Wonder why evil geniuses in many SF books have a setup similar to what you just described? Is it some primal fear of man/machine combo being exploited?
Well, the BBC article removed the quote from it's context.
From Daily Telegraph:
"We could hear them in the trees, about 20 feet away," she said. "My tracker made a sound of an injured duiker [antelope] and four came rushing through the brush towards me.
"If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."
The apes thought they were going after a wounded antelope, when they realized they had been tricked, they ran away.
Guess BBC found it more "dramatic" out of context.
Well, that sentence alone makes me think you are a troll, but I'll respond anyway. I did run BeOS, for about 3 days, until I realized that it blew. A friend of mine had it on his mac and liked it, but always said the PC version sucked balls. I could never figure out the difference, but rest assured, Windows was better. And that is so depressing I think I'm gonna cry...
Windows was better because... you say so?
I can play that game too.
I dual booted windows and BeOS for two years, and rest assured, BeOS was better. But in the long run the lack of applications, which might be tracked back to Microsoft's abuse of it's monopoly, killed of the better OS.
The short version goes something like this:
Microsoft abuse monopoly powers. Monopoly abuse leads to computer manufacturers that won't sell computers with BeOS preinstalled. No preinstalled BeOS leads to less income for Be Incorporated. Less income for Be Incorporated leads to infamous "focus shift". Infamous "focus shift" leads to developers leaving the BeOS ship. Developers leaving the ship leads to users leaving the ship. Users leaving the ship leads to the slow demise of BeOS. The slow demise of BeOS leads to SUFFERING!
Not that Windows has the worst UI ever built, but I'd rather see people swith to Linux desktops because they offer some new ideas and/or are better in some ways. Not because it looks and works almost the same as windows but much cheaper...
Hopefully it is as the story suggests, a tribute to the works of the Garnome team.
One thing to remember: If you are exposed to tear gas, do not try to get rid of the nasty smell from the gas, by taking a shower.
We were exposed during a drill in the army. Afterwards eveything, clothes, equipment, hair had that characteristic smell that you will never quite forget. Our solution was the dumb one... "Let's hit the showers and get rid of it at once..."
The thing is, when mixed with water, the unseen tear gas remaining on your skin will sort of "activate", with lack for a better word, and the feeling is somewhat similar to having boiling water poured all over you.
That said, being exposed to tear gas is not as bad as some movies would have you believe. Your eyes will tear and you will get a seriously irritated throat combined with a lot of coughing, but unless exposed in a confined space, with a high concentration of gas, you will not fall down on the floor and be rendered totally defenseless.
Are you even away of what was going on in Europe for the 2 millenia before 1776. For the most part, it had very little to do with democracy.
Yes, I am very much aware of the lack of democracy in Europe from the ancient greeks, until its revivial during the renaissance. But, that does not in any way mean democracy is an 18th century american invention, no matter how much you would like it to be. It was a gradual evolution from the greek concept of free men that decided by vote, to the renaissance philosophers that brought the ideas back and the final implementations based on these ideas among which US was one of the first (if not the first). You seem to be stuck up that I used the word "millenia", but the concept is actually several millenia old in europe, given, it has not been used very much in the meantime. It was rather an explanation for US being one of the first nations to implement it, given it's non existant millenia old luggage of politics, existing powers and history. I am not trying to bad mouth the early democracy of US, which was a great achievement, but claiming the ideas it was based on originated in US is plain laughable.
Europe in general was remarkably backwards in this regard at that time.
I just realized the direct link I provided redirects back to the main page of the site. Try following the link marked "Visit site". If you read the summary history of democracy there, you will find that modern democracy most certainly has its root in in ideas that revitalized in 17th and 18th century Europe. Ideas from philosophers like Locke, Rosseau.
"The concept of democracy continued to be prevalent in Europe with the philosophies of an English philosopher by the name of John Locke and a French philosopher named Jean Jacques Rousseau. Locke's book, Two Treatises (published in 1690), stated that under the "social contract," the government's job was to protect "natural rights", which included "the right to life, liberty, and the ownership of property." Rousseau expanded on this idea with his book, The Social Contract, in 1762. In essence, these two philosophers said that the people should have input on how their government is run. This school of thought paved the way for modern day American Democracy (Lefebvre)."
The ideas developed in Europe and was brought along with europeans that emigrated to America, where the theories were put into practical work rather quickly, as it was a new nation without the momentum of a couple of millenia's worth of history and politics to fall back upon. Except for the native americans, but they didn't have much say in these matters.
I can't really say which country was first with implementing true democracy, because then we would have to decide at what point a democracy really is a true democracy. For example, women and people of lower classes were not allowed to vote in many early european democracies, and I am sure we could find groups that weren't in early american democracy too. The first true democracy that most people could agree with would probably be the first nation where every single grown up individual, regardless of gender or race, has the right to take part in the election of the government. Which nation was first with that, I really don't know.
You seem to reject Greece being the cradle of democracy on the the fact that they used slaves. Well, guess what, so did the united states for the first couple of centuries too.
And, btw, democracy is not something that one guy figured out over night and then implemented the next day, it is a concept that has evolved and gone in and out of fashion over millenia, with the Greek system being one of the first that implemented it in any form.
The point is, you don't have to be in the military to know how to use a weapon effectively, in or out of combat.
No, but you are likely to be better with adequate training.
Our history, as well as the history of many other nations, is filled with examples of non-military personell defending themselves against military powers.
Maybe 200 years ago, or in medieval europe. If your theory is correct, how come iraq's militia didn't defeat the american forces? There are sure lots of more people in iraq than troops sent from america and almost everyone and his neighbour own a kalashnikov over there.
This might come as a shock to the anti-gun crowd who doesn't know much about our history, but many of the people who fought in the revolutionary war didn't go through 8 weeks, 4 days of combat training, followed by months of MOS training.
Maybe, but not to us in the anti-gun crowd who do know our history. The people of defeated british troops in the revolutionary war won because they employed guerilla tactics. They won because the british couldn't muster the resources for fighting an almost invisible enemy. They were mostly what today would be labeled "terrorists" or "illegal combatants".
And really, the terrorists? Terrorists don't engage in traditional combat. Traditional soldiers aren't much use against terrorists.
No, but according to high ranking american officials terrorism is the new big threat. So exactly what is the use of a militia then? Thanks for proving my points.
Not only large corps. Home users like me too, tho I suspect MS probably couldn't care less.
It's stuff like this that makes me consider upgrading my dualboot from win2k/gentoo to just gentoo, instead of the original plan of going to winxp/gentoo. Not that I use IE much, but who knows what part of the system they choose not to support next. Give it a year after longhorn is released, and XP will be out in the cold too. And, ironically, the stuff that is used as firewood in keeping the other place warm in the first place, is the money you and I pay for upgrades and new licenses.
Slashdot Mirror
Start practicing today.
Wonder why evil geniuses in many SF books have a setup similar to what you just described? Is it some primal fear of man/machine combo being exploited?
I think the term you are looking for is "Cyborg".
Best case scenario: Soon your neighbourhood will be watched over by friendly Robocops.
Worst case scenario: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097138/
I might as well point out that BASH, ZSH, TCSH, are the shell: Lynx is a browser that you launch from the shell.
No.
Links is a browser that you launch from the shell.
Lynx is a browser that you launch from hell.
Well, the BBC article removed the quote from it's context.
From Daily Telegraph:
"We could hear them in the trees, about 20 feet away," she said. "My tracker made a sound of an injured duiker [antelope] and four came rushing through the brush towards me.
"If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."
The apes thought they were going after a wounded antelope, when they realized they had been tricked, they ran away.
Guess BBC found it more "dramatic" out of context.
Interresting. Where did you find that information?
Well, that sentence alone makes me think you are a troll, but I'll respond anyway. I did run BeOS, for about 3 days, until I realized that it blew. A friend of mine had it on his mac and liked it, but always said the PC version sucked balls. I could never figure out the difference, but rest assured, Windows was better. And that is so depressing I think I'm gonna cry...
Windows was better because... you say so?
I can play that game too.
I dual booted windows and BeOS for two years, and rest assured, BeOS was better. But in the long run the lack of applications, which might be tracked back to Microsoft's abuse of it's monopoly, killed of the better OS.
The short version goes something like this:
Microsoft abuse monopoly powers. Monopoly abuse leads to computer manufacturers that won't sell computers with BeOS preinstalled. No preinstalled BeOS leads to less income for Be Incorporated. Less income for Be Incorporated leads to infamous "focus shift". Infamous "focus shift" leads to developers leaving the BeOS ship. Developers leaving the ship leads to users leaving the ship. Users leaving the ship leads to the slow demise of BeOS. The slow demise of BeOS leads to SUFFERING!
Plus its in C.
And?
Exactly.
Not that Windows has the worst UI ever built, but I'd rather see people swith to Linux desktops because they offer some new ideas and/or are better in some ways. Not because it looks and works almost the same as windows but much cheaper...
Hopefully it is as the story suggests, a tribute to the works of the Garnome team.
One thing to remember: If you are exposed to tear gas, do not try to get rid of the nasty smell from the gas, by taking a shower.
We were exposed during a drill in the army. Afterwards eveything, clothes, equipment, hair had that characteristic smell that you will never quite forget. Our solution was the dumb one... "Let's hit the showers and get rid of it at once..."
The thing is, when mixed with water, the unseen tear gas remaining on your skin will sort of "activate", with lack for a better word, and the feeling is somewhat similar to having boiling water poured all over you.
That said, being exposed to tear gas is not as bad as some movies would have you believe. Your eyes will tear and you will get a seriously irritated throat combined with a lot of coughing, but unless exposed in a confined space, with a high concentration of gas, you will not fall down on the floor and be rendered totally defenseless.
Ok, I see, my bad. Sorry.
FuhQuake
:)
Good looking and still Quake.
Haven't had time to check if it is Quakeworld compatible tho...
Mmm, Yeah... Wonder why international media is more "anti-american" today, compared to four or five years ago?
Maybe you should have listened to what Senator Kerry said during last nights debate.
Yes, or maybe BBC News. No registration requiered.
Quake/Quakeworld... Those were the days. :)
Maybe you should have provided a link for actually viewing the poll too? Not that it is hard to figure out, but...
My guess is that a lot of the votes recorded there are just curious people who wanted to check out the stats.
Something like this.
Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about.
A couple of millenias worth of history?
Are you even away of what was going on in Europe for the 2 millenia before 1776. For the most part, it had very little to do with democracy.
Yes, I am very much aware of the lack of democracy in Europe from the ancient greeks, until its revivial during the renaissance. But, that does not in any way mean democracy is an 18th century american invention, no matter how much you would like it to be. It was a gradual evolution from the greek concept of free men that decided by vote, to the renaissance philosophers that brought the ideas back and the final implementations based on these ideas among which US was one of the first (if not the first). You seem to be stuck up that I used the word "millenia", but the concept is actually several millenia old in europe, given, it has not been used very much in the meantime. It was rather an explanation for US being one of the first nations to implement it, given it's non existant millenia old luggage of politics, existing powers and history. I am not trying to bad mouth the early democracy of US, which was a great achievement, but claiming the ideas it was based on originated in US is plain laughable.
Europe in general was remarkably backwards in this regard at that time.
I just realized the direct link I provided redirects back to the main page of the site. Try following the link marked "Visit site". If you read the summary history of democracy there, you will find that modern democracy most certainly has its root in in ideas that revitalized in 17th and 18th century Europe. Ideas from philosophers like Locke, Rosseau.
"The concept of democracy continued to be prevalent in Europe with the philosophies of an English philosopher by the name of John Locke and a French philosopher named Jean Jacques Rousseau. Locke's book, Two Treatises (published in 1690), stated that under the "social contract," the government's job was to protect "natural rights", which included "the right to life, liberty, and the ownership of property." Rousseau expanded on this idea with his book, The Social Contract, in 1762. In essence, these two philosophers said that the people should have input on how their government is run. This school of thought paved the way for modern day American Democracy (Lefebvre)."
History of Democracy
The ideas developed in Europe and was brought along with europeans that emigrated to America, where the theories were put into practical work rather quickly, as it was a new nation without the momentum of a couple of millenia's worth of history and politics to fall back upon. Except for the native americans, but they didn't have much say in these matters.
I can't really say which country was first with implementing true democracy, because then we would have to decide at what point a democracy really is a true democracy. For example, women and people of lower classes were not allowed to vote in many early european democracies, and I am sure we could find groups that weren't in early american democracy too. The first true democracy that most people could agree with would probably be the first nation where every single grown up individual, regardless of gender or race, has the right to take part in the election of the government. Which nation was first with that, I really don't know.
You seem to reject Greece being the cradle of democracy on the the fact that they used slaves. Well, guess what, so did the united states for the first couple of centuries too.
And, btw, democracy is not something that one guy figured out over night and then implemented the next day, it is a concept that has evolved and gone in and out of fashion over millenia, with the Greek system being one of the first that implemented it in any form.
Then please, Mr Hard Code - Great Commander, tell us what use you would put your 200.000 undisciplined troops into.
Training?
The point is, you don't have to be in the military to know how to use a weapon effectively, in or out of combat.
No, but you are likely to be better with adequate training.
Our history, as well as the history of many other nations, is filled with examples of non-military personell defending themselves against military powers.
Maybe 200 years ago, or in medieval europe. If your theory is correct, how come iraq's militia didn't defeat the american forces? There are sure lots of more people in iraq than troops sent from america and almost everyone and his neighbour own a kalashnikov over there.
This might come as a shock to the anti-gun crowd who doesn't know much about our history, but many of the people who fought in the revolutionary war didn't go through 8 weeks, 4 days of combat training, followed by months of MOS training.
Maybe, but not to us in the anti-gun crowd who do know our history. The people of defeated british troops in the revolutionary war won because they employed guerilla tactics. They won because the british couldn't muster the resources for fighting an almost invisible enemy. They were mostly what today would be labeled "terrorists" or "illegal combatants".
And really, the terrorists? Terrorists don't engage in traditional combat. Traditional soldiers aren't much use against terrorists.
No, but according to high ranking american officials terrorism is the new big threat. So exactly what is the use of a militia then? Thanks for proving my points.
Not only large corps. Home users like me too, tho I suspect MS probably couldn't care less.
It's stuff like this that makes me consider upgrading my dualboot from win2k/gentoo to just gentoo, instead of the original plan of going to winxp/gentoo. Not that I use IE much, but who knows what part of the system they choose not to support next. Give it a year after longhorn is released, and XP will be out in the cold too. And, ironically, the stuff that is used as firewood in keeping the other place warm in the first place, is the money you and I pay for upgrades and new licenses.
Really?
It was the Milita that won the war in Iraq?
Uhu, but what if the Enemy or Ze Zerrorists choose not to go trespassing?
It basically includes every male U.S. citizen or would-be citizen who could be of use in combat.
What use in combat could you possibly have for 200.000 undisciplined rednecks, toting their semi-automatic assault rifles?
Gunfodder?