Try makeing any untoward comments about your almighty presedent, and how to depose him (violently or otherwise) and then see where your constitution gets you....
You can find examples of plenty of "untoward comments" about Bush, him being burnt in effigy, comparisons between him and Hitler and just about everything short of, "ok, this is how we're going to kill the President" on this site.
Yes, if you're part of a group advocating violence the police and FBI will be listening in on you. But people say this stuff in the US and no one locks them up for it. We're better than you in that regard, that's just the plain truth.
And after all the wailing about the infamous Patriot Act, it hasn't affected even the nuttiest Bezerkley moonbats. That's largely because protecting free speech is an engrained part of the culture of US law enforcement. So even if other countries *did* adopt similar protections for speech, you'd find that it would still be better protected in the US.)
People like Dubya get mislabeled as conservatives as a bit of a euphemism, but conservative governments are careful, slow to act and even indecisive.
I disagree. That's almost entirely a function of the leadership of the executive. Some leaders are decisive and have the backing of their constituency.
Contrast GW Bush and Clinton. Clinton's government failed to act because a. he didn't have a clear foreign policy vision and b. the GOP wouldn't support him. Even in Bush's presidency you can see before 9/11 where he had to wrestle with a vocal Democrat party and after 9/11 when the GOP had all three branches and popular support.
A mistake virtually all popular pundits make is in viewing the decision to go to war as an ideological one. I don't want war, but if I see the violence as inevitable we should go at it to win it decisively. That almost always means sooner rather than later, and it almost always means using overwhelming force against the enemy.
If you want to see conservative, you need to look at Japan, in Japan the bureaucracy has the power so nothing ever happens, laws take decades to pass (child porn was only banned in 1998 IIRC) and havn't invaded a country for 65 years.
You could say the same thing about the United Nations and I don't think anyone would call them "conservative." It sounds like you're interpreting the label "conservative" literally, but that's not fully relevant to conservative ideology.
Another counterexample I'd give would be the American unions. In recent years, they've become fairly stagnant and irrelevant to contemporary political discourse, but that's hardly because their ideology has shifted to the right. (Though it has a little, at least on immigration issues.) Rather, as manufacturing, the bread and butter of unions, has become less relevant to the economy they've waned in influence. As such, they've entrenched and aren't a big source of new ideas.
Being conservative is to acknowledge society's indecisiveness and leave it alone. This is cynicism to the highest degree.
Putting aside social conservatives' (who really aren't very conservative) views on gays, conservatives don't typically believe people need to be fixed and they typically view existing institutions as containing an inherent wisdom. (Institutional wisdom is the concept that a function institution can't be torn down and rebuilt, e.g. if you wanted to create your own Supreme Court you couldn't just grab a bunch of judges and give them a photocopy of the USSC's decisions.) But most people call such a viewpoint optimistic, not cynical.
Conservative viewpoints are discouraged on the Internet because the Internet has no central governing authority, thereby giving it a liberal bias.
This doesn't make any sense. First off, the MSM is an example of a well established authority and culture (i.e. an establishment) that is philosophically and materially opposed to conservatives.
Most media that conservatives have been successful in (radio, think tanks and the Internet) are notable for their lack of central authority.
And conservative opinion on central governing authority ranges from a necessary evil to be kept in check with the 2nd ammendment to the libertarian view that government is the source of all evil.
Plus, all forms of ideology are gradually becoming unfashionable due to open communication on the Internet. Conservatism is more recognizable as an ideology and that's why it's targetted first.
If anything, conservativism is notable as the *lack* of an ideology. What do conservatives believe that is so ideological? "Capitalism," which is the notion that people are smart enough to find a mutually beneficial agreement? That sometimes the quickest route to where you're going is to back up to where you took a wrong turn?
I don't see how this is even remotely in line with the supposed purpose of this site.
It also doesn't work with the structure of the site./., and discussion sites in general, work best when there is some basic level of agreement.
On issues like this, people are merely throwing out talking points.
I was on debating sites for several years before I came to the conclusion that they need an architecture that would allow people to work out what issues had been resolved so that the discussion could move forward. Threading and filtering just don't hack it.
Blogs are a partial solution because every participant has to maintain a blog and attract readers, but that drastically lowers the number of people contributing. (The comments sections in blogs are just garbage anyway so I don't count them.)
I notice that r6rs has a lot more editors than r5rs, and another author...
Which isn't surprising. r6rs is twice as long as r5rs which had the entire table of contents on the first page.
I'm glad to see that a lot of the slib stuff is being merged into scheme, and that they're making a lot of progress on number types. r6rs is laying out a lot more information on ADTs, IO and Unicode support.
The explanation of continuations is still as clear as mud. How are they so easy in Python and so hard in Scheme?
Why has nobody pointed out that the $2.50 is FAR FAR CHEAPER than the tuition money the students are paying for the original lecture in the first place??
Or that after you've paid thousands of dollars for books and tens of thousands of dollars for the tuition, how is it you aren't entitled to recordings of lectures?
Photons lack mass but (since they move at 1,0 c) they do have momentum. This is wat makes solar sails work.
Nope.
Quoth wikipedia:
A solar wind is a stream of charged particles (i.e., a plasma) which are ejected from the upper atmosphere of a star. When originating from stars other than the Earth's Sun, it is sometimes called a stellar wind.
It consists mostly of high-energy electrons and protons (about 1 keV) that are able to escape the star's gravity in part because of the high temperature of the corona and the high kinetic energy particles gain through a process that is not well understood at this time.
There's also the dual issue of "what do we do to reduce CO2 emissions?"
We never ratified Kyoto because it would have crippled our industry without making a significant dent in CO2 emissions. That gave me a bad impression of the priorities of the environmental movement.
And environmentalists will routinely vilify technologies that do reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, like nuclear and hydro. The message I get is that however bad global warming is, the risk of a meltdown or a stopped up river is worse.
First you scare people by threatening the apocalypse, or even worse: change!
If it were just change, I'd tend to support the main environmental movement simply because climate change probably involves large numbers of people being forced out of their homes or vast numbers of animals going extinct. Life being unpredictable, this kind of stuff is liable to happen anyway, but there's no reason to hurry it along.
They lose me because blithely associating any bad weather with global warming and then going from that to apocalyptic predictions and images is nothing but demagougery.
There really is *no* attempt among the environmental movement to say in a clear-headed fashion "here's what we know, here's what we don't and here's what different approaches we could take." There's certainly no room for dissent (maybe it's only "dissent" if you're a liberal) on the matter because you're automatically branded a tool of the oil companies. (I've never worked for anything remotely related to an energy company, nor have I invested in such.)
A couple of untrained 54-year old women from Black Box Voting bought $12 worth of tools and in four minutes penetrated the memory card seals, removed, replaced the memory card, and sealed it all up again without leaving a trace.
Your sentence does not parse. I suggest you stop frothing.
He should stop frothing, but the sentence parses just fine. If you move "died" to the end it's a more standard construction, but it seems perfectly acceptable (considering how important "died" is in the sentece) to put it up front.
I think I am going to "fake" take up some firearms classes and some marshal arts. It will also not hurt to add something else like, Tuesdays I will have a "fake" pit bull owners club.
Why not really take an NRA firearms class? But if you want to go the kung fu route, it's spelled "martial."
Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.
on
AOL 9.0 Called Badware
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First of all, people *do* operate cars without a thought to safety.
A better example to prove your point: I was watching an auto insurance ad that showed testimonials of people saying "I saved enough money on my insurance to buy (fishing gear / a camera / etc)"
Yeah, you'll be really fucking happy with that fishing rod when you get in a wreck and see that $20,000 doesn't cover shit.
So who is the real target for these cases? People with a really bad case of mid-life crisis, maybe? Or what?
Ever heard the song "Pretty Fly (for a White Guy)" by Offspring?
There really are guys who will take a nice little Honda and bolt a spoiler on that looks like a park bench. And there really are guys who will put a VTEC sticker on a model that has never had a VTEC engine.
I let one guy borrow my car (which is just a little 1990 Prelude, btw) for a few days. A few days later I'm at a gas station and some girl asks me why I'm driving *his* car.
I don't know exactly what I'd call the target market, but I suspect that when they're not breathing they're lying.
No less troubling, though, are those who can't do a damn thing in life trying to legally steal from those who actually produce something of value.
Lawyers are still an improvement over the natural order, though. There will always be people trying to steal. What the law does is replaces violence with a courtroom.
Slashdot Mirror
But but but... it's XML!
Try makeing any untoward comments about your almighty presedent, and how to depose him (violently or otherwise) and then see where your constitution gets you....
You can find examples of plenty of "untoward comments" about Bush, him being burnt in effigy, comparisons between him and Hitler and just about everything short of, "ok, this is how we're going to kill the President" on this site.
Yes, if you're part of a group advocating violence the police and FBI will be listening in on you. But people say this stuff in the US and no one locks them up for it. We're better than you in that regard, that's just the plain truth.
And after all the wailing about the infamous Patriot Act, it hasn't affected even the nuttiest Bezerkley moonbats. That's largely because protecting free speech is an engrained part of the culture of US law enforcement. So even if other countries *did* adopt similar protections for speech, you'd find that it would still be better protected in the US.)
People like Dubya get mislabeled as conservatives as a bit of a euphemism, but conservative governments are careful, slow to act and even indecisive.
I disagree. That's almost entirely a function of the leadership of the executive. Some leaders are decisive and have the backing of their constituency.
Contrast GW Bush and Clinton. Clinton's government failed to act because a. he didn't have a clear foreign policy vision and b. the GOP wouldn't support him. Even in Bush's presidency you can see before 9/11 where he had to wrestle with a vocal Democrat party and after 9/11 when the GOP had all three branches and popular support.
A mistake virtually all popular pundits make is in viewing the decision to go to war as an ideological one. I don't want war, but if I see the violence as inevitable we should go at it to win it decisively. That almost always means sooner rather than later, and it almost always means using overwhelming force against the enemy.
If you want to see conservative, you need to look at Japan, in Japan the bureaucracy has the power so nothing ever happens, laws take decades to pass (child porn was only banned in 1998 IIRC) and havn't invaded a country for 65 years.
You could say the same thing about the United Nations and I don't think anyone would call them "conservative." It sounds like you're interpreting the label "conservative" literally, but that's not fully relevant to conservative ideology.
Another counterexample I'd give would be the American unions. In recent years, they've become fairly stagnant and irrelevant to contemporary political discourse, but that's hardly because their ideology has shifted to the right. (Though it has a little, at least on immigration issues.) Rather, as manufacturing, the bread and butter of unions, has become less relevant to the economy they've waned in influence. As such, they've entrenched and aren't a big source of new ideas.
Being conservative is to acknowledge society's indecisiveness and leave it alone. This is cynicism to the highest degree.
Putting aside social conservatives' (who really aren't very conservative) views on gays, conservatives don't typically believe people need to be fixed and they typically view existing institutions as containing an inherent wisdom. (Institutional wisdom is the concept that a function institution can't be torn down and rebuilt, e.g. if you wanted to create your own Supreme Court you couldn't just grab a bunch of judges and give them a photocopy of the USSC's decisions.) But most people call such a viewpoint optimistic, not cynical.
Conservative viewpoints are discouraged on the Internet because the Internet has no central governing authority, thereby giving it a liberal bias.
This doesn't make any sense. First off, the MSM is an example of a well established authority and culture (i.e. an establishment) that is philosophically and materially opposed to conservatives.
Most media that conservatives have been successful in (radio, think tanks and the Internet) are notable for their lack of central authority.
And conservative opinion on central governing authority ranges from a necessary evil to be kept in check with the 2nd ammendment to the libertarian view that government is the source of all evil.
Plus, all forms of ideology are gradually becoming unfashionable due to open communication on the Internet. Conservatism is more recognizable as an ideology and that's why it's targetted first.
If anything, conservativism is notable as the *lack* of an ideology. What do conservatives believe that is so ideological? "Capitalism," which is the notion that people are smart enough to find a mutually beneficial agreement? That sometimes the quickest route to where you're going is to back up to where you took a wrong turn?
And, btw, who is "targeting" conservativism?
I don't see how this is even remotely in line with the supposed purpose of this site.
/., and discussion sites in general, work best when there is some basic level of agreement.
It also doesn't work with the structure of the site.
On issues like this, people are merely throwing out talking points.
I was on debating sites for several years before I came to the conclusion that they need an architecture that would allow people to work out what issues had been resolved so that the discussion could move forward. Threading and filtering just don't hack it.
Blogs are a partial solution because every participant has to maintain a blog and attract readers, but that drastically lowers the number of people contributing. (The comments sections in blogs are just garbage anyway so I don't count them.)
Poor conservatives. If only you had the House.. Or the Senate.. Or the Judiciary... Or the Presidency...
If you didn't censor conservatives all the time you might pick up on what voters are actually interested in.
But then you might have the House, the Senate, &c...
So keep on censoring us. You're only driving your own ideology to irrelevancy.
I notice that r6rs has a lot more editors than r5rs, and another author...
Which isn't surprising. r6rs is twice as long as r5rs which had the entire table of contents on the first page.
I'm glad to see that a lot of the slib stuff is being merged into scheme, and that they're making a lot of progress on number types. r6rs is laying out a lot more information on ADTs, IO and Unicode support.
The explanation of continuations is still as clear as mud. How are they so easy in Python and so hard in Scheme?
Students don't deserve to graduate, but maybe that's a bit too harsh.
No, it's not because where there's smoke there's fire. People who cheat don't just do it once.
What is the tensile strength of this steel tube I'm holding?
Thanks, I was going to ask that, but I left my steel tube in my other pants.
Since 'm' is the 13th character, you start by adding 13. From there you subtract 15 ('o' is the 15th character), and then you add 15 again.
Idiot, you've got it backwards. It's -13 + 15 - 15.
"Christmas" instead of "X-Mas"
In Greek, Christ is spelled . X for Christ is an abbreviation that dates back to before the KJV bible was written.
As to how people pronounce "ask," do you pronounce the k, g and h in "knight"?
They don't speak Russian in Ukraine anymore.
There are about 11 million Ukrainians who speak Russian, out of 47 million.
Why has nobody pointed out that the $2.50 is FAR FAR CHEAPER than the tuition money the students are paying for the original lecture in the first place??
Or that after you've paid thousands of dollars for books and tens of thousands of dollars for the tuition, how is it you aren't entitled to recordings of lectures?
Language evolves. Deal with it.
I can deal with the evolution of language, but can you deal with your "evolved" job application going in the garbage?
Nice catch.
Photons lack mass but (since they move at 1,0 c) they do have momentum. This is wat makes solar sails work.
Nope.
Quoth wikipedia:
A solar wind is a stream of charged particles (i.e., a plasma) which are ejected from the upper atmosphere of a star. When originating from stars other than the Earth's Sun, it is sometimes called a stellar wind.
It consists mostly of high-energy electrons and protons (about 1 keV) that are able to escape the star's gravity in part because of the high temperature of the corona and the high kinetic energy particles gain through a process that is not well understood at this time.
There's also the dual issue of "what do we do to reduce CO2 emissions?"
We never ratified Kyoto because it would have crippled our industry without making a significant dent in CO2 emissions. That gave me a bad impression of the priorities of the environmental movement.
And environmentalists will routinely vilify technologies that do reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, like nuclear and hydro. The message I get is that however bad global warming is, the risk of a meltdown or a stopped up river is worse.
First you scare people by threatening the apocalypse, or even worse: change!
If it were just change, I'd tend to support the main environmental movement simply because climate change probably involves large numbers of people being forced out of their homes or vast numbers of animals going extinct. Life being unpredictable, this kind of stuff is liable to happen anyway, but there's no reason to hurry it along.
They lose me because blithely associating any bad weather with global warming and then going from that to apocalyptic predictions and images is nothing but demagougery.
There really is *no* attempt among the environmental movement to say in a clear-headed fashion "here's what we know, here's what we don't and here's what different approaches we could take." There's certainly no room for dissent (maybe it's only "dissent" if you're a liberal) on the matter because you're automatically branded a tool of the oil companies. (I've never worked for anything remotely related to an energy company, nor have I invested in such.)
A couple of untrained 54-year old women from Black Box Voting bought $12 worth of tools and in four minutes penetrated the memory card seals, removed, replaced the memory card, and sealed it all up again without leaving a trace.
/sarc
54 years old AND women.
No, someone died who did more than you EVER will!
Your sentence does not parse. I suggest you stop frothing.
He should stop frothing, but the sentence parses just fine. If you move "died" to the end it's a more standard construction, but it seems perfectly acceptable (considering how important "died" is in the sentece) to put it up front.
I think I am going to "fake" take up some firearms classes and some marshal arts. It will also not hurt to add something else like, Tuesdays I will have a "fake" pit bull owners club.
Why not really take an NRA firearms class? But if you want to go the kung fu route, it's spelled "martial."
First of all, people *do* operate cars without a thought to safety.
A better example to prove your point: I was watching an auto insurance ad that showed testimonials of people saying "I saved enough money on my insurance to buy (fishing gear / a camera / etc)"
Yeah, you'll be really fucking happy with that fishing rod when you get in a wreck and see that $20,000 doesn't cover shit.
So who is the real target for these cases? People with a really bad case of mid-life crisis, maybe? Or what?
Ever heard the song "Pretty Fly (for a White Guy)" by Offspring?
There really are guys who will take a nice little Honda and bolt a spoiler on that looks like a park bench. And there really are guys who will put a VTEC sticker on a model that has never had a VTEC engine.
I let one guy borrow my car (which is just a little 1990 Prelude, btw) for a few days. A few days later I'm at a gas station and some girl asks me why I'm driving *his* car.
I don't know exactly what I'd call the target market, but I suspect that when they're not breathing they're lying.
No less troubling, though, are those who can't do a damn thing in life trying to legally steal from those who actually produce something of value.
Lawyers are still an improvement over the natural order, though. There will always be people trying to steal. What the law does is replaces violence with a courtroom.
My hypothesis, therefore, is that they have developed a painful hereditary skin condition that chaffes them terribly.
And I'll bet their technology is too advanced for them to invent lotion.
I seriously doubt the military needs Gnutella for their supercomputing needs.
On the odd chance they did, the government has a convenient "get out of lawsuit" card called "national security."