It's not a knee-jerk reaction, it's the history of the world. It's a basic lesson you learn in analyzing history, to take any work in the context of the culture that produced it.
Besides, it isn't as if Europe hasn't already skewed history. To paraphrase Chris Rock, you learn Europe up the ass, but nothing about anything else.
Chris Rock is dumbass. Look at your average K-12 cirriculum. There is little to nothing about Europe. All they teach are god-damn Native Americans and slaves, for years and years. Stuff that might be nice for a historian, but completely useless as part of a general historical education.
DC isn't now, and wasn't then a major population center. There is an enormous difference between having some buildings burned in your capital and losing a large fraction of your 18-45 population. European nations a fraction of our size lost more people during the world wars than America has lost in all its wars. The arrogance of the usual American's attitude towards war belies his underlying ignorance and inability to contemplate such a catastrophe on their own soil.
It sounds like it was copied from Avalon, which was copied from Quartz, which was copied from NeXT, which was copied from god know's what. It's a fairly old concep, nearly two decades at this point.
You'll never be able to cut & paste between *everything*, simply because there are a lot of legacy apps that will never be updated to the new standards. If, however, you're having problems cut & pasting between modern KDE and GNOME apps, then it is a bug, not a feature.
The problem with a question like "do you think the environment is important" is it's like "do you think motherhood is good?" Nearly everyone will say yes. That's why I don't put a lot of stock in the "do you consider it to be important" polls. It's when you ask people to prioritize that you get to the meat of the issue. Sure, 90% of people might say that motherhood is a underful thing, but what matters is what happens when confronted with the choice of having a baby or going up the corporate ladder. It's the same thing with the environment. 62% of people consider it "important", but only single-digits consider it to be the top priority. I would call those people the environmentalists, specifically the type that the original poster was alluding to when he took a jab at democrats.
Slashdot Mirror
AltiVec will only be used in the PowerPC core of the Cell. The vector coprocessors (the SPEs), will use some other instruction set.
I don't think you really understand what KDE does. KWin is the part that draws borders and titlebars on windows. It also consists of an entire application framework to make writing applications easier to write. KDE is an enormous amount of code, implementing a lot of functionality.
A balance has to be struck between aid and investment. You can't just spend all your available money on aid, for the simple reason that your money sources will stay constant while the need for aid will grow. Japan, until it hit economic troubles in the 1990s, was the single biggest donor of aid in the entire world. It's still the second biggest. To the extent that this sort of investment can help Japan's economy on the future, it's ultimately better for those who need aid that Japan strikes this balance.
Becuase there is an enormous gulf between what Saudi Arabian's believe and what Muslims believe. In Islam, you're supposed to have some say in who your leaders are, yet Saudi Arabia is a hereditary monarchy. Islam, as a system of belief, has been corrupted by Arabic culture, which is often in direct contradiction to it.
Two, you could look at it as an inevitable mistake inherent in a government run by humans, and have faith that the system will eventually correct itself.
The "tinfoil hat" people are the mechanism through which the system corrects itself. The only reason our system can correct itself is because the people are left free to fight against injustices. The federal government will never willingly right a wrong without someone bringing them to task for it. It is precisely through this mechanism that this happens.
No, I'm saying that the current electronic equipment is inferior to punch-style ballots, because of their gross security vulnerabilities. I am also suggesting that just because they haven't failed yet doesn't mean that they won't in the future.
I'm an engineer, I don't see "try it and pray" as a valid problem-solving approach. If my analysis shows that a design has a weakness (eg: a bridge will be loaded 5% above the yield point of its steel girders), I don't consider it a good idea to use it anyway and just hope for the best.
Limiting the debate was due to this tactic.
You're dodging the subject. We're talking about debates between the president and Kerry, not between democrats. You're also ignoring the fact that Bush tried the same ploy in the 2000 elections too, when there were no evil democratic debates.
Did you really learn anything from the debates? Did you even tune in?
Yes, for all three. I learned quite a lot, mainly that Bush was a poor speaker, a trait I consider a sign of intellectual weakness and a lack of mental and moral clarity. I also saw him expose his unjustifiable ideological positions, and repeatedly conflate Iraq and Al Queda. The man is an ideologue, not a realist. The debates proved this to me repeatedly.
Good call, media-boy.
This "liberal media" thing is getting really old. After 9/11, the media has bent over for the Bush administration. Prior to the war, they did everything they could to play up Iraq as a threat and support Mr. Bush. It was disgusting.
Did you realize that the 'Red Scare' was a real problem to be dealt with?
The "domino theory" was obviously wrong, because we *lost* the Vietnam war and the consequences it predicated didn't come to pass. More generally, the idea of "spreading democracy through war will lead to peace" is one that has been studied greatly and shown to be lacking. It was an ideology adopted by a certain class of liberals (notably Mazzini), but failed then as it will fail now. There is an excellent paper by Michael Doyle analyzing this particular ideology, long before Bush flip-flopped from 2000 and bought into it.
so as to stop Russia from gobbling up surrounding countries.
What a delightfully naive conception of the balance of power. Russia gobbling up countries was a danger to the extent that it upset the power balance. Vietnam was not a strategically important location, merely an ideologically important one. Controlling Vietnam, a country quite a distance from Russia, and not contiguous with it, a country with no industrial base and few natural resources, would not do anything to make Russia more powerful. That's why Vietnam was a wrong war, because we were just chasing ideological victory, not a strategic one.
Ask a Ukranian how that feels; ask'em if they'd like to go back.
Frankly, I don't care about the Ukranians. Our president's job is to ensure our own security, not freedom for mankind.
As to the casualties, there's no comparison, only in Ted Kennedy's sloshed mind.
The comparison isn't in the casualties, it's in the way the war was legitimized.
You're aware that we found at least 400,000 dead in the desert, right?
What does that have to do with how many we killed? And where did you get *that* figure?
Where did you get these numbers, anyway?
The estimates are an older figure from here. I hadn't checked the number recently, it's up to 16,000 now. Of course, you'll inevitably dismiss the figure as biased, but they go into a great deal of detail, so at least read the site.
Do the Iraqi people appear to mind the losses, whatever they are?
Okay, so the argument is that killing civilians is justified, as long as the ones left don't care? Well, then you must have loved Saddam. Because the Iraqi population really didn't care when he gassed the Kurds, for the simple reason that the vast majority of the population was never affected by the killings, while the instability before his rule had affected everyone. In any case, a poll done several months ago showed that 40% of people wanted Saddam back. This is simple to understand: a dictator is bad for a certain 1%, and better than chaos for the other 99%. A fledgling democracy is dangerous and thus undesirable for everyone.
Why do you insist that this has anything to do with skin color?
Because Americans are pretty damn racist. (Hell, jus
ARGH! That's not the point. The point is that electronic mechanisms are weak, just from a first-order analysis. The fact that it hasn't changed the outcome of an election yet doesn't change the fact that it's a danger that might fuck up a future election if we don't fix it.
Remember debate?
Remember which candidate it was that wanted to minimize the number of debates in this particular election?
Remember when both parties agreed a thing had to be done, but differed on the way to get there?
It was never like this. Only the rose-colored glasses of history show a picture like this.
The Democrats have clearly thrown away any pretense of being for America;
And the Republicans have maintained that pretense. But at the end of the day, it's just that --- a pretense. Anybody with half a brain knows that both sides care only about getting elected.
They pose Iraq as Vietnam;
That's because it was. Both countries were ones we waged war in, but who hadn't attacked us. In both countries, we tried to impose an ideology, because we didn't agree with theirs. The fact that the casualty statistics
In fact, I'd bet there are more killings in NYC than Baghdad.
Not if you factor in the number of Iraqi's we killed. The blood-lust of Americans should have been satisfied --- they liked 3000 white people, and we retaliated by killion 10,000+ brown people. We're way more than even.
Does anyone think they can be reasoned with?
No, and nobody is claiming that we should reason with terrorists, either. But terrorism is a symptom, not a cause in itself. If fighting terrorism exacerbates its root causes, then we're just screwing ourselves over. It's like trying to fight a fever by putting the person in an ice bath. It's a temporary remedy, but if you just leave them in there without fighting the root cause, you just end up killing the person.
Slightly inaccurate. The bill says that ex-felons who have completed parole would be able to vote. That's just standardizing an existing practice, not starting a new one. Only 14 states currently deny ex-felons the right to vote.
Your line of argument is deeply flawed. The fact that the bill would help the democrats is irrelevent*. It's ad hominem. The bill must be evaluated on the merits of its argument alone.
I disagree that forcing states to standardize their handling of ex-felons is a bad thing. The vast lack of uniformity in the voting process between states is an abhorance. National elections should be held to a national standards. Whether that means allowing all ex-cons to vote, or preventing all ex-cons from voting is a seperate issue. I'd argue that, having served their debt to society, they should be reinstated with the privelege of voting. Certainly, there are less desirable people than ex-cons who are allowed to vote...
I also support the idea of making election day a federal holidy. Voting is the single most important duty a citizen has to their country. The fact that half our citizens don't vote is a mark of shame upon our nation. Making election day a federal holidy would hopefully increase voter turnout. It's inaccurate to say that people who don't work for the government would not have the day off. Federal holidays are holidays that most employers respect. Unless you work in certain fields (like retail), which habitually disrespect federal holidays, you'll get the day off.
I agree with you that the last point is a dangerous step to take --- stupidity on the part of the voter should disqualify them from voting. Again, voting is your single most important duty --- don't forget to bring your proof of citizenship to the poll!
* even if it might --- both parties use every opportunity available to help themselves.
You sure? The NIST still has the definition in terms of the distance traveled by light: basic units.
You should have paid more attention in high-school. STP is 101.325 KPa and 0C. Beyond that, KPa is a defined unit that uses mass in its definition.
That's exactly my point. If you define a kilogram to be a liter of water, you have to define it to be a liter of water at a certain temperature. A 1 liter container holds more water at 1-degree C than at 25-degrees C.
The second and the meter have long since been based off of more fundemental measures. The second is defined as how long it takes for 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light to be emitted by the hyperfne transition of cesium-133 atoms. The meter is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.
There are a couple of issues here. First, one liter of water at what temperature? Water does expand slightly as temperature increases. Second, how accurately can you measure one liter? Lastly, one litre of water doesn't weight exactly a kilo, it's like 0.99998 kilos.
Does your son by any chance model jet engine compressors on that thing? It's a total apples to oranges comparison! It's like saying that a 777 is more expensive more expensive than your Toyota. Strictly, it's true, but it's a meaningless statement.
No, that's what revisionist historians do. Well, *true* revisionist historians do. And this has been only popular for the last 60 years or so.
All historians are revisionist historians to various degrees. Herodotus was well-known for exaggerating battle statistics for effect. More generally, all history is written in the context of a particular culture, consciously or unconsiously, and often with good reason. For example, American historians don't usually pay a lot of attention to Chinese history, because it really isn't very relavent to the understanding of American culture. If you read American history books, you're getting a particular view of the world.
As for me, in high school I had 1 year of American History, 2 year of Euro and then "global studies.
Where'd you go to high-school? In Virginia, we got several years of native americans and slaves in K-8, then a year of American history (more slaves) and two years of world history (most river valley civilizations and other useless stuff). The only European history we got was some scant coverage of Christian Europe in world history, and tangential references in world history. What he did not get was detailed coverage of the European history. We never went deep into the ideology of Christian Europe pre-1500, we never went into the European international relations in the 1500s-1900s (which shaped modern ideas of the balance of power, etc), we never went into the deep philosophical wells that existed in Britain, France, and the German states, etc. Basically, all the information regarding the historical, philosophical, and ideological roots of American culture were ignored, thus undermining the whole point of teaching history to K-12 students!
Heh. The RAMDAC is the digital to analog converter used to drive a CRT display. The 400Mhz doesn't refer to processing power, but the bandwidth of the converter. A higher-bandwidth converter is capable of driving a display with more pixels at higher refresh rates.
And it is a knee-jerk reaction because he assumed because Google was an American company, it only served the good of America and because of all this it wouldn't scan French books. That's a pretty knee-jerk reaction to me.
It's not a knee-jerk reaction, it's the history of the world. It's a basic lesson you learn in analyzing history, to take any work in the context of the culture that produced it.
Besides, it isn't as if Europe hasn't already skewed history. To paraphrase Chris Rock, you learn Europe up the ass, but nothing about anything else.
Chris Rock is dumbass. Look at your average K-12 cirriculum. There is little to nothing about Europe. All they teach are god-damn Native Americans and slaves, for years and years. Stuff that might be nice for a historian, but completely useless as part of a general historical education.
The US didn't exist during the American Revolution, DC wasn't a big city during 1812, and Pear Harbor was a military base, not a population center.
DC isn't now, and wasn't then a major population center. There is an enormous difference between having some buildings burned in your capital and losing a large fraction of your 18-45 population. European nations a fraction of our size lost more people during the world wars than America has lost in all its wars. The arrogance of the usual American's attitude towards war belies his underlying ignorance and inability to contemplate such a catastrophe on their own soil.
It sounds like it was copied from Avalon, which was copied from Quartz, which was copied from NeXT, which was copied from god know's what. It's a fairly old concep, nearly two decades at this point.
You'll never be able to cut & paste between *everything*, simply because there are a lot of legacy apps that will never be updated to the new standards. If, however, you're having problems cut & pasting between modern KDE and GNOME apps, then it is a bug, not a feature.
The problem with a question like "do you think the environment is important" is it's like "do you think motherhood is good?" Nearly everyone will say yes. That's why I don't put a lot of stock in the "do you consider it to be important" polls. It's when you ask people to prioritize that you get to the meat of the issue. Sure, 90% of people might say that motherhood is a underful thing, but what matters is what happens when confronted with the choice of having a baby or going up the corporate ladder. It's the same thing with the environment. 62% of people consider it "important", but only single-digits consider it to be the top priority. I would call those people the environmentalists, specifically the type that the original poster was alluding to when he took a jab at democrats.