My bad, the wound was to the liver, not the kidney. From what I've read and seen it should have been dark, almost black.
You read wrong. Liver lacs are just like kidney lacs; they positively spew arterial blood, because of the dense vascularization of the organ. Now the liver produces bile, but it doesn't actually contain bile. Bile is held in the gall bladder, but only a very small quantity of it. And it's a pale, translucent green, not black at all.
If you have a bowel perforation, it's possible for fecal matter to leak out into the belly, and from the belly out through an open wound or incision. But that's kinda... well, it looks kinda like tiny nuggets of mud embedded in blood or bile. It's not really black, either.
Realistic depictions of serious injuries are really not that interesting to look at; everything is one color, the bright red of arterial blood, and one texture, the texture of raw meat.
When the guy has three arrows left and he shots five times, I cry foul.
Cry all you like. The underlying point of my previous post was that movies (and, by the same token, Itchy and Scratchy) are meant to be enjoyed. They're positively riddled with continuity errors as a result of the way they're made. So what?
Here, just to really get you excited, I'll throw you a couple of bones. During Boromir's death scene, his right hand appears and disappears from Aragorn's left shoulder about a million times. Or how about the magic disappearing pony? Or the way Merry and Pippin keep changing places during the scene in the inn?
None of these things detracts from the story, friend. Not a one of them. They're not important, they're not insightful; hell, they're not even really mistakes as much as they are harmless side-effects of the movie-making process.
Oh, and whatever you do, stay away from the climactic scene of Return of the Jedi. The smudges on Vader's helmet will no doubt send you into a fit of apoplexy.
It's like in Saving Private Ryan when the medic gets shot in the kidney and starts spurting strawberry syrup, when anyone who's looked into human anatomy could have told them what a kidney wound should look like. They just about killed what should have been a very good scene by not buying a.25$ thing of brown food coloring.
Uh... the kidneys are positively packed full of arterial blood. When wounded in the kidney, one does, for all practical purposes, spew strawberry syrup. Arterial blood is a bright, almost improbable, red. Like stop-sign red, or fire-engine red.
Girlfriend's a surgical resident. She brings home snapshots of her operations on the digital camera. When she did a trauma surgery rotation, one of the injuries she had to treat was a kidney lac. Strawberry syrup was everywhere.
I have this awesome rendering package called B.R.A.I.N...
I tried that technique too, but after 200 pages of Frodo and his buddies wandering through the woods and talking about mushrooms, my B.R.A.I.N. made me throw the fucking thing across the room.
Maybe I'm just a low-brow or something, but I tend to prefer books where things happen.
Who says he's dead? He's just disabled and bleeding to death.
The arrow counts are still way off.
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, even the book says that Legolas picked up orc and goblin arrows along the way. Besides, if you sat through the movie counting the arrows, I think it's possible that you might have missed the point.
The size of the hobbits still keeps changing.
Yeah, and in episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a (heh heh) magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
Of course it seems I'm a troll for even thinking that there could be anything wrong with these movies.
Hee hee. I get it! Lord of the Rings! Troll! Brilliant!
Oh, you're from Australia? Why didn't you say so. There are only 19 million people in Australia. There are more people in Texas than there are in Australia. Talk about insignificant.
(Relax, I'm just kidding. I've been to Australia several times, and I love it. Can't wrap my head around the whole "Vegemite" idea, but you guys have much cooler currency than we do, and your woman are far, far sexier. Gotta confess, though, that I'm a died-in-the-wool All-Blacks supporter. But other than that, Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!)
learn something new every day
on
The Be Lives!
·
· Score: 4, Funny
God, I feel like a complete idiot. All this time I thought this was the "BSD" section, not the "BeSD" section.
Copyright code offered "royalty-free but with constraints" is sort of a poisoned apple. You can use it in the intended application, but the code using it can never be GPL.
Okay, just to play the devil's advocate here, would it be more acceptable to the FSF if that code is simply never released? I mean, don't they sometimes give off the impression that they either want software released under the GPL or a "compatible" license (not sure what that means), or not at all?
Honest question, not a troll: does anybody care what the FSF thinks about this? From the looks of things, there are a few hardliners who believe the FSF really knows what's what, but it seems like the majority of Slashdotters don't really follow the FSF's lead particularly closely.
A good example of this is the recent "GNU/Linux" thing. There are a few posters here who still insist on referring to it as "GNU/Linux," but nobody else really paid any attention.
So I'm really interested in finding out how many-- if any, I guess-- people who post here really think the FSF's opinion on this is that important.
(Here come the down-mods. I hope people read this and respond to it in the spirit of open discussion anyway.)
"Implicit or explicit?" That sounds like "real or imagined." The problem is that YOU decide you feel threatened, regardless of whether a REAL threat exists.
Well, yes. Evaluating the seriousness of a threat is a judgment call. That's why we put the best people we can find at the top of our military and political hierarchies, rather than folks like you who don't seem to be bothered by the idea of a madman with C, B, N, or R weapons.
You may not have a problem with the US being the world's bully, but the rest of the world does.
Kinda like how France had a problem with the US after World War II?
Tell you what. When the various countries that make up the rest of the world reach the point where they don't have to have their asses bailed out of an invasion or a totalitarian regime or a civil war or widespread anarchy every few years, the US will happily step down from its present role. Until then, it's Pax Americana, baby.
You strike me as someone who has never even written a docbook.
Once. Well, half of once. One day in a fit of blinding rage, I called up Adobe and moved the whole damn thing over to FrameMaker and SGML the next morning.
Here's your mistake: to respond means "to act in response." That means AFTER you've been attacked.
An attack is not the only thing to which you can respond. One can-- and should!-- also respond to threats, implicit or explicit. This is called "defense."
but if you throw the first punch, you're the bully
I have no problem at all with the US being the world's bully if it means that history won't record that the 21st century began with a decade of all-out theater war. Iraq has already demonstrated their willingness to use their weapons against their enemies; they invaded Kuwait, they launched missiles against Israel, they fought US troops during the Gulf War. We know they have the capability to make weapons so horrible we cannot allow their use. We know that it's probable that Iraq already has such weapons in stockpiles that have yet to be revealed.
If Iraq lays down their arms, completely and without reservation, and allows the world's inspectors to march over every inch of their soil, they can save themselves from this war. But if they have any intention of retaining weapons, if they have any intention of trying to deceive the world, there will be consequences.
A quick war in Iraq, followed by the absolute destruction of the Hussein government and a few years of (relatively) peaceful occupation is preferable to the use of a single chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon.
I would consider that it is not beyond the wit of even "the 'average person'" to understand the concept of separating content from presentation
The concept? No. But expecting a technical writer to wade through a sea of angle-brackets to produce his documentation is laughable at best.
The vast majority of technical documentation in the world is written by technical writers, not programmers. (I played around as one myself for a while.) That's why the majority of documentation is written with user-friendly tools like Word and FrameMaker. Programmers, of course, will choose things like XML because... I don't know, maybe it makes them feel superior or something. Couldn't say why. It certainly doesn't offer any useful benefits over Frame.
Like so many other "open source" technologies, "Docbook" is irrelevant to most of the world because it's more trouble to use than its worth. Why do you think the submitter is looking for a WYSIWYG tool?
Oh, and elitism is telling someone, "the "average person" shouldn't be trying to write XML documents if they can't understand the concept."
original intent as evidenced by the copyright laws passed by the Founders
There was no Founders' intent. The 14+14 rule laid down in the 1790 act signed by George Washington was lifted verbatim from the 1710 Statute of Anne. So they were just doing it that way because, to them, it had always been done that way. I don't buy it.
preservation of works by having them mature into the public domain before time causes the extant copies to become lost or unreadable
That cuts both ways. Modern works will not be lost or unreadable in 100-150 years (life + 70, that is), barring war or catastrophe or some other unforeseeable event. Acid-free paper, digital storage technology, CDs and whatnot. So shorter terms made sense for that reason in ages past, but not so much now.
Okay, are we done reliving our playground years, here? I'll kiss and make up if you will.
1. HTML "wysiwyg" editors were lying.
Well, I certainly don't have the energy to get into a fight over what WYSIWYG means. Let's just agree that we're talking about a program that shows formatted text instead of XML tags, and that allows the user to apply XML tags using buttons or mouse gestures or speech recognition or synchronized farts or some other method that doesn't involve typing the fucking things out.
That was just an example, and maybe, in retrospect, not the best one. Yes, in a real case the tag wouldn't be <ital> but rather <cite> or <xref> or some such. Same idea applies. I would want an editor to show me foo instead of <cite>foo</cite>, using whatever the appropriate default rendering style is for <cite>.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Economics is a dismal science.
Economics gets to be a science if meteorology can be a science. They're both able to predict the next day or the next century with pretty decent accuracy. But in between those, forget it.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Don't vote for a party if you think just by the name they are pro-environment.
Don't vote for a party just because the first few letters of their name are the same as the first few letters of the word "liberty," either.
Libertarians support the abolition of prescription requirements for the purchase of medications.
Libertarians call for the repeal of RICO statutes that allow police departments to prosecute organized crime.
Libertarians oppose involuntary commitment of insane people into mental hospitals. I guess they're hoping that all the paranoid schizophrenics of the world just check themselves in whenever they get around to it.
Libertarians call for the abolition of National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Libertarians oppose the right of parents to teach religion to their kids. (I'm really not making these things up; this is actually in their platform.)
Libertarians call for an immediate end to various municipal and state bans on smoking in public places. *cough* *cough*
Libertarians want to abolish the use of passports, both issuing them and requiring them at US borders.
Libertarians oppose the government's power to subpoena individuals or companies. (No more public hearings on things like tobacco company misconduct, I guess.)
Libertarians want all border control-- including immigration control-- abolished immediately and permanently.
Libertarians call for the abolition of the dollar as a unit of currency, and of all government-issued coinage.
Libertarians want to abolish the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.
Libertarians call for the abolition of all taxation, but also call for the prohibition of deficit spending. I guess they're planning to have a national "collection plate" day, or something.
Libertarians oppose antitrust legislation, which by the way is practically the only thing keeping Microsoft from coming into your house and eating your children. (Okay, I made that last part up. But we all know how important antitrust laws are in keeping Microsoft in line, even when the process takes longer than we'd like. Better than nothing.)
Libertarians want to abolish the Small Business Association. Just try to start a business without an SBA loan.
Libertarians call for an end to utility rate regulation. Be prepared to spend at least twice as much for your electricity, gas, and water as you do now.
Libertarians demand (not want, but actually "demand") the abolition of the EPA. Speaking of green....
Libertarians want to get rid of the FAA, the CPSA, the NTSB, and the FDA. From now on, landing your plane, testing your kid's toys, ensuring that your car doesn't explode spontaneously, and making sure your food isn't poisonous will be your own responsibility. Be careful.
Libertarians call for the end of the public education system in this country. I know some public schools are pretty bad, but can't we agree that they're a hell of a lot better than nothing at all?
I'm only about halfway through the party platform. This could go on all night. Don't be fooled by the Libertarians, guys. Some of their ideas seem to make sense, but deep down the party's position is extremist and completely nuts. Don't cast a single Libertarian vote in any election, major or minor, until you read their entire platform. I'm telling you, it's a hoot.
Re:What do we think, you ask?
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Sustainable growth, of course, is a meaningless PC phrase which nobody is willing to define.
Have you asked?
Sustainable growth is a pattern of resource use that provides a reasonable degree of certainty that future generations will be able to employ the same pattern of resource use. Think "rotating crops" here.
Would that be a serif or sans-serif font when I print it?
By default, serif. Serif always for body text. You're free to set the option to 666-point Zapf Dingbats if you like.
Oh, so you've conceded that as Docbook doesn't contain style information you can't do wysiwyg. Good good.
Neither does HTML, you hard-headed nitwit, yet WYSIWYG HTML editors have been around for nearly a decade now. In HTML one encloses a paragraph in "P" tags, and the browser handles the rest. WYSIWYG HTML editors pick a sensible default (this sounds familiar) and let the user change things around in the preferences (where have I heard this before?).
When displaying a docbook file tell me what font I should use, or where I should get this font information from?
Sensible default, with user-configurable options.
Then how can what I see be what's actually encoded in the file?
Magic.
Sometimes I think people just don't get it. It saddens me... but only a little, because I soon get pulled back into my real life where this "docbook" thing pales in comparison to whether table 11 got their watercress soup or not.
Cos you know, there is definitely credible evidence that Saddam is readying chemical an nuclear weapons against us. 'Cos we say so. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Did you miss the part where Hussein Kamel Hassan fled that country and told us that Iraq had a crash nuclear weapons program in 1990? Iraq later confirmed it.
Or what about Khidhir Abdul Abas Hamza, who defected to the US in '94 and gave us lots of juicy facts about Iraq's biological weapons programs, programs which Iraq at first vehemently denied ever existed, and then admitted to in the face of overwhelming evidence. The stockpiles found by weapons inspectors included over 100,000 gallons of botulinum toxin, anthrax, gas gangrene, aflatoxin, and ricin, and a side order of almost four metric tons of VX gas.
Iraq has a long track record of hiding gianormous weapons programs and stockpiles. They are a rogue nation and must be disarmed. The world is in consensus on this; the only point of disagreement was how.
It's a good thing you're not in charge. You'd have us sit around and wait for Hussein to detonate a nuclear bomb over Tel Aviv, or London, or New York before taking action.
ultimately there is no way to approach even close to WYSIWYG
I think you need to go take a look at FrameMaker. It predates all this new-fangled XML hoo-hah; its native format is SGML. It is entirely WYSIWYG. Your point is thus demonstrably false.
And no offense intended likewise, but the "average person" shouldn't be trying to write XML documents if they can't understand the concept of seperating content from presentation.
Ah, the ugly face of snobbery and elitism raises its ugly head once again. Thanks for the input, GigsVT; since I'm obviously not wanted here, I'll just go back to using Microsoft Word for my documentation. You XML folks have fun playing in your little sandbox all by yourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
My bad, the wound was to the liver, not the kidney. From what I've read and seen it should have been dark, almost black.
You read wrong. Liver lacs are just like kidney lacs; they positively spew arterial blood, because of the dense vascularization of the organ. Now the liver produces bile, but it doesn't actually contain bile. Bile is held in the gall bladder, but only a very small quantity of it. And it's a pale, translucent green, not black at all.
If you have a bowel perforation, it's possible for fecal matter to leak out into the belly, and from the belly out through an open wound or incision. But that's kinda... well, it looks kinda like tiny nuggets of mud embedded in blood or bile. It's not really black, either.
Realistic depictions of serious injuries are really not that interesting to look at; everything is one color, the bright red of arterial blood, and one texture, the texture of raw meat.
When the guy has three arrows left and he shots five times, I cry foul.
Cry all you like. The underlying point of my previous post was that movies (and, by the same token, Itchy and Scratchy) are meant to be enjoyed. They're positively riddled with continuity errors as a result of the way they're made. So what?
Here, just to really get you excited, I'll throw you a couple of bones. During Boromir's death scene, his right hand appears and disappears from Aragorn's left shoulder about a million times. Or how about the magic disappearing pony? Or the way Merry and Pippin keep changing places during the scene in the inn?
None of these things detracts from the story, friend. Not a one of them. They're not important, they're not insightful; hell, they're not even really mistakes as much as they are harmless side-effects of the movie-making process.
Oh, and whatever you do, stay away from the climactic scene of Return of the Jedi. The smudges on Vader's helmet will no doubt send you into a fit of apoplexy.
It's like in Saving Private Ryan when the medic gets shot in the kidney and starts spurting strawberry syrup, when anyone who's looked into human anatomy could have told them what a kidney wound should look like. They just about killed what should have been a very good scene by not buying a .25$ thing of brown food coloring.
Uh... the kidneys are positively packed full of arterial blood. When wounded in the kidney, one does, for all practical purposes, spew strawberry syrup. Arterial blood is a bright, almost improbable, red. Like stop-sign red, or fire-engine red.
Girlfriend's a surgical resident. She brings home snapshots of her operations on the digital camera. When she did a trauma surgery rotation, one of the injuries she had to treat was a kidney lac. Strawberry syrup was everywhere.
I have this awesome rendering package called B.R.A.I.N...
I tried that technique too, but after 200 pages of Frodo and his buddies wandering through the woods and talking about mushrooms, my B.R.A.I.N. made me throw the fucking thing across the room.
Maybe I'm just a low-brow or something, but I tend to prefer books where things happen.
The dead orc still looks up when steped on.
Who says he's dead? He's just disabled and bleeding to death.
The arrow counts are still way off.
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, even the book says that Legolas picked up orc and goblin arrows along the way. Besides, if you sat through the movie counting the arrows, I think it's possible that you might have missed the point.
The size of the hobbits still keeps changing.
Yeah, and in episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a (heh heh) magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
Of course it seems I'm a troll for even thinking that there could be anything wrong with these movies.
Hee hee. I get it! Lord of the Rings! Troll! Brilliant!
(-1, Hobbit)
Oh, you're from Australia? Why didn't you say so. There are only 19 million people in Australia. There are more people in Texas than there are in Australia. Talk about insignificant.
(Relax, I'm just kidding. I've been to Australia several times, and I love it. Can't wrap my head around the whole "Vegemite" idea, but you guys have much cooler currency than we do, and your woman are far, far sexier. Gotta confess, though, that I'm a died-in-the-wool All-Blacks supporter. But other than that, Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!)
God, I feel like a complete idiot. All this time I thought this was the "BSD" section, not the "BeSD" section.
(-1, redundant, offtopic, whatever, whatever)
Copyright code offered "royalty-free but with constraints" is sort of a poisoned apple. You can use it in the intended application, but the code
using it can never be GPL.
Okay, just to play the devil's advocate here, would it be more acceptable to the FSF if that code is simply never released? I mean, don't they sometimes give off the impression that they either want software released under the GPL or a "compatible" license (not sure what that means), or not at all?
Just looking for knowledge, here.
Honest question, not a troll: does anybody care what the FSF thinks about this? From the looks of things, there are a few hardliners who believe the FSF really knows what's what, but it seems like the majority of Slashdotters don't really follow the FSF's lead particularly closely.
A good example of this is the recent "GNU/Linux" thing. There are a few posters here who still insist on referring to it as "GNU/Linux," but nobody else really paid any attention.
So I'm really interested in finding out how many-- if any, I guess-- people who post here really think the FSF's opinion on this is that important.
(Here come the down-mods. I hope people read this and respond to it in the spirit of open discussion anyway.)
"Implicit or explicit?" That sounds like "real or imagined." The problem is that YOU decide you feel threatened, regardless of whether a REAL threat exists.
Well, yes. Evaluating the seriousness of a threat is a judgment call. That's why we put the best people we can find at the top of our military and political hierarchies, rather than folks like you who don't seem to be bothered by the idea of a madman with C, B, N, or R weapons.
You may not have a problem with the US being the world's bully, but the rest of the world does.
Kinda like how France had a problem with the US after World War II?
Tell you what. When the various countries that make up the rest of the world reach the point where they don't have to have their asses bailed out of an invasion or a totalitarian regime or a civil war or widespread anarchy every few years, the US will happily step down from its present role. Until then, it's Pax Americana, baby.
You strike me as someone who has never even written a docbook.
Once. Well, half of once. One day in a fit of blinding rage, I called up Adobe and moved the whole damn thing over to FrameMaker and SGML the next morning.
Here's your mistake: to respond means "to act in response." That means AFTER you've been attacked.
An attack is not the only thing to which you can respond. One can-- and should!-- also respond to threats, implicit or explicit. This is called "defense."
but if you throw the first punch, you're the bully
I have no problem at all with the US being the world's bully if it means that history won't record that the 21st century began with a decade of all-out theater war. Iraq has already demonstrated their willingness to use their weapons against their enemies; they invaded Kuwait, they launched missiles against Israel, they fought US troops during the Gulf War. We know they have the capability to make weapons so horrible we cannot allow their use. We know that it's probable that Iraq already has such weapons in stockpiles that have yet to be revealed.
If Iraq lays down their arms, completely and without reservation, and allows the world's inspectors to march over every inch of their soil, they can save themselves from this war. But if they have any intention of retaining weapons, if they have any intention of trying to deceive the world, there will be consequences.
A quick war in Iraq, followed by the absolute destruction of the Hussein government and a few years of (relatively) peaceful occupation is preferable to the use of a single chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon.
I would consider that it is not beyond the wit of even "the 'average person'" to understand the concept of separating content from presentation
The concept? No. But expecting a technical writer to wade through a sea of angle-brackets to produce his documentation is laughable at best.
The vast majority of technical documentation in the world is written by technical writers, not programmers. (I played around as one myself for a while.) That's why the majority of documentation is written with user-friendly tools like Word and FrameMaker. Programmers, of course, will choose things like XML because... I don't know, maybe it makes them feel superior or something. Couldn't say why. It certainly doesn't offer any useful benefits over Frame.
Like so many other "open source" technologies, "Docbook" is irrelevant to most of the world because it's more trouble to use than its worth. Why do you think the submitter is looking for a WYSIWYG tool?
Oh, and elitism is telling someone, "the "average person" shouldn't be trying to write XML documents if they can't understand the concept."
original intent as evidenced by the copyright laws passed by the Founders
There was no Founders' intent. The 14+14 rule laid down in the 1790 act signed by George Washington was lifted verbatim from the 1710 Statute of Anne. So they were just doing it that way because, to them, it had always been done that way. I don't buy it.
preservation of works by having them mature into the public domain before time causes the extant copies to become lost or unreadable
That cuts both ways. Modern works will not be lost or unreadable in 100-150 years (life + 70, that is), barring war or catastrophe or some other unforeseeable event. Acid-free paper, digital storage technology, CDs and whatnot. So shorter terms made sense for that reason in ages past, but not so much now.
Try again, okay? These weren't any good.
Oh grow up you brat.
;-)
Takes one to know one.
Okay, are we done reliving our playground years, here? I'll kiss and make up if you will.
1. HTML "wysiwyg" editors were lying.
Well, I certainly don't have the energy to get into a fight over what WYSIWYG means. Let's just agree that we're talking about a program that shows formatted text instead of XML tags, and that allows the user to apply XML tags using buttons or mouse gestures or speech recognition or synchronized farts or some other method that doesn't involve typing the fucking things out.
Why should foo be italicized?
That was just an example, and maybe, in retrospect, not the best one. Yes, in a real case the tag wouldn't be <ital> but rather <cite> or <xref> or some such. Same idea applies. I would want an editor to show me foo instead of <cite>foo</cite>, using whatever the appropriate default rendering style is for <cite>.
Economics is a dismal science.
Economics gets to be a science if meteorology can be a science. They're both able to predict the next day or the next century with pretty decent accuracy. But in between those, forget it.
Don't vote for a party if you think just by the name they are pro-environment.
Don't vote for a party just because the first few letters of their name are the same as the first few letters of the word "liberty," either.
Libertarians support the abolition of prescription requirements for the purchase of medications.
Libertarians call for the repeal of RICO statutes that allow police departments to prosecute organized crime.
Libertarians oppose involuntary commitment of insane people into mental hospitals. I guess they're hoping that all the paranoid schizophrenics of the world just check themselves in whenever they get around to it.
Libertarians call for the abolition of National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Libertarians oppose the right of parents to teach religion to their kids. (I'm really not making these things up; this is actually in their platform.)
Libertarians call for an immediate end to various municipal and state bans on smoking in public places. *cough* *cough*
Libertarians want to abolish the use of passports, both issuing them and requiring them at US borders.
Libertarians oppose the government's power to subpoena individuals or companies. (No more public hearings on things like tobacco company misconduct, I guess.)
Libertarians want all border control-- including immigration control-- abolished immediately and permanently.
Libertarians call for the abolition of the dollar as a unit of currency, and of all government-issued coinage.
Libertarians want to abolish the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.
Libertarians call for the abolition of all taxation, but also call for the prohibition of deficit spending. I guess they're planning to have a national "collection plate" day, or something.
Libertarians oppose antitrust legislation, which by the way is practically the only thing keeping Microsoft from coming into your house and eating your children. (Okay, I made that last part up. But we all know how important antitrust laws are in keeping Microsoft in line, even when the process takes longer than we'd like. Better than nothing.)
Libertarians want to abolish the Small Business Association. Just try to start a business without an SBA loan.
Libertarians call for an end to utility rate regulation. Be prepared to spend at least twice as much for your electricity, gas, and water as you do now.
Libertarians demand (not want, but actually "demand") the abolition of the EPA. Speaking of green....
Libertarians want to get rid of the FAA, the CPSA, the NTSB, and the FDA. From now on, landing your plane, testing your kid's toys, ensuring that your car doesn't explode spontaneously, and making sure your food isn't poisonous will be your own responsibility. Be careful.
Libertarians call for the end of the public education system in this country. I know some public schools are pretty bad, but can't we agree that they're a hell of a lot better than nothing at all?
I'm only about halfway through the party platform. This could go on all night. Don't be fooled by the Libertarians, guys. Some of their ideas seem to make sense, but deep down the party's position is extremist and completely nuts. Don't cast a single Libertarian vote in any election, major or minor, until you read their entire platform. I'm telling you, it's a hoot.
Sustainable growth, of course, is a meaningless PC phrase which nobody is willing to define.
Have you asked?
Sustainable growth is a pattern of resource use that provides a reasonable degree of certainty that future generations will be able to employ the same pattern of resource use. Think "rotating crops" here.
Next!
Would that be a serif or sans-serif font when I print it?
By default, serif. Serif always for body text. You're free to set the option to 666-point Zapf Dingbats if you like.
Oh, so you've conceded that as Docbook doesn't contain style information you can't do wysiwyg. Good good.
Neither does HTML, you hard-headed nitwit, yet WYSIWYG HTML editors have been around for nearly a decade now. In HTML one encloses a paragraph in "P" tags, and the browser handles the rest. WYSIWYG HTML editors pick a sensible default (this sounds familiar) and let the user change things around in the preferences (where have I heard this before?).
When displaying a docbook file tell me what font I should use, or where I should get this font information from?
Sensible default, with user-configurable options.
Then how can what I see be what's actually encoded in the file?
Magic.
Sometimes I think people just don't get it. It saddens me... but only a little, because I soon get pulled back into my real life where this "docbook" thing pales in comparison to whether table 11 got their watercress soup or not.
Justified? Yes, in the strictest sense of military strategy. But stupid. Really, really stupid.
Cos you know, there is definitely credible evidence that Saddam is readying chemical an nuclear weapons against us. 'Cos we say so. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Did you miss the part where Hussein Kamel Hassan fled that country and told us that Iraq had a crash nuclear weapons program in 1990? Iraq later confirmed it.
Or what about Khidhir Abdul Abas Hamza, who defected to the US in '94 and gave us lots of juicy facts about Iraq's biological weapons programs, programs which Iraq at first vehemently denied ever existed, and then admitted to in the face of overwhelming evidence. The stockpiles found by weapons inspectors included over 100,000 gallons of botulinum toxin, anthrax, gas gangrene, aflatoxin, and ricin, and a side order of almost four metric tons of VX gas.
Iraq has a long track record of hiding gianormous weapons programs and stockpiles. They are a rogue nation and must be disarmed. The world is in consensus on this; the only point of disagreement was how.
It's a good thing you're not in charge. You'd have us sit around and wait for Hussein to detonate a nuclear bomb over Tel Aviv, or London, or New York before taking action.
ultimately there is no way to approach even close to WYSIWYG
I think you need to go take a look at FrameMaker. It predates all this new-fangled XML hoo-hah; its native format is SGML. It is entirely WYSIWYG. Your point is thus demonstrably false.
And no offense intended likewise, but the "average person" shouldn't be trying to write XML documents if they can't understand the concept of seperating content from presentation.
Ah, the ugly face of snobbery and elitism raises its ugly head once again. Thanks for the input, GigsVT; since I'm obviously not wanted here, I'll just go back to using Microsoft Word for my documentation. You XML folks have fun playing in your little sandbox all by yourselves.
Best analogy ever. You, sir, kick ass.