You can't honestly say that US troops should have just sat there, gotten shot, and not shot back can you? You really think that they could or should be given the order "Go in and capture everyone alive, no matter what. Doesn't matter how many of you die, no lethal force, just keep going in until they run out of bullets and you can take them alive."
No, you have to BUY Windows 7, perhaps 2 years after being told Windows Vista was the latest and greatest when you parted with your cash and a year before Vista's *mainstream* support runs out. The horror.
I physically wince at that. I frequently use the home button to pull myself to my homepage on multiple different tabs (it has links leading off to various places). The first thing that needs to happen here is an extension restoring the Home button. They could just hide it instead of removing it. The UX team has basically taken over at Mozilla, and they like changing stuff to suit their whims.
Now, as a person for whom English is his 3rd language, allow me to dumb down my judgment of Roblimo's IQ and knowledge of English to a level that even he should be able to understand, despite it having three syllables: Imbecile.
You mean, 'despite its having three syllables'.:-D
The Catholic Church stands strongly against condom use, secularism, and homosexuality in general. It is mysogenistic. It is unbelievably hypocritical on all sorts of issues, not least the assertion that people should commit charitable acts, whilst hoarding wealth for itself.
Christianity basically teaches that our time here on Earth is one big test as to how faithful we can be to God/Jesus, and how much we can prostrate ourselves before them. Any 'loving God' would make this a fair test - appear to infants at their time of birth, maybe, and at regular intervals throughout their lives, to tell them who he is, what he is, and what he wants of them. He would also make them have roughly the same lifespan and have a similar chance of accepting him. A level playing field.
What is the reality? Some children die during childbirth. Some people live into old age. Some are born with an almost guaranteed ticket to heaven, as they're born into an evangelical Christian community. Others are born into isolated Amazonian tribes where Jesus has never been heard of - a guaranteed ticket to hell. Others are born into commuinities where Jesus is mentioned in passing, but if you were to say you accepted him as your Lord and Saviour you'd be stoned to death in 5 seconds.
This is not conceivably the playing field of a 'loving God'. It's the playing field of a horrible God, a God so incompetent he couldn't possibly have created the universe, or no God similar to the one described in the Bible. Pick one.
The problem is, the alternatives on the other side just suck.
No, the problem is that there is one alternative on one other side. With a system of proportional representation you could have 5, 6, 7, or 8 significant sized parties in office like Sweden.
Well, the US voters are stuck in a Catch-22. Whilst I personally would vote 3rd party candidate anyway were I in the US as the main 2 are so contemptible, a bunch of people feel the need to vote for the lesser of the evils, given the terrible non-proportional, non-preferential US electoral system. Continuing to elect these parties guarantees that the current system will stay in place, continuing the cycle.
Throw into that the financial requirements for running a successful campaign meaning that politicians must accept massive amounts of continuous funding from billionaires united who write the laws they want, headed up by the Koch (pronounced 'cock') brothers, and you have a recipe for something very far from a democracy.
I'm hoping for an armed plebiscite revole ASAP, with the institution of a better electoral system, returning of states' rights from DC, and extremely strict anti-bribery measures that basically ban any politician from office if they are found to have accepted bribes (they would be 100% tax-funded). Blood will be involved, but I can't see another way to overthrow the current system.
In the end, it doesn't really matter to anyone except developers
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Actually one of the truer things Ballmer has said. MS keeps a bunch of developers on board and hence Windows is successful. Firefox risks pissing off a load of extension developers at its peril. I'm an extension dev and the new numbering system pisses me off. Incrementing maxVersion every 3 months after being expected to fix API-breaking changes? What a fucking PITA.
There's bound to be some semi-major quakes in the near future as well... I've been saying they need to do something to get that nuclear material away from Fukushima rather soon. Another tsunami hitting it probably wouldn't end well.
My hopes had been on deep well geothermal, but that's run into significant problems [tnr.com] of its own.
Seriously, why weren't your hopes on nuclear? You ought to know that modern nuke plants are pretty safe, and we might even get nuclear fusion soon. Why deny ourselves a perfectly good energy source there?
The hilarious thing about Germany is, thanks to the Greens being in government for ages and the constant propganda spewing from Greenpeace et al., the German public are stongly against nuclear power. They're even shutting down their existing nuclear plants. How they expect to meet the huge increase in electricity demand on the grid that electric cars will cause without nuclear is beyond me; they're already getting 80% of their energy from... coal and gas. With no nuclear, they can throw vast amount of money at wind/solar and I predict they will still be spewing tons of crap out into the environment because of... coal and gas power stations.
For today probably, in the long term certainly not.
To ask the obvious question, why not? If you're saying we'll get nuclear fusion on the future, that's still nuclear. You should make that clear.
If you're talking about using wind/solar instead, there is always going to be a major tradeoff there, in that these technologies take an ENORMOUS amount of space compared to a nuclear power plant. Maybe not so bad in the US, but in more densely populated countries in Europe, generating vast amounts of electricity through wind/solar (even more when electric cars come along) is not feasible IMHO. When you can have very safe fission reactors and damn-near 100% safe fusion reactors in the future, I don't see why you'd say nuclear is 'certainly not' the best bet.
I leave with this piece about chess, written in the 1500s. "Chess is certainly a pleasing and ingenious amusement, but it seems to have one defect, which is that it is possible to have too much knowledge of it, so that whoever would excel in the game must give a great deal of time to it, as I believe, and as much study as if he would learn some noble science or perform well anything of importance; and yet in the end, for all his pains, he only knows how to play a game. Thus, I think a very unusual thing happens in this, namely that mediocrity is more to be praised than excellence."
Doesn't that basically apply to any sport?
If it weren't valued as a fun spectacle by society, what practical use would the ability to be a really good football (US or non-US definition) player be in society?
Slashdot Mirror
Not if he's still shooting when the police, or anyone with a gun, arrive. Then he gets shot.
He'd probably have been shot anyway for fear of his becoming aggressive. Ever seen Collateral Murder?
You can't honestly say that US troops should have just sat there, gotten shot, and not shot back can you? You really think that they could or should be given the order "Go in and capture everyone alive, no matter what. Doesn't matter how many of you die, no lethal force, just keep going in until they run out of bullets and you can take them alive."
Have you been going to the Ghandi school of war?
Every single other person in this was building was 8-10.
Sorry if that's an esoteric US thing but could you explain to a Brit what that sentence means?
I'm having to relearn where to find certain things on the new Firefox GUI, but that doesn't make it bad.
No, but it IS bad.
I developed a Firefox 3 theme to make FF4 look bearable again, re-enabled the toolbar and made the icons big. New theme isn't worth shit.
... home of the brave.
That's why the government raids your house in the morning with no prior warning.
Worrying about pollution is the core concern of Greenpeace.
Maybe someone should tell them that. I hear they're opposing nuclear power and thereby causing increased CO2 emissions, particularly in Germany.
No, you have to BUY Windows 7, perhaps 2 years after being told Windows Vista was the latest and greatest when you parted with your cash and a year before Vista's *mainstream* support runs out. The horror.
Because the browsers generally recommended for newcomers to Ubuntu won't stop being supported on that OS in a year or two?
So, I guess their support timeline for Vista must've been about a month?
Warner is also now for sale. The asking price for EMI is 2 billion and Warner 3 billion.
See?? If only it weren't for all that piracy, these poor people would still be in thriving business.
I physically wince at that. I frequently use the home button to pull myself to my homepage on multiple different tabs (it has links leading off to various places). The first thing that needs to happen here is an extension restoring the Home button. They could just hide it instead of removing it. The UX team has basically taken over at Mozilla, and they like changing stuff to suit their whims.
What luck these ruralites have, fiber and no dentists.
At least they shouldn't have too many digestive problems.
Now, as a person for whom English is his 3rd language, allow me to dumb down my judgment of Roblimo's IQ and knowledge of English to a level that even he should be able to understand, despite it having three syllables: Imbecile.
You mean, 'despite its having three syllables'. :-D
Perhaps:
pan- : across
fundatio : fundamentalists?
So, 'across multiple fundamentalist things' (presumably referring to the various fanatical proponents of their respective platforms)
The Catholic Church stands strongly against condom use, secularism, and homosexuality in general. It is mysogenistic. It is unbelievably hypocritical on all sorts of issues, not least the assertion that people should commit charitable acts, whilst hoarding wealth for itself.
You call that modernity?
Just consider it.
Why don't you consider this?
Christianity basically teaches that our time here on Earth is one big test as to how faithful we can be to God/Jesus, and how much we can prostrate ourselves before them. Any 'loving God' would make this a fair test - appear to infants at their time of birth, maybe, and at regular intervals throughout their lives, to tell them who he is, what he is, and what he wants of them. He would also make them have roughly the same lifespan and have a similar chance of accepting him. A level playing field.
What is the reality? Some children die during childbirth. Some people live into old age. Some are born with an almost guaranteed ticket to heaven, as they're born into an evangelical Christian community. Others are born into isolated Amazonian tribes where Jesus has never been heard of - a guaranteed ticket to hell. Others are born into commuinities where Jesus is mentioned in passing, but if you were to say you accepted him as your Lord and Saviour you'd be stoned to death in 5 seconds.
This is not conceivably the playing field of a 'loving God'. It's the playing field of a horrible God, a God so incompetent he couldn't possibly have created the universe, or no God similar to the one described in the Bible. Pick one.
The problem is, the alternatives on the other side just suck.
No, the problem is that there is one alternative on one other side. With a system of proportional representation you could have 5, 6, 7, or 8 significant sized parties in office like Sweden.
Well, the US voters are stuck in a Catch-22. Whilst I personally would vote 3rd party candidate anyway were I in the US as the main 2 are so contemptible, a bunch of people feel the need to vote for the lesser of the evils, given the terrible non-proportional, non-preferential US electoral system. Continuing to elect these parties guarantees that the current system will stay in place, continuing the cycle.
Throw into that the financial requirements for running a successful campaign meaning that politicians must accept massive amounts of continuous funding from billionaires united who write the laws they want, headed up by the Koch (pronounced 'cock') brothers, and you have a recipe for something very far from a democracy.
I'm hoping for an armed plebiscite revole ASAP, with the institution of a better electoral system, returning of states' rights from DC, and extremely strict anti-bribery measures that basically ban any politician from office if they are found to have accepted bribes (they would be 100% tax-funded). Blood will be involved, but I can't see another way to overthrow the current system.
In the end, it doesn't really matter to anyone except developers
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Actually one of the truer things Ballmer has said. MS keeps a bunch of developers on board and hence Windows is successful. Firefox risks pissing off a load of extension developers at its peril. I'm an extension dev and the new numbering system pisses me off. Incrementing maxVersion every 3 months after being expected to fix API-breaking changes? What a fucking PITA.
There's bound to be some semi-major quakes in the near future as well... I've been saying they need to do something to get that nuclear material away from Fukushima rather soon. Another tsunami hitting it probably wouldn't end well.
My hopes had been on deep well geothermal, but that's run into significant problems [tnr.com] of its own.
Seriously, why weren't your hopes on nuclear? You ought to know that modern nuke plants are pretty safe, and we might even get nuclear fusion soon. Why deny ourselves a perfectly good energy source there?
It's not possible in practice NOW, but that doesn't stop the Greens resting their campaigning on opposing it.
The hilarious thing about Germany is, thanks to the Greens being in government for ages and the constant propganda spewing from Greenpeace et al., the German public are stongly against nuclear power. They're even shutting down their existing nuclear plants. How they expect to meet the huge increase in electricity demand on the grid that electric cars will cause without nuclear is beyond me; they're already getting 80% of their energy from... coal and gas. With no nuclear, they can throw vast amount of money at wind/solar and I predict they will still be spewing tons of crap out into the environment because of... coal and gas power stations.
For today probably, in the long term certainly not.
To ask the obvious question, why not? If you're saying we'll get nuclear fusion on the future, that's still nuclear. You should make that clear.
If you're talking about using wind/solar instead, there is always going to be a major tradeoff there, in that these technologies take an ENORMOUS amount of space compared to a nuclear power plant. Maybe not so bad in the US, but in more densely populated countries in Europe, generating vast amounts of electricity through wind/solar (even more when electric cars come along) is not feasible IMHO. When you can have very safe fission reactors and damn-near 100% safe fusion reactors in the future, I don't see why you'd say nuclear is 'certainly not' the best bet.
I leave with this piece about chess, written in the 1500s.
"Chess is certainly a pleasing and ingenious amusement, but it seems to have one defect, which is that it is possible to have too much knowledge of it, so that whoever would excel in the game must give a great deal of time to it, as I believe, and as much study as if he would learn some noble science or perform well anything of importance; and yet in the end, for all his pains, he only knows how to play a game. Thus, I think a very unusual thing happens in this, namely that mediocrity is more to be praised than excellence."
Doesn't that basically apply to any sport?
If it weren't valued as a fun spectacle by society, what practical use would the ability to be a really good football (US or non-US definition) player be in society?