Him not knowing it, fair enough. He knows now, this is how you learn. What's more disturbing is that enough moderators didn't know or didn't care how true a Windows slamming was for him to get modded Interesting.
last night, the kind where you bet and pick your winners for all the categories, and the one with most right gets the pot. I came very damn close to winning! My secret? Lord of the rings for everything! Documentary, animated short, everything!
Not only that, but the leak can be used for a while as an excuse for security problems. And then their argument could continue "Since the releasing of only a PART of the source code caused so manynew security problems, how reliable can software whose entire tree is available be?". So, they become the vicitim of mailicious hackers, bury some bad PR, and take another marketting jab at OSS.
I think that a big part of the debate is the same as with abortion: at what point of the whole conception/birth/growth cycle is a human a human? It's not so much a religious argument (although, yes, many people do disagree with cloning just because that's what the church says) as a more generic ethical one. If we all agreed that any number of embryonic cells is a human being, then we should all agree that it's murder. If we draw the line for life further down the cycle, then those cells aren't any different than the skin we shed everday.
But, again, people differ on that point most of the time, and argumens usually boil down to that matter, once you strip all the "playing God" nonsense. I'm an agnostic that wouldn't define cloning as playing God anymore than a woman does when she's selective about who will father her children (which is a more indirect form of genetic manipulation, but manipulation all the same). But I do think that once an embryo is formed, the process for that person's existence is started, and cutting that future is murder. Again, that's my opinion of the life cycle, and I would personally not take part of it. If society is to take a stance on this issue, though, I think that that is the fundamental question we need to agree on.
Actually, there is a central authority. The problem is, those central authorities exist solely to commit terrorist actions! They won't stop because blowing themselves up is their whole reason for being, and the only thing that gives those in control of those organizations the power that they wield.
What is needed is to undermine public support for these groups, which is where the Palestinian state comes in. It won't be immediate, but slowly people would realize that they haven't solved anything, but that independence might. If no one followed Osama, for example, he would just be another nut spewing bullshit on the streets of Riyadh (or a nightclub, I guess, he did live in a rich family).
That's your proof? The economy lags behind government changes? A blanket statement with no specific evidence?
So, the recent "upturn" (not quite a recovery, I think "jobless recoveries" ain't, but getting better) in the economy can't possible be due to Bush, then. No, it's too soon. Thank you, Clinton!
Parent poster was talking about exactly this. Do you, or do you not, know EXACTLY what caused the recession and then the recovery? Meaning, you hear Greenspan speak and you can understand every - single - word? I sure as hell don't, but I don't go around laying blame on other people for things I don't understand. I don't understand the economy well enough to make that kind of statement, and I don't think you do either.
The Bush administration doesn't mistreat the U.N., it's the other way around. Bush couldn't even get a vote on a Resolution, without France threatening to veto.
Well, be fair on this one. France did threaten to veto, sure, but the US also said before submitting the resolution to a vote that it would go to war no matter how the Security Council voted ("we will what is necessary", I believe was the line. I actually respect France for having the balls to call the US on its threat to ignore the UN. Although also a little one-sided on France's part, it did say that if the US didn't think it had to justify its actions to the UN (and it didn't, the UN vote was just for show), then it would go at it without the organization's blessing. Kudos to France for that!
And since when does being a friend mean having to agree with you everytime you want to go beat someone up when you can't give a good reason for your actions?
You know, here's something that bugs me about all this. These are people that make money through image (ironic for MUSIC vendors, but anyway...). What worries me is that I think the reason they seem to be bull-heading their way through this, not giving a rat's ass about their public image is probably because they know better than anyone that even if people do care now, they'll forget as soon as Britney Spears frenches Aguilera, or basically when the labels throw anything shiny their way.
It's frustrating and disturbing to see that kind of apathy in the public, especially in the world's wealthiest and most influential democracy.
The US right now has one of the most indebted populations on the planet. Americans consume about $500 billion more than they produce. The only thing keeping this consumption in check and cash reserves steady is that the US receives huge amounts of foreign investment (i.e., capital inflow). However, a weak dollar, while it increases exports, also reduces the US's appeal to investors, since the dollars they earn here are worth less in their home countries.
Right now, this is mostly against Europe, though. The yen and the yuan have been kept low thanks to China's and Japan's heavy, heavy buying of American treasury bonds to keep their currencies weaker, since they depend a lot more on exports than the US does (hell, Japan and China ARE export-driven economies).
Well, they were also removed to avoid starting a trade war. The EU had already threatened to impose around $2.2 billion in tariffs on American goods, and on goods specifically targetted at Bush's family (e.g., citrus products from Florida), and on steel-consuming products, like motorcycles, who already had lost demand due to higher steel prices.
Actually, the Germans came very close to doing exactly what the Allies expected. The German High Command was contemplating a Schlieffen Plan style attack until a courier carrying the attack plans was forced down on French soil and captured. It was only after this happened that Von Manstein, who had been advocating an attack through the Ardennes, was given the attention he needed to get the plan in motion. If your interested, check out Guderian's Panzer General for an insider look on how decisions were actually made in the German command (it's biased, obviously, but he does have interesting tidbits in it).
Incidentally, there is much grief given to the French over failing to cover the Ardennes. The Battle of the Bulge was launched through that exact same quarter by the Germans. The Americans actually put divisions in that front for R & R, also feeling that it was quiet.
And they haven't given it up yet; they tried like hell to spin the recent inspection report as a 'win' for the anti-WMD motivation - never mind the fact that the report was mostly empty spin to begin with.
Not only that, but Rummy's reaction to them not finding any weapons? The ironic "It's too soon, give the inspectors more time." Sound familiar? Heh heh.
Actually, that's 3.2% of the GDP, which is the total sum of all goods and services produced by the economy. In other words, 3.2% of the entire economy, not the federal budget, which is around a tenth of this (someone will correct, please, I'm late for work and can't look it up right now:) ). Plus, that's the 1999 figure, meaning boom years (albeit the end part of it, I'll grant) and lower spending (it's up to almost $400 billion today), plus budget surpluses. Plus less foreign involvement that looks like they will become a long term drain.
A benefit this lawsuit will provide is that it will help drive home to all the PHBs out there the security risks inherent in Microsoft's software. Market forces depend on choices by consumers, and when dealing with managers, information isn't all they need, they need information in a format that they will understand. It's one thing for a tech magazine to say "Another worm in Outlook brings e-mail worldwide to a screeching halt." Quite another for a CIO to be in a meeting with the CEO, explain their expenditures in Microsoft for the infrastructure, have the CEO's ears prick up like a dog before a storm, and say "Microsoft? The Wall Street Journal said they were being sued for making insecure software!"
Worm, buffer overflows, VB scripts, these aren't words managers understand. Lawsuit, oh, yeah, they understand that. It hits them right on their cover-your-ass nerve.
If management can break off just a little from their shackling to the "one with most money, so they must be the bets", then maybe there will be a better enviroment for suitable replacements to appear.
Re:What have you done to discuss gov. corruption?
on
TIA Project to End
·
· Score: 1
But there also wasn't any intense criticism when the government WAS caught lying. Hussein's connections with Al Qaeda (a lie that, by the way, caused 70% of Americans to believe the Hussein had a personal role in 9/11), the uranium flop, the inventory of WMDs that Hussein had at his disposal that was recited by Bush in his State of the Union address... Blair has to defend himself ALL the time against comments his made, Bush has been sitting very comfortably, getting away with drawing the American public into a war based on false information and insinuations.
TIA is one thing. But they have lied and been caught, and still no out-cry.
Plus, it's not like we're forcing these people to sit atop these huge explosions. They're all volunteers, and they understand the risks. Astronauts seem to suffer from a severe case of wanderlust, and keeping them grounded on a planet we pretty much know like the back of our hands when they could be forcing us to write new maps like the legendary explorers did is probably a much bigger punishment to them.
Was he a terrorist, though? A traitor, yes. But a terrorist? It seems he was going to fight against American soldiers. While distateful, I thought we were applying the terrorist label only to those who used civilian deaths to further their goals (Muslim or otherwise, ala McVeigh being a terrorist). Fighting against soldiers for a cause he believes in seems much less severe.
Just hope we don't dilute the word terrorist and lose goal of who we are actually fighting.
Does it matter? The Taliban basically said "Ok, you say he did it. Why? How do you know?". Why couldn't the US tell them? God, at least make something up, we know the Bush administration is not beyond "sexing up" the facts.
I don't believe they would have handed them over, but if you're making the war on terror as a moral war (not just a war of survival), like Bush is, then take the moral high-road. And as Americans, you should be demanding that your goverment behave more responsibly. The fact that Americans get off on the heavy-handed tactics (not everyone, of course, but enough to give Bush a huuuuuge approval rating during an economic meltdown), and the "fuck everyone else" attitude of the administration, is what has the world so pissed-off and scared.
Not only that, but the huge amount of people who have signed up for the list (28 million numbers, which of course doesn't equal people, but is close) makes for one hell of a petition/referendum showing the public definitely approves of it.
It's probably a mix of things. You'll find that these groups use the religion more as a unifying factor to recruit people from various different parts of the world (with what else, besides religion, will you unite Western Africans, South East Asians, Arabs, etc., to fight under the same banner?).
They don't kill because "we don't believe in their religion". Religion is a tool through which to kill, but their reasons are different. And I'd be willing to bet that the leadership's motives are very different from the motives of those they recruit. The recruits may believe the religious fluff, but the reason they want to believe it is what's important.
Don't listen the spiel they spit out. There is something else that resonates with those few thousand (out of about 800 million Muslims, I think the figure was) that makes them willing to give their lives. Religion only makes it easier for them to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Him not knowing it, fair enough. He knows now, this is how you learn. What's more disturbing is that enough moderators didn't know or didn't care how true a Windows slamming was for him to get modded Interesting.
often students would go way overboard in designing a solution, using 30 classes where 5 would suffice
You were their teacher? Guess who's fault this is.
last night, the kind where you bet and pick your winners for all the categories, and the one with most right gets the pot. I came very damn close to winning! My secret? Lord of the rings for everything! Documentary, animated short, everything!
Not only that, but the leak can be used for a while as an excuse for security problems. And then their argument could continue "Since the releasing of only a PART of the source code caused so manynew security problems, how reliable can software whose entire tree is available be?". So, they become the vicitim of mailicious hackers, bury some bad PR, and take another marketting jab at OSS.
Seems plausible to me.
I think that a big part of the debate is the same as with abortion: at what point of the whole conception/birth/growth cycle is a human a human? It's not so much a religious argument (although, yes, many people do disagree with cloning just because that's what the church says) as a more generic ethical one. If we all agreed that any number of embryonic cells is a human being, then we should all agree that it's murder. If we draw the line for life further down the cycle, then those cells aren't any different than the skin we shed everday.
But, again, people differ on that point most of the time, and argumens usually boil down to that matter, once you strip all the "playing God" nonsense. I'm an agnostic that wouldn't define cloning as playing God anymore than a woman does when she's selective about who will father her children (which is a more indirect form of genetic manipulation, but manipulation all the same). But I do think that once an embryo is formed, the process for that person's existence is started, and cutting that future is murder. Again, that's my opinion of the life cycle, and I would personally not take part of it. If society is to take a stance on this issue, though, I think that that is the fundamental question we need to agree on.
Actually, there is a central authority. The problem is, those central authorities exist solely to commit terrorist actions! They won't stop because blowing themselves up is their whole reason for being, and the only thing that gives those in control of those organizations the power that they wield.
What is needed is to undermine public support for these groups, which is where the Palestinian state comes in. It won't be immediate, but slowly people would realize that they haven't solved anything, but that independence might. If no one followed Osama, for example, he would just be another nut spewing bullshit on the streets of Riyadh (or a nightclub, I guess, he did live in a rich family).
That's your proof? The economy lags behind government changes? A blanket statement with no specific evidence?
So, the recent "upturn" (not quite a recovery, I think "jobless recoveries" ain't, but getting better) in the economy can't possible be due to Bush, then. No, it's too soon. Thank you, Clinton!
Parent poster was talking about exactly this. Do you, or do you not, know EXACTLY what caused the recession and then the recovery? Meaning, you hear Greenspan speak and you can understand every - single - word? I sure as hell don't, but I don't go around laying blame on other people for things I don't understand. I don't understand the economy well enough to make that kind of statement, and I don't think you do either.
The Bush administration doesn't mistreat the U.N., it's the other way around. Bush couldn't even get a vote on a Resolution, without France threatening to veto.
Well, be fair on this one. France did threaten to veto, sure, but the US also said before submitting the resolution to a vote that it would go to war no matter how the Security Council voted ("we will what is necessary", I believe was the line. I actually respect France for having the balls to call the US on its threat to ignore the UN. Although also a little one-sided on France's part, it did say that if the US didn't think it had to justify its actions to the UN (and it didn't, the UN vote was just for show), then it would go at it without the organization's blessing. Kudos to France for that!
And since when does being a friend mean having to agree with you everytime you want to go beat someone up when you can't give a good reason for your actions?
You know, here's something that bugs me about all this. These are people that make money through image (ironic for MUSIC vendors, but anyway...). What worries me is that I think the reason they seem to be bull-heading their way through this, not giving a rat's ass about their public image is probably because they know better than anyone that even if people do care now, they'll forget as soon as Britney Spears frenches Aguilera, or basically when the labels throw anything shiny their way.
It's frustrating and disturbing to see that kind of apathy in the public, especially in the world's wealthiest and most influential democracy.
The US right now has one of the most indebted populations on the planet. Americans consume about $500 billion more than they produce. The only thing keeping this consumption in check and cash reserves steady is that the US receives huge amounts of foreign investment (i.e., capital inflow). However, a weak dollar, while it increases exports, also reduces the US's appeal to investors, since the dollars they earn here are worth less in their home countries.
Right now, this is mostly against Europe, though. The yen and the yuan have been kept low thanks to China's and Japan's heavy, heavy buying of American treasury bonds to keep their currencies weaker, since they depend a lot more on exports than the US does (hell, Japan and China ARE export-driven economies).
Well, they were also removed to avoid starting a trade war. The EU had already threatened to impose around $2.2 billion in tariffs on American goods, and on goods specifically targetted at Bush's family (e.g., citrus products from Florida), and on steel-consuming products, like motorcycles, who already had lost demand due to higher steel prices.
Is anyone geek enough to see how the Enterprise fares through this storm?
Actually, the Germans came very close to doing exactly what the Allies expected. The German High Command was contemplating a Schlieffen Plan style attack until a courier carrying the attack plans was forced down on French soil and captured. It was only after this happened that Von Manstein, who had been advocating an attack through the Ardennes, was given the attention he needed to get the plan in motion. If your interested, check out Guderian's Panzer General for an insider look on how decisions were actually made in the German command (it's biased, obviously, but he does have interesting tidbits in it).
Incidentally, there is much grief given to the French over failing to cover the Ardennes. The Battle of the Bulge was launched through that exact same quarter by the Germans. The Americans actually put divisions in that front for R & R, also feeling that it was quiet.
And they haven't given it up yet; they tried like hell to spin the recent inspection report as a 'win' for the anti-WMD motivation - never mind the fact that the report was mostly empty spin to begin with.
Not only that, but Rummy's reaction to them not finding any weapons? The ironic "It's too soon, give the inspectors more time." Sound familiar? Heh heh.
Actually, that's 3.2% of the GDP, which is the total sum of all goods and services produced by the economy. In other words, 3.2% of the entire economy, not the federal budget, which is around a tenth of this (someone will correct, please, I'm late for work and can't look it up right now :) ). Plus, that's the 1999 figure, meaning boom years (albeit the end part of it, I'll grant) and lower spending (it's up to almost $400 billion today), plus budget surpluses. Plus less foreign involvement that looks like they will become a long term drain.
A benefit this lawsuit will provide is that it will help drive home to all the PHBs out there the security risks inherent in Microsoft's software. Market forces depend on choices by consumers, and when dealing with managers, information isn't all they need, they need information in a format that they will understand. It's one thing for a tech magazine to say "Another worm in Outlook brings e-mail worldwide to a screeching halt." Quite another for a CIO to be in a meeting with the CEO, explain their expenditures in Microsoft for the infrastructure, have the CEO's ears prick up like a dog before a storm, and say "Microsoft? The Wall Street Journal said they were being sued for making insecure software!"
Worm, buffer overflows, VB scripts, these aren't words managers understand. Lawsuit, oh, yeah, they understand that. It hits them right on their cover-your-ass nerve.
If management can break off just a little from their shackling to the "one with most money, so they must be the bets", then maybe there will be a better enviroment for suitable replacements to appear.
But there also wasn't any intense criticism when the government WAS caught lying. Hussein's connections with Al Qaeda (a lie that, by the way, caused 70% of Americans to believe the Hussein had a personal role in 9/11), the uranium flop, the inventory of WMDs that Hussein had at his disposal that was recited by Bush in his State of the Union address... Blair has to defend himself ALL the time against comments his made, Bush has been sitting very comfortably, getting away with drawing the American public into a war based on false information and insinuations.
TIA is one thing. But they have lied and been caught, and still no out-cry.
Plus, it's not like we're forcing these people to sit atop these huge explosions. They're all volunteers, and they understand the risks. Astronauts seem to suffer from a severe case of wanderlust, and keeping them grounded on a planet we pretty much know like the back of our hands when they could be forcing us to write new maps like the legendary explorers did is probably a much bigger punishment to them.
He can cast each void * to T before deleting. Ala:
delete static_cast <T *> (vec[i]);
Was he a terrorist, though? A traitor, yes. But a terrorist? It seems he was going to fight against American soldiers. While distateful, I thought we were applying the terrorist label only to those who used civilian deaths to further their goals (Muslim or otherwise, ala McVeigh being a terrorist). Fighting against soldiers for a cause he believes in seems much less severe.
Just hope we don't dilute the word terrorist and lose goal of who we are actually fighting.
Does it matter? The Taliban basically said "Ok, you say he did it. Why? How do you know?". Why couldn't the US tell them? God, at least make something up, we know the Bush administration is not beyond "sexing up" the facts.
I don't believe they would have handed them over, but if you're making the war on terror as a moral war (not just a war of survival), like Bush is, then take the moral high-road. And as Americans, you should be demanding that your goverment behave more responsibly. The fact that Americans get off on the heavy-handed tactics (not everyone, of course, but enough to give Bush a huuuuuge approval rating during an economic meltdown), and the "fuck everyone else" attitude of the administration, is what has the world so pissed-off and scared.
Not only that, but the huge amount of people who have signed up for the list (28 million numbers, which of course doesn't equal people, but is close) makes for one hell of a petition/referendum showing the public definitely approves of it.
Don't you mean Freedom arrogance?
It's probably a mix of things. You'll find that these groups use the religion more as a unifying factor to recruit people from various different parts of the world (with what else, besides religion, will you unite Western Africans, South East Asians, Arabs, etc., to fight under the same banner?).
They don't kill because "we don't believe in their religion". Religion is a tool through which to kill, but their reasons are different. And I'd be willing to bet that the leadership's motives are very different from the motives of those they recruit. The recruits may believe the religious fluff, but the reason they want to believe it is what's important.
Don't listen the spiel they spit out. There is something else that resonates with those few thousand (out of about 800 million Muslims, I think the figure was) that makes them willing to give their lives. Religion only makes it easier for them to do it.
To be completely sure, you'd need to add: #define class struct Since class members default to private