I just heard some sad news on Fox News - actor/NRA moses Charlton Heston was
found dead in his Los Angeles home this afternoon. There weren't any more details.
I'm sure
everyone in the AK47 community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his
work, there's no denying his contributions to the gun crazy image of America. Truly an American
icon.
Too bad that old senile crank Charlton Heston weren't here to witness this blending of genius and modern technology.
But seriously, maybe there is a good use for this. The next time you're supplying and training militias in some remote part of the world, you could supply them not only with AK47's, but with propaganda bullets. Chock full of Voice Of America and Rush Limbaug monologues.
that all these distributed projects are actually doing what they're supposed to?
Would you notice it if my long-lasting-no-results-yet-but-soon-for-sure distributed project for an AIDS vaccine were actually a rendering farm for animated kiddie porn movies?
Yep, it's not an energy source, but an energy carrier.
But consider the logistics of it. Many large cities have big problems with air pollution caused by by vehicles burning fossile fuels. With hydrogen powered vehicles, you are able to move the problem out of densely populated areas.
Starring John Cusack as budding pirate Guybrush Threepwood,
With Cameron Diaz as Elaine,
Jack Nicholson as Le Chuck The Evil Pirate,
Chevy Chase as Stan,
Vincent Gallo as Herman Toothroot,
and Leonardo DiCaprio as the monkey.
Everybody with cable are complaining about low speed (compared to what they pay for) and frequent service outages. Also, cable providers don't sell more than 640 kbit/s lines.
We have two 2.2 mbit/s DSL lines, for which we pay about $60 pr. month, giving us 400 kb/s downloads, with no service outages the last two years.
While Oppenheimer certainly faced tough moral decisions, I think I can say that the dangers of DRM are far more devastating. At least to the american people.
If Torvalds were made aware of his moral responsibility to us all, I think he would reconsider.
Everybody making music aren't tripe rock bands or pop queens where the stageshow/appearance of the artist is 99 percent of their performance.
Some people actually make music for listening. I don't give a fuck about how Squarepusher or Aphex Twin looks. I'm not a fucking fanboy, why would I want to pay for going to their concerts?
Haha.. you dumb fuck. Events like biathlon are originally military events. Now, if the business of the military ain't killing and maiming, then what is it?
Varmit control? What's that? Dumb fuck.
And do you seriously and honestly believe that anybody hunts rats with guns? Motherfuck.
And do you think guns were invented, and people only afterwards discovered that you could kill people with them? "man he's dead.. I guess this earwax removing device is good for killing people too"
1994 - Apple launches a new line of personal computers, called the Power Macintosh, which uses a 64 bit RISC microprocessor developed in alliance with IBM and Motorola.
Another example
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The story of Alan Turing is really tragic.
He was one of the main contributors to breaking the Enigma code, and also a true innovator in the field of computing.
Of course, his efforts were kept a secret until long after the war, and Turing never got any official recognition while he was alive. When the british government harrased him over his sexuality, he ended up taking his own life with cyanide. A sad story indeed.
No, we know full well that most US interventions have mixed motivations. We are a country of 290+ million people. To sell any intervention, you have to put a coalition of different interest groups together. Some buy the power politics angle. Some will support it if you can show them a profit. And yes, a large number of us (perhaps even most of us) will only support an intervention if you can show us that it is, indeed, The Right Thing To Do.
Then I guess we agree.
The point I'm trying to make here isn't that no good ever came out of any of those campaigns, my point is that when you have other motives than the purely philanthropic, you should be honest about that. If you really believe in the US-as-a saviour-of-the-world line of thinking, then ask yourself what other conflicts might have benefited from US intervention the last fifty years. A lot, I tell you.
Before you get all winded up, I understand that you want something in return for acting as the "worlds police", but don't pretend that it isn't so.
And just to clarify, it's not my opinion that an action has to be hundred percent unselfish to be "good", but when the government obviously have to (and manage to) convince the US populace of just that to get their support, then something is wrong.
I don't doubt that there are in fact decent people in the USA. I'm just suggesting that you're maybe not quite the white knight you portray yourself as.
The phrase "Saddam gassed his own people" are getting tiresome. Saddam gassed the seperatist kurds in northern Iraq.
I suspect it is repeated over and over again to somehow draw attention away from the fact that NATO member Turkey are responsible for several massacres in the same area. At least they're not killing "their own people", right?
As always, there's the corporate welfare angle. When the US spends money on a military campaign, guess where that money ends up? Other than that, you have the geographic strategic importance of the country (the former Soviet supported Ethiopia to the north, the Suez canal to the east). And then there is oil. Yes, Somalia got oil.
Even if you were to believe that the mission in Somalia was of a humanitarian nature, you can't disregard that the US were largely responsible for creating the situation in the first place. Their support of an extremely violent dictator (Siad Barre, maybe an even greater bastard than Saddam) in exchange for lucrative oil contracts, during the seventies and eighties, eventually brought on a bloody civil war.
The real world has nothing to do with the Jerry Bruckheimer fantasy Black Hawk Down.
That the genocide in Rwanda could reach such levels as it dit, has been partially attributed to how the US administration managed this case in the security council. From the beginnings of this disaster, they opposed most of the remaining members of the security council. First in supporting withdrawal of most of the UN controlled forces in the country. Then by stalling for unknown reasons, when then UN proposed a second plan for restoring order.
Regarding the former Yugoslavia and the NATO led intervention, the US has never tried to cover up that they had very real strategic goals with this campaign. Take a look at for example this report.
As I said earlier, the world is not a rosy place. I don't particularily care that the US did or did not intervene in these latest campaigns in Africa or Southern Europe. What's scary is that so many of you americans, firmly believe that your leaders only act out of a "pure" motive. I'm sure you're not so naive in other regards. The only explanation I've got, is that you must be blinded with "patriotism".
That's fairly naive. Do you really think that anybody in a position to either declare war on Germany and it's allies, or stay neutral, did so out of the slightest concern for Hitler's "own people"?
Now, give me one example of a conflict where the US unselfishly involved itself for no other cause than "good".
It's like christian charities. They might (or might not) do some good, but ultimately they are only serving their own purpose, coming to heaven.
I suspect it might be about a lot of things. It's definetely not about the well being of iraqi citizens though.
Not that there is anything basicly wrong about that, in my opinion. Humans are selfish in nature. It's all the suckers who buy into (or hide behind) the humanitarian, philantropic, democracy spreading angle who sickens me. Admit it. You believe this is for your best. Iraqis be damned.
Slashdot Mirror
I just heard some sad news on Fox News - actor/NRA moses Charlton Heston was found dead in his Los Angeles home this afternoon. There weren't any more details.
I'm sure everyone in the AK47 community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to the gun crazy image of America. Truly an American icon.
Anybody got the technical details on this "emulation" versus the x86 compatibility in Opteron?
JIT compilation or instruction for instruction?
You've done it again.
Too bad that old senile crank Charlton Heston weren't here to witness this blending of genius and modern technology.
But seriously, maybe there is a good use for this. The next time you're supplying and training militias in some remote part of the world, you could supply them not only with AK47's, but with propaganda bullets. Chock full of Voice Of America and Rush Limbaug monologues.
The security implications are staggering.
How do we lobby for port number 31337 for the RDMA protocol?
that all these distributed projects are actually doing what they're supposed to?
Would you notice it if my long-lasting-no-results-yet-but-soon-for-sure distributed project for an AIDS vaccine were actually a rendering farm for animated kiddie porn movies?
the people who die from influenza are old and weak. SARS kills healthy young people, like you and me.
My hands are too big to operate one of those.
The perfect size for laptops is something like the Dell x200. Very lightweight, but with a keyboard where you actually can hit individual keys.
I think the smaller is better craze is only good to a certain point, this is in my opinion, beyond.
So.. your package from the US, to the US, passed through somewhere else in the US?
Norsk Hydro is the same company who supplied Timothy McVeigh with fertiziler for the Oklahoma city bombing.
Now, they are making hydrogen fuel stations, undermining the oil based economy. I'm not a sucker for conspiracy theory, but it makes you wonder.
Yep, it's not an energy source, but an energy carrier.
But consider the logistics of it. Many large cities have big problems with air pollution caused by by vehicles burning fossile fuels. With hydrogen powered vehicles, you are able to move the problem out of densely populated areas.
Starring John Cusack as budding pirate Guybrush Threepwood,
With Cameron Diaz as Elaine,
Jack Nicholson as Le Chuck The Evil Pirate,
Chevy Chase as Stan,
Vincent Gallo as Herman Toothroot,
and Leonardo DiCaprio as the monkey.
Everybody with cable are complaining about low speed (compared to what they pay for) and frequent service outages. Also, cable providers don't sell more than 640 kbit/s lines.
We have two 2.2 mbit/s DSL lines, for which we pay about $60 pr. month, giving us 400 kb/s downloads, with no service outages the last two years.
Don't know about latency though.
While Oppenheimer certainly faced tough moral decisions, I think I can say that the dangers of DRM are far more devastating. At least to the american people.
If Torvalds were made aware of his moral responsibility to us all, I think he would reconsider.
Why not check out some talented brothers?
Everybody making music aren't tripe rock bands or pop queens where the stageshow/appearance of the artist is 99 percent of their performance.
Some people actually make music for listening. I don't give a fuck about how Squarepusher or Aphex Twin looks. I'm not a fucking fanboy, why would I want to pay for going to their concerts?
Haha.. you dumb fuck. Events like biathlon are originally military events. Now, if the business of the military ain't killing and maiming, then what is it?
Varmit control? What's that? Dumb fuck.
And do you seriously and honestly believe that anybody hunts rats with guns? Motherfuck.
And do you think guns were invented, and people only afterwards discovered that you could kill people with them? "man he's dead.. I guess this earwax removing device is good for killing people too"
Guns were created to facilitate killing and maiming, period. I'm all for recreation and protection, but let's be realistic about what is going on.
Not that Napster shouldn't pay, just that your argument sucks.
1994 - Apple launches a new line of personal computers, called the Power Macintosh, which uses a 64 bit RISC microprocessor developed in alliance with IBM and Motorola.
The story of Alan Turing is really tragic.
He was one of the main contributors to breaking the Enigma code, and also a true innovator in the field of computing.
Of course, his efforts were kept a secret until long after the war, and Turing never got any official recognition while he was alive. When the british government harrased him over his sexuality, he ended up taking his own life with cyanide. A sad story indeed.
No, we know full well that most US interventions have mixed motivations. We are a country of 290+ million people. To sell any intervention, you have to put a coalition of different interest groups together. Some buy the power politics angle. Some will support it if you can show them a profit. And yes, a large number of us (perhaps even most of us) will only support an intervention if you can show us that it is, indeed, The Right Thing To Do.
Then I guess we agree.
The point I'm trying to make here isn't that no good ever came out of any of those campaigns, my point is that when you have other motives than the purely philanthropic, you should be honest about that. If you really believe in the US-as-a saviour-of-the-world line of thinking, then ask yourself what other conflicts might have benefited from US intervention the last fifty years. A lot, I tell you.
Before you get all winded up, I understand that you want something in return for acting as the "worlds police", but don't pretend that it isn't so.
And just to clarify, it's not my opinion that an action has to be hundred percent unselfish to be "good", but when the government obviously have to (and manage to) convince the US populace of just that to get their support, then something is wrong.
I don't doubt that there are in fact decent people in the USA. I'm just suggesting that you're maybe not quite the white knight you portray yourself as.
The phrase "Saddam gassed his own people" are getting tiresome. Saddam gassed the seperatist kurds in northern Iraq.
I suspect it is repeated over and over again to somehow draw attention away from the fact that NATO member Turkey are responsible for several massacres in the same area. At least they're not killing "their own people", right?
Interesting that you specifically stated christian charities. Any reason for that?
I was trolling for christians.
Ok, let's look at Somalia first.
As always, there's the corporate welfare angle. When the US spends money on a military campaign, guess where that money ends up? Other than that, you have the geographic strategic importance of the country (the former Soviet supported Ethiopia to the north, the Suez canal to the east). And then there is oil. Yes, Somalia got oil.
Even if you were to believe that the mission in Somalia was of a humanitarian nature, you can't disregard that the US were largely responsible for creating the situation in the first place. Their support of an extremely violent dictator (Siad Barre, maybe an even greater bastard than Saddam) in exchange for lucrative oil contracts, during the seventies and eighties, eventually brought on a bloody civil war.
The real world has nothing to do with the Jerry Bruckheimer fantasy Black Hawk Down.
That the genocide in Rwanda could reach such levels as it dit, has been partially attributed to how the US administration managed this case in the security council. From the beginnings of this disaster, they opposed most of the remaining members of the security council. First in supporting withdrawal of most of the UN controlled forces in the country. Then by stalling for unknown reasons, when then UN proposed a second plan for restoring order.
Regarding the former Yugoslavia and the NATO led intervention, the US has never tried to cover up that they had very real strategic goals with this campaign. Take a look at for example this report.
As I said earlier, the world is not a rosy place. I don't particularily care that the US did or did not intervene in these latest campaigns in Africa or Southern Europe. What's scary is that so many of you americans, firmly believe that your leaders only act out of a "pure" motive. I'm sure you're not so naive in other regards. The only explanation I've got, is that you must be blinded with "patriotism".
That's fairly naive. Do you really think that anybody in a position to either declare war on Germany and it's allies, or stay neutral, did so out of the slightest concern for Hitler's "own people"?
Now, give me one example of a conflict where the US unselfishly involved itself for no other cause than "good".
It's like christian charities. They might (or might not) do some good, but ultimately they are only serving their own purpose, coming to heaven.
I suspect it might be about a lot of things. It's definetely not about the well being of iraqi citizens though.
Not that there is anything basicly wrong about that, in my opinion. Humans are selfish in nature. It's all the suckers who buy into (or hide behind) the humanitarian, philantropic, democracy spreading angle who sickens me. Admit it. You believe this is for your best. Iraqis be damned.