Maybe there was no cowardice by the common man in France. But there was plenty of cowardice in the government leading up to the invasion of France in WW2.
For example, not helping allies (like Poland) that they committed to helping in treaty.
They could have easily stopped Hitler if they had the will before the war. The German generals even said so. They were ready to depose Hitler over his rash actions. But Hitler was right about all of the western democracies (France, England, and the US) and they did nothing when he went in and bullied the smaller countries around him.
DCC does what I think you are suggesting and it collects information from many different email servers around the internet. http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/
I have noticed that many people just use a laptop instead of a full pc nowadays. Now that you can get 1 from dell for around $500 with wireless, why bother with a whole pc. Most people are happy with the power of a p3, so any new laptop you get will be more than sufficent for most stuff people want to do (browse internet, send email, process words). Someone mentioned the cable mess, which laptops with wireless mostly eliminate.
I really think that laptops are where the consumer and corporate market are going. What improvements could be made to the basic laptop design?
Is there really a "Statutory minimum" in the U.S.? I know many people who are lucky to get a week off/per year when starting a full-time job. Is that really illegal in the U.S.?
I always thought that the matrix should have used people as some kind of computer.
The needing us for power concept made me laugh when I heard it because it really makes no sense. Why would you get more energyout than you put in?
But just like machines are a lot better at crunching numbers, maybe it was cheaper for the machines to keep human brains around for some kind of computing task which our brains are more suited to. That would explain the need to jack everybody in. If they only needed us for batteries they could just lobotomize us and be done with it.
I am not a great risk player, but I have noticed something when I play games with 5 other humans. Continents are useless, only the cards matter. It seems like no one will ever let someone hold a continent because they don't want to let that player hold such an advantage. It is almost like a balance of power.
If two guys fight over australia in the beginning they are usually both doomed because they burn up all their armies. The strategy that I normally see win is to establish a power base in Europe, america, or aisia where you have 4 or more armies in every territory. Don't become a threat by trying to take over a continet, but don't leave any territories weak enough that someone decides to attack. Then just take 1 territory per turn, and only attack when it is like 4 to 1. This allows you to keep all of your armies while everyone else burns theirs.
As people start building up cards look for a player who is weak and has territories your armies can reach easily because they are close or at least mostly connected. When it is time, trade in your cards and take a "Risk". If you can elimiate a weak opponent completely, you get their cards. If you fail you are doomed, someone will almost certainly get the cards. You need to always have enough cards that you can trade in soon, and have enough armies so you don't look to easy to take out. Cards = armies.
It seems like the real problem is that they should have told you there was a problem with the name when you first created the character. It seems like the worst part is losing the identity/reputation you created in the game, not the loss of a particular handle.
I am not for or against java or c++. But just out of curiosity, why is that test more suited to c++ then java. If you had to do a lot of the same type of calculations in a loop, like you might have to in scientific computing, it seems like at some point you have to do the calculations.
How would you setup the test so it was favored for java?
Judging from Microsoft's past track record, it defines success as completely destroying its competitors. Defining success as being a relevant OS, and failure as being not relevant, it all depends on your point of view. From a Linux advocates point of view (if you can nail that down), they should both be able to succeed. From Microsoft's point of view, to succeed, Linux must fail.
Thank you Henry David Thoreau. Except for the part about no consequence. You will have to face the consequences, but i you really believe in it, you should do it anyway.
Thats not half as bad as the anti-tv zealots that feel a need to mention that they never watch tv every time it is mentioned just so they can feel superior.
So what if you have a girlfriend, and are in shape, and actually do some open-source programming in your new-found spare time.
You can pry my remote-control out of my cold dead hands.
I thought you need to be able to see 3 buildings in the second row. Wouldn't 1324 mean you can only see the first 2 buildings because the 3 would block the 2?
ok, but then what port does it contact on the next machine? I am not saying there isn't a serious security problem. However, is this something that could spread as a worm? I thought a worm did not need any user interaction like going to a webpage. Maybe my definition of a worm is incorrect, or maybe I am not understanding the issue entirely.
I agree, it is best to align your model of the world with what "reality" really is. If people have a religion that is doing that for them, that is great.
However, it is my experience that the best method so far is the empirical scientific method. Although you might only get to 95% of the truth, I don't think anything else comes closer. Unless god comes down and lays it out for you, what else can you do?
Even math has to accept some axioms that may or may not reflect reality and then deduce from there.
Good point. However, I don't accept science solely on the basis of deductive logic. I accept it because my car and computer work. Science is empirical. If you apply the scientific method to something and get result then it is good enough. We are not talking about formal mathematical proofs here.
The problem with religion and pseudo-science is that it can't even stand up to normal scientific experiment. Or worse still, it is created in such a way that you can't even create an experiment to test it.
Most of our daily experiences and conciousness are not in the realm of science, but science still "just works".
I read the first interview and it seemed like OSC was being completely reasonable and the journalist was unable to divorce her issues from the interview.
The second article bored me half way through, but he didn't say anything too outrageous.
The guy thinks that homosexuality is not natural. Many people disagree with him. He is just saying people should have compassion for homosexual people and forgive them because that is what Jesus would do. Starting from what he believes, and what he claims to have experienced in his life that seems pretty reasonable.
I don't agree with his views, but it is a little harsh to say he is "a dispicable human".
Those articles did not "turn off on that guy" or cause me to "stop purchasing his books". I liked to read through his reasoning (well until I got bored in the second article) even if it is a little out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe there was no cowardice by the common man in France. But there was plenty of cowardice in the government leading up to the invasion of France in WW2.
For example, not helping allies (like Poland) that they committed to helping in treaty.
They could have easily stopped Hitler if they had the will before the war. The German generals even said so. They were ready to depose Hitler over his rash actions. But Hitler was right about all of the western democracies (France, England, and the US) and they did nothing when he went in and bullied the smaller countries around him.
DCC does what I think you are suggesting and it collects information from many different email servers around the internet.
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/
I have noticed that many people just use a laptop instead of a full pc nowadays. Now that you can get 1 from dell for around $500 with wireless, why bother with a whole pc. Most people are happy with the power of a p3, so any new laptop you get will be more than sufficent for most stuff people want to do (browse internet, send email, process words). Someone mentioned the cable mess, which laptops with wireless mostly eliminate.
I really think that laptops are where the consumer and corporate market are going. What improvements could be made to the basic laptop design?
try http://xxx.lanl.gov/
Is there really a "Statutory minimum" in the U.S.? I know many people who are lucky to get a week off/per year when starting a full-time job. Is that really illegal in the U.S.?
Then it is privateering.
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I always thought that the matrix should have used people as some kind of computer.
The needing us for power concept made me laugh when I heard it because it really makes no sense. Why would you get more energyout than you put in?
But just like machines are a lot better at crunching numbers, maybe it was cheaper for the machines to keep human brains around for some kind of computing task which our brains are more suited to. That would explain the need to jack everybody in. If they only needed us for batteries they could just lobotomize us and be done with it.
That was the best post I have seen on slashdot in a long time.
If I had mod points this post would get them.
I am not a great risk player, but I have noticed something when I play games with 5 other humans. Continents are useless, only the cards matter. It seems like no one will ever let someone hold a continent because they don't want to let that player hold such an advantage. It is almost like a balance of power.
If two guys fight over australia in the beginning they are usually both doomed because they burn up all their armies. The strategy that I normally see win is to establish a power base in Europe, america, or aisia where you have 4 or more armies in every territory. Don't become a threat by trying to take over a continet, but don't leave any territories weak enough that someone decides to attack. Then just take 1 territory per turn, and only attack when it is like 4 to 1. This allows you to keep all of your armies while everyone else burns theirs.
As people start building up cards look for a player who is weak and has territories your armies can reach easily because they are close or at least mostly connected. When it is time, trade in your cards and take a "Risk". If you can elimiate a weak opponent completely, you get their cards. If you fail you are doomed, someone will almost certainly get the cards. You need to always have enough cards that you can trade in soon, and have enough armies so you don't look to easy to take out. Cards = armies.
Thats the best strategy I could come up with.
It seems like the real problem is that they should have told you there was a problem with the name when you first created the character. It seems like the worst part is losing the identity/reputation you created in the game, not the loss of a particular handle.
I am not for or against java or c++. But just out of curiosity, why is that test more suited to c++ then java. If you had to do a lot of the same type of calculations in a loop, like you might have to in scientific computing, it seems like at some point you have to do the calculations.
How would you setup the test so it was favored for java?
Saying "I think" is redundant. If you hate "I, for one", you probaby can't like that too much either. Maybe you were making a joke?
Judging from Microsoft's past track record, it defines success as completely destroying its competitors.
Defining success as being a relevant OS, and failure as being not relevant, it all depends on your point of view.
From a Linux advocates point of view (if you can nail that down), they should both be able to succeed.
From Microsoft's point of view, to succeed, Linux must fail.
You could like go work for someone else............
Thank you Henry David Thoreau. Except for the part about no consequence. You will have to face the consequences, but i you really believe in it, you should do it anyway.
I'm alutaphobic you insensitive clod!
It's not cheating. Its like installing your NIC card, or using the atm machine.
Thats not half as bad as the anti-tv zealots that feel a need to mention that they never watch tv every time it is mentioned just so they can feel superior.
So what if you have a girlfriend, and are in shape, and actually do some open-source programming in your new-found spare time.
You can pry my remote-control out of my cold dead hands.
I thought you need to be able to see 3 buildings in the second row. Wouldn't 1324 mean you can only see the first 2 buildings because the 3 would block the 2?
ok, but then what port does it contact on the next machine? I am not saying there isn't a serious security problem. However, is this something that could spread as a worm? I thought a worm did not need any user interaction like going to a webpage. Maybe my definition of a worm is incorrect, or maybe I am not understanding the issue entirely.
How would a worm work on a browser? I am curious. Does firefox listen on a particular port while it is running?
I agree, it is best to align your model of the world with what "reality" really is. If people have a religion that is doing that for them, that is great.
However, it is my experience that the best method so far is the empirical scientific method. Although you might only get to 95% of the truth, I don't think anything else comes closer. Unless god comes down and lays it out for you, what else can you do?
Even math has to accept some axioms that may or may not reflect reality and then deduce from there.
Good point. However, I don't accept science solely on the basis of deductive logic. I accept it because my car and computer work. Science is empirical. If you apply the scientific method to something and get result then it is good enough. We are not talking about formal mathematical proofs here. The problem with religion and pseudo-science is that it can't even stand up to normal scientific experiment. Or worse still, it is created in such a way that you can't even create an experiment to test it. Most of our daily experiences and conciousness are not in the realm of science, but science still "just works".
I read the first interview and it seemed like OSC was being completely reasonable and the journalist was unable to divorce her issues from the interview. The second article bored me half way through, but he didn't say anything too outrageous. The guy thinks that homosexuality is not natural. Many people disagree with him. He is just saying people should have compassion for homosexual people and forgive them because that is what Jesus would do. Starting from what he believes, and what he claims to have experienced in his life that seems pretty reasonable. I don't agree with his views, but it is a little harsh to say he is "a dispicable human". Those articles did not "turn off on that guy" or cause me to "stop purchasing his books". I liked to read through his reasoning (well until I got bored in the second article) even if it is a little out there.