What i MEANT to say was: Oh, you meant switch to Windows? BUAHAHAHAHA!
The advantages there is that I can easily develop for the system that most people have. That would be moot on Windows/PPC untill a significant enough number of the machines are sold that the potential market justifies a switch. The other advantage of Windows is that Windows XP/2000 is a lot better than that piece of **** Windows 95. Maybe a PPC would be even more stable, or maybe it would be as unstable as a psychotic sailor back from shore leave.
After using Amigas, it was kind of funny seeing the industry jumping on multitasking and GUIs after laughing at the concept a few years past.
No thanks, I'll stay on PPC, M$ badwill be damned. I'm pretty satisfied with my PPC; so even if Windows came to PPC, I'd stay on PPC because of the neater architecture, high speed with less heat and the opportunity to run Linux, Amiga OS 4 beta and OS X on the same computer without emmulating. It's the computer I imagined when I was in primary school, except it doesn't have all the possible disk drive types. (Just the DVD and floppy.)
In Soviet Russia, they actually did this in a low tech way:
A little-known feature of the U.S.S.R. under Communism was that when someone purchased a typewriter, it was delivered to the local police office. The people there took a razor blade and nicked various characters, then registered the owner, the serial number of the typewriter, and a complete sample of the typewritten output. Since the characters exhibited consistent errors, if a samizdat appeared, all that was necessary would be to compare the characters in the document in question with known samples from the registered typewriters, and the offending typewriter could be identified.
Debug_level=2 Warning : Statement has two contradictory meanings:
We must (end the practice of robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to (balance the budget and protect savings for the future)).
We must (end the practice of robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the budget) and (protect savings for the future).
Warning: Variable leaders of the future assigned to two different values. Assuming "youth" to be proper value. Alternative value "The New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate and Anthony Tedesco" rejected.
I would like to thank The New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate and Anthony Tedesco for allowing me the opportunity to address the concerns of the youth of today because they are the leaders of tomorrow.
They must be doing it as some kind of exercise to make the most pathetic company legal case so far in the Millenium. Are they vying for som sort of prize for impossible lawyering?
In the first story I ever read about SCO suing IBM, I saw that they didn't know the difference between a trademark, copyright and a trade secret. I understood it, they didn't. I was a geek reading computer magazines. They are corporate officers. Incompetence!
The worst part is that virus writers probably used a DDoS on SCO as advertising for their Bot-nets, and the press told it like it was Linux enthusiasts doing it.
1. High profile DDoS 2. More criminals buy spam services and DDoS blackmail contracts from the virus writers 3. Profit for virus writers, PR for SCO
...which is why illegal immigrants driving on our roads, with or without a California drivers' license, should be given car ferry tickets. Tickets enable accounting, calculating the number of passengers in case of an accident, statistics and so on.
available only in printed form, and only to people who pay an admin fee of a few hundred dollars.
And that's the way that many "open" standards are available. Sure, using the standard is free (if there are no related patents), but the documents are copyrighted and could cost as much as $500. Unless you're a member of the standardisation organisation and have paid thousands of dollars in dues. Then there's the standards containing patented alorithms (MP3, MPEG4 etc.) Bleh. I'm all for the freedom to keep your code secret, but what's this secret standards nonsense? Well, it makes sense as a way for paying for the standardisation work.
How will this affect the glorious plans to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants in California?
Even without these new standards, were states allowed to not accept the driver's licenses of other states? This is similar to the issue of states accepting marriage licenses from states with some really kick-arse definition of marriage.
One definite -- once you allow the federal government a power, they never release it -- they will have it forever. During Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War, the federal government took away the right of habeas corpus from KKK members and other non-loyals in the South. Does the federal government still use this power?
The number of shark attacks for that year turned out to be fewer than the average. It was just alot hype from the press. See "How to Scare People with Statistics"
In M2, I treat all the moderations as if they were the first one given to the post.
It's a fundamental flaw in the metamoderation system that you can't know in what order the moderations were performed. That also makes it very difficult to M2 "Overrated" and "Underrated". Giving a +5 Funny post a -1 Overrated may be fair. But it's unfair to give an unmoderated post a -1 Overrated.
Also, several moderators could have entered a moderation around the same time. That way, posts jump up far above what the moderator thought the post deserved. This could be solved by an optional "Maz score" field next to the moderation SELECT, so that if three moderators moderated a post with starting score 1, "+1 Funny, max 3" at the same time, only two of those mod. point were used, and the third user got the mod. point back to use later.
Re: US Military personnel and US property, limiting foreign court access. I wasn't able to find that. Maybe that was some other legislation. Patriot II may make it easier for the other countries to extradite from the US. But the US can't legislate the actions of other countries, that's what treaties and conventions are for.
If you happen to have convinced your fellow citizens that they are living in a truly open society, they will be less able to conceive that it isn't true anymore and any facts that gets in the open will be dismissed as rumours. No doubt helped by the kooks who will believe and spread any and all conspiracy theories. I guess some of them are part of the cover-up. What a great job, eh? Fake openness ends somewhere. If the public believes in freedom, and transparent democracy, there has to be people that knows that it's NOT open. Do you controll all journalists? A select few? The courts? Police? The spokespersons? You need motivations or threats to keep the secret. As this number of people shrinks, it is less likely that people will find out about the fake openness. But, the fewer the people in on the secret, the harder it is to keep the public from talking about what they want.
By the way, when did you heard about the stealth fighters programs? If you were not part of those projects, i mean. So now, we know about them. Did your hear about breakthrough in chemical or biological warfare recently? No? But there must be some. Or at least in other areas of research. I was thinking more in terms of big booms, and of things that the country publicly lies about. Wouldn't some disgruntled person speak up? The stealth fighters didn't violate treaties. US civilians can speak up about what they've seen. US servicemembers probably have less motivation for revealing secrets, but they won't be fed through the woodchipper if they do. They'd go to jail. And they might get away with anything if the journalist kept the source confidential and there were a large number of people who knew the secret.
It wasnt a credible threat and never has been. Come on! The country was rumble, the economics was dead, the population was starving, they even didnt have medications, for christ's sake. I see your starving people, and raise you palaces and super-expensive medical equipment.
It was known BEFORE the war that one of those reports has been made by a student and was 12 years old and outdated. Yeah, the sources should have been provided by British intelligence. UK accused of lifting dossier text. Was the 12-year-old part of the report the part about past history, or was it represented as describing the 2002-2003 inspection round? If the latter, that was deceitful or sloppy. The un inspectors said big and loud that they found nothing but sand and rumbles. There were evidence that were produced before the un that were known to be fakes. Source, please? I was not online much around the time of Powell's UN briefing. I got the impression that it wasn't an obvious case against Iraq, but also that there was more material about WMD in Iraq than there was information warning against the 9/11 attacks.
We're not talking about an open society anymore here. We're talking about a society wich lies to its citizen, wich lied to the un undermining its ability to influence events toward peace, wich started a war with NO other reason than its selfish interest and which destabilizes other countries in doing so. I was thinking "openness" more in the terms of how easilty information unfavourable to the administration is comming out, not wether or not decision makers made public why they made their decisions. But yeah, as long as the information doesn't compromise security and ongoing operations, the public should be told everything straight up.
And it was the point of my joke: all those points are what was hold against irak. Well
I listened to Bush in the RNC speech mentioning tax code reform and medical liability reform. The crowd went nuts! Elsewhere, thousands of lawyers and business logic software developers screamed "NO!" at the top of their voices.
1: You mean in reference to openness, right? Not in reference to WMD? The PATRIOT act is all about extending the powers of law enforcement, secret investiagionts, and increased information sharing. It does reduce the open/transparent nature of the U.S. society somewhat, in that those being investigated for terrorism-related activity won't be tipped off that they are being investigated.
When I said openness, I referred to the fact that people are more likely to find out if the U.S. was up to secret weapons tests, than if Iraq did it. You've got those people who watch military bases as a hobby, and people inside who are willing to risk their jobs to sell a good story to the paper. In Iraq you could loose your head for that. Mass media and the Internet makes it easy to get the word out.
2: Well, certainly not in the amounts we, and the leaders(?), were led to believe. It was a credible threat, but most of the world believed it could be checked with inspections. With all the "intelligence" reports saying there was WMD development taking place, and verified development of medium-range missiles, it would be irresponsible not to address the situation. The big what-if's of giving WMD to terrorists. Saddam did support terrorist groups in the Middle East, allthough links to al'Quaida were weak, and had several WMD programs in the past. I think the US and UK went in too soon, but I also think France shouldn't have put in a permanent veto against any military force. I've said it before: The pre-war diplomacy was an international lunatic asylum with Bush and Chirac as the biggest loons, and Belgium and Germany as runner-ups. With Russia as an over-worked guard and China as a visitor.
Just being silly for the sake of a possible +1 Funny.:)
Yeah, I got that. But it beggs the question, what is the point of moderating a non-frontpage story with only 7 posts, that take 20 seconds to read? I'm not knocking the moderators who moderated me up, but those points should probably be used in a story with 50+ posts. /me Not using karma bonus.
By that standard, there are few democracies in the world. My country is constitutional democratic monarchy with a constitution protecting the rights of minorities. But we still call it a democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you meant switch to x86? BUAHAHAHAHA!
What i MEANT to say was:
Oh, you meant switch to Windows? BUAHAHAHAHA!
The advantages there is that I can easily develop for the system that most people have. That would be moot on Windows/PPC untill a significant enough number of the machines are sold that the potential market justifies a switch.
The other advantage of Windows is that Windows XP/2000 is a lot better than that piece of **** Windows 95. Maybe a PPC would be even more stable, or maybe it would be as unstable as a psychotic sailor back from shore leave.
After using Amigas, it was kind of funny seeing the industry jumping on multitasking and GUIs after laughing at the concept a few years past.
If Windows Came to PPC, Would You Switch?
No thanks, I'll stay on PPC, M$ badwill be damned. I'm pretty satisfied with my PPC; so even if Windows came to PPC, I'd stay on PPC because of the neater architecture, high speed with less heat and the opportunity to run Linux, Amiga OS 4 beta and OS X on the same computer without emmulating. It's the computer I imagined when I was in primary school, except it doesn't have all the possible disk drive types. (Just the DVD and floppy.)
Oh, you meant switch to x86? BUAHAHAHAHA!
Ahem. The prize advantage would be significant.
Related to parent post because of the source: The Bush "Guard memos" are forgeries! The Hailey Connection
s/chiled molestation/child molestation /me is posting while sleepy
We're talking about child molestation.
Not about a chiled mole station, where the mole daemons of Chile get on the train.
(about mistakes)
I thought the answers to #11 provided the most insight into each campaign.
Yes. The Bush campaign doesn't exist, the Kerry campaign thinks Bush should change his mind, and Nader's campaign is balloney.
Concisely unsubstansial, then? :-)
Like consistently inconsistent? (Bush campaign boilerplate.)
Don't know about chiled molestation, but here's Mr. Jackson Kirk Grimes, your candidate for president.
:-)
Actually, I'm not sure if he's really fascist.
I don't know how this comment was modded insightful.
"I don't know how this comment was modded insightful."
(I don't, but I suspect that it was modded insightful because many people agreed with the complaint.)
Kerry's writing has some parsing warnings:
.
.
Debug_level=2
Warning : Statement has two contradictory meanings:
We must (end the practice of robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to (balance the budget and protect savings for the future))
We must (end the practice of robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the budget) and (protect savings for the future)
Warning: Variable leaders of the future assigned to two different values. Assuming "youth" to be proper value. Alternative value "The New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate and Anthony Tedesco" rejected.
I would like to thank The New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate and Anthony Tedesco for allowing me the opportunity to address the concerns of the youth of today because they are the leaders of tomorrow.
They must be doing it as some kind of exercise to make the most pathetic company legal case so far in the Millenium. Are they vying for som sort of prize for impossible lawyering?
In the first story I ever read about SCO suing IBM, I saw that they didn't know the difference between a trademark, copyright and a trade secret. I understood it, they didn't. I was a geek reading computer magazines. They are corporate officers.
Incompetence!
The worst part is that virus writers probably used a DDoS on SCO as advertising for their Bot-nets, and the press told it like it was Linux enthusiasts doing it.
1. High profile DDoS
2. More criminals buy spam services and DDoS blackmail contracts from the virus writers
3. Profit for virus writers, PR for SCO
...which is why illegal immigrants driving on our roads, with or without a California drivers' license, should be given car ferry tickets. Tickets enable accounting, calculating the number of passengers in case of an accident, statistics and so on.
available only in printed form, and only to people who pay an admin fee of a few hundred dollars.
And that's the way that many "open" standards are available. Sure, using the standard is free (if there are no related patents), but the documents are copyrighted and could cost as much as $500. Unless you're a member of the standardisation organisation and have paid thousands of dollars in dues.
Then there's the standards containing patented alorithms (MP3, MPEG4 etc.) Bleh.
I'm all for the freedom to keep your code secret, but what's this secret standards nonsense? Well, it makes sense as a way for paying for the standardisation work.
How will this affect the glorious plans to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants in California?
Even without these new standards, were states allowed to not accept the driver's licenses of other states? This is similar to the issue of states accepting marriage licenses from states with some really kick-arse definition of marriage.
One definite -- once you allow the federal government a power, they never release it -- they will have it forever.
During Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War, the federal government took away the right of habeas corpus from KKK members and other non-loyals in the South. Does the federal government still use this power?
The number of shark attacks for that year turned out to be fewer than the average. It was just alot hype from the press.
See "How to Scare People with Statistics"
In M2, I treat all the moderations as if they were the first one given to the post.
It's a fundamental flaw in the metamoderation system that you can't know in what order the moderations were performed. That also makes it very difficult to M2 "Overrated" and "Underrated". Giving a +5 Funny post a -1 Overrated may be fair. But it's unfair to give an unmoderated post a -1 Overrated.
Also, several moderators could have entered a moderation around the same time. That way, posts jump up far above what the moderator thought the post deserved. This could be solved by an optional "Maz score" field next to the moderation SELECT, so that if three moderators moderated a post with starting score 1, "+1 Funny, max 3" at the same time, only two of those mod. point were used, and the third user got the mod. point back to use later.
Re: US Military personnel and US property, limiting foreign court access.
I wasn't able to find that. Maybe that was some other legislation. Patriot II may make it easier for the other countries to extradite from the US. But the US can't legislate the actions of other countries, that's what treaties and conventions are for.
If you happen to have convinced your fellow citizens that they are living in a truly open society, they will be less able to conceive that it isn't true anymore and any facts that gets in the open will be dismissed as rumours.
No doubt helped by the kooks who will believe and spread any and all conspiracy theories. I guess some of them are part of the cover-up. What a great job, eh?
Fake openness ends somewhere. If the public believes in freedom, and transparent democracy, there has to be people that knows that it's NOT open. Do you controll all journalists? A select few? The courts? Police? The spokespersons? You need motivations or threats to keep the secret. As this number of people shrinks, it is less likely that people will find out about the fake openness. But, the fewer the people in on the secret, the harder it is to keep the public from talking about what they want.
By the way, when did you heard about the stealth fighters programs? If you were not part of those projects, i mean. So now, we know about them. Did your hear about breakthrough in chemical or biological warfare recently? No? But there must be some.
Or at least in other areas of research. I was thinking more in terms of big booms, and of things that the country publicly lies about. Wouldn't some disgruntled person speak up? The stealth fighters didn't violate treaties. US civilians can speak up about what they've seen. US servicemembers probably have less motivation for revealing secrets, but they won't be fed through the woodchipper if they do. They'd go to jail. And they might get away with anything if the journalist kept the source confidential and there were a large number of people who knew the secret.
It wasnt a credible threat and never has been. Come on! The country was rumble, the economics was dead, the population was starving, they even didnt have medications, for christ's sake.
I see your starving people, and raise you palaces and super-expensive medical equipment.
It was known BEFORE the war that one of those reports has been made by a student and was 12 years old and outdated.
Yeah, the sources should have been provided by British intelligence. UK accused of lifting dossier text. Was the 12-year-old part of the report the part about past history, or was it represented as describing the 2002-2003 inspection round? If the latter, that was deceitful or sloppy.
The un inspectors said big and loud that they found nothing but sand and rumbles. There were evidence that were produced before the un that were known to be fakes.
Source, please? I was not online much around the time of Powell's UN briefing. I got the impression that it wasn't an obvious case against Iraq, but also that there was more material about WMD in Iraq than there was information warning against the 9/11 attacks.
We're not talking about an open society anymore here. We're talking about a society wich lies to its citizen, wich lied to the un undermining its ability to influence events toward peace, wich started a war with NO other reason than its selfish interest and which destabilizes other countries in doing so.
I was thinking "openness" more in the terms of how easilty information unfavourable to the administration is comming out, not wether or not decision makers made public why they made their decisions. But yeah, as long as the information doesn't compromise security and ongoing operations, the public should be told everything straight up.
And it was the point of my joke: all those points are what was hold against irak.
Well
I do intend to answer you, but I have some work to do. If the story gets archived, look for a reply in my journal.
I listened to Bush in the RNC speech mentioning tax code reform and medical liability reform. The crowd went nuts!
Elsewhere, thousands of lawyers and business logic software developers screamed "NO!" at the top of their voices.
I see what you mean. But in the U.S. the power is vested in the people. Not in a monarch.
1: You mean in reference to openness, right? Not in reference to WMD? The PATRIOT act is all about extending the powers of law enforcement, secret investiagionts, and increased information sharing. It does reduce the open/transparent nature of the U.S. society somewhat, in that those being investigated for terrorism-related activity won't be tipped off that they are being investigated.
When I said openness, I referred to the fact that people are more likely to find out if the U.S. was up to secret weapons tests, than if Iraq did it.
You've got those people who watch military bases as a hobby, and people inside who are willing to risk their jobs to sell a good story to the paper. In Iraq you could loose your head for that. Mass media and the Internet makes it easy to get the word out.
2: Well, certainly not in the amounts we, and the leaders(?), were led to believe. It was a credible threat, but most of the world believed it could be checked with inspections. With all the "intelligence" reports saying there was WMD development taking place, and verified development of medium-range missiles, it would be irresponsible not to address the situation. The big what-if's of giving WMD to terrorists.
Saddam did support terrorist groups in the Middle East, allthough links to al'Quaida were weak, and had several WMD programs in the past.
I think the US and UK went in too soon, but I also think France shouldn't have put in a permanent veto against any military force.
I've said it before: The pre-war diplomacy was an international lunatic asylum with Bush and Chirac as the biggest loons, and Belgium and Germany as runner-ups. With Russia as an over-worked guard and China as a visitor.
It's quite a cultural phenomenon: Cover of Time Magazine
And when I said "cultural", I meant degenerate.
Just being silly for the sake of a possible +1 Funny. :)
Yeah, I got that.
But it beggs the question, what is the point of moderating a non-frontpage story with only 7 posts, that take 20 seconds to read? I'm not knocking the moderators who moderated me up, but those points should probably be used in a story with 50+ posts.
/me Not using karma bonus.
By that standard, there are few democracies in the world. My country is constitutional democratic monarchy with a constitution protecting the rights of minorities. But we still call it a democracy.