This is one of those rare awkward moments where I find that the world's most hated terrorist, who deserves to die a bloody painful death with all of his terrorists buddies, argues the same reasons as I do against re-electing Bush.
I don't think terrorist backing will help the Kerry campaign as much as bin Laden seems to think it will. We wanted more people to hear some of the arguments in Farenheit 9/11 through a major media outlet, but not like this. It sucks that democrats can't get their criticisms even acknowledged in the "liberal" media but a terrorist who quotes them is heard around the world.
They wouldn't have done the research if it didn't seem to them to be an economical use of their time and resources. Both of them being economists, I'm sure they thought about it.
I don't expect they'll publish any more of Ms. O'Gara's articles. But all the other sites owned by their parent will continue to do so. So the ad revenue will flow.
The LinuxWorld editors tried to apologize, blaming it on the LinuxBusinessWeek editors and mentioning that several LinuxWorld editors threatened to resign in protest. Since they're both owned by SYS-CON, both infact running basically the same site, they're expected to cross publish certain articles.
The LinuxBusinessWeek editors on the other hand say they disagree with the LinuxWorld editors about the quality of the article, and that LinuxBusinessWeek stands by that article and look forward to publishing more of Maureen's works. But "We will no longer provide news content to LinuxWorld Magazine's accompanying Web site."
So the ad revenue will still flow to the FUD flingers (parent company), but if the LinuxWorld editors have their way the FUD will stop appearing on LinuxWorld, or they'll resign, or they'll get raises.
It's not impossible to secure a Windows system for limited public use against unknown viruses and most profitable known attacks. For one, you would firewall incoming traffic.
In planning the war, it was estimated that the civilian casualties would be only about 10,000 if the US invaded Iraq. This estimate went into the decision of whether or not we should go forward with the invasion.
We aren't concerned with terrorism, because terrorism is mostly affecting the US.
But it's not. The USA faces practically zero terrorism. 9/11 was a spike, and we've caused at least 20x the damage to innocent civilians in our fight against terrorism. Americans have a better chance of having a new disease named after them than dying in a terrorist attack.
Bush wants Americans to be afraid, so he can push his agenda and use that fear to get reelected. Bush has many killed more Americans than have all the terrorists combined, through fear and budgetting, and even more foreigners in the name of preventing another 9/11. Americans will vote for Bush because they believe his lies.
We didn't catch many of the terrorists behind 9/11 because Bush allowed them to leave by plane the next day to Saudi Arabia, when all other planes in the country were grounded. Among them were several members of the bin Laden family. Authorized by the president himself. The bin Ladens gave the Bush family $1.4 billion before the 2000 election. If we caught the terrorists, there could be no war on terror, no war for the control of middle east oil production, which is the greatest concern of the Bush family.
I vote Republican for one big reason - Democrats are big cry babies.
So, let me get this straight. You vote Republican because when Democrats see something seriously wrong, they challenge it? It's better than sitting idly while your freedoms, liberties, and livelihood is challenged.
They proved that with the 2000 election.
Gore won that election, even in Florida. I was a Republican, but crossed over to the Democratic party after watching the Republican party steal the presidency. Bush is president only by title. Even this election, several republicans funded by the GOP have been caught disposing of tens of thousands of valid democrat voter registrations in swing states, and rarely vice versa, probably a fraction of the total fraud going on.
Don't hate me because I think John Kerry is a douche bag
This guy has the same sort of daily predictions. Funny his prediction for today is the opposite that Stanford predicts. I sent him an excel file demonstrating the use of error estimates and probabilities to get a better prediction, but haven't heard back. Though even with that the prediction would still be in Kerry's favor, so I'm not sure what all Stanford is and isn't taking into account. He apparently gets a lot of crap in his email from opponents.
I doubt it'll affect anything. They already blackhole so much of their incoming email, it's near impossible to talk to most AOL users except through AIM. AOL is their own little world.
You can't make a standard anymore if you hold a patent and are unwilling to grant a free license. Submarine tactics are just too popular these days. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 20 times, shame on me. Nobody buys into this "don't worry, we're just defending ourselves" crap anymore. They all start out that way, but without a real license we can use, it's just an empty promise.
The last anti-abortion bill that Bush tried to pass didn't even allow abortions necessary to save the mother's life, in which case both would have to die. He knew the bill would not get any support. I doubt Bush really has the means or intent to do away with abortion.
I don't know where we should draw the line but abortion is neither all bad nor all good. The pro-choice side mostly believes the law should accept this and leave the decision of where to draw the line to the mother. Nearly all the time they do it early and with good reason. Those very few do it later usually have a better reason. And a small minority (1%) who get late abortions for stupid, irresponsible reasons typically aren't fit to take care of or have children.
I'd like to see some better ways of reducing late term abortions. It's a really inhuman way to deal with unwanted pregnancies. But look at the republican platform on this. They're off on the other deep end. No abortions under any circumstances. The supreme court struck them down for that, and there's yet to be any consensus on how to handle the issue.
Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win and that while Bush is screwing up a lot of things pretty badly, we can survive another term with him at the helm.
I was thinking just the opposite. Bush is fighting personal liberties, giving corporations increased power over individuals, pissing off all our friends and allies, and driving the country into bankruptcy. I made a big mistake voting for him in 2000.
If he wins this election, he'll take it as warrant to continue in the direction he's headed, and on top of that he'll have nothing to lose, nobody to appease, since he won't be able to run in 2008.
The electoral system is unfairly biased in Bush's favor, so if there's any uncertainty in who you want, you ought to vote to balance the scale.
The whole terrorism issue is a scare tactic. 20000 americans die a day of random causes. 3000 more died on September 11th. America's decade losses to terrorism are less than 1 american per day. For every person who died from the 9/11 attacks, we killed 5 innocent bystanders and spent $200 million in Iraq. And many more elderly people simply died of fright as Bush raised and lowered the national terror threat level and spoke on the dangers of terrorism over time.
So say, for ever life lost to terrorism, we take 1/5th of a terrorist's life, 10 of our own lives, burn $300 million dollars of our own money, and take 100 more people out of the work force. Who ya gonna vote for? The man who threatens our digital freedom just happens to be the same who threatens our life, liberty, and happiness.
We want to know Kerry's stance on copyrights not because we're deciding whether or not to vote for him. When you ask a candidate their position you tell them it's something that you're concerned about. If we ask and he commits to defanging the DMCA or USAPATRIOT acts, he's slightly more likely to go through with it than if nobody asked.
Slashdot Mirror
You can try to reproduce some classic arcade games. Many of them are very easy to code in an afternoon.
Here's an asteroids clone I wrote in javascript. It renders everything with divs.
This is one of those rare awkward moments where I find that the world's most hated terrorist, who deserves to die a bloody painful death with all of his terrorists buddies, argues the same reasons as I do against re-electing Bush.
I don't think terrorist backing will help the Kerry campaign as much as bin Laden seems to think it will. We wanted more people to hear some of the arguments in Farenheit 9/11 through a major media outlet, but not like this. It sucks that democrats can't get their criticisms even acknowledged in the "liberal" media but a terrorist who quotes them is heard around the world.
I bet Osama is hiding under a bridge.
They wouldn't have done the research if it didn't seem to them to be an economical use of their time and resources. Both of them being economists, I'm sure they thought about it.
I don't expect they'll publish any more of Ms. O'Gara's articles. But all the other sites owned by their parent will continue to do so. So the ad revenue will flow.
The LinuxWorld editors tried to apologize, blaming it on the LinuxBusinessWeek editors and mentioning that several LinuxWorld editors threatened to resign in protest. Since they're both owned by SYS-CON, both infact running basically the same site, they're expected to cross publish certain articles.
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46821.htm
The LinuxBusinessWeek editors on the other hand say they disagree with the LinuxWorld editors about the quality of the article, and that LinuxBusinessWeek stands by that article and look forward to publishing more of Maureen's works. But "We will no longer provide news content to LinuxWorld Magazine's accompanying Web site."
http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/46854.htm
So the ad revenue will still flow to the FUD flingers (parent company), but if the LinuxWorld editors have their way the FUD will stop appearing on LinuxWorld, or they'll resign, or they'll get raises.
It's not impossible to secure a Windows system for limited public use against unknown viruses and most profitable known attacks. For one, you would firewall incoming traffic.
Your 'most standards' is really one standard about how he talks.
Not really. He talks a lot better than I do.
Sorry for not posting my quick response to the first post stating "democrats have no brains" in essay format.
That doesn't explain why we have a Republican president who is by most standards considered mentally challenged.
In planning the war, it was estimated that the civilian casualties would be only about 10,000 if the US invaded Iraq. This estimate went into the decision of whether or not we should go forward with the invasion.
Bittorrent is the smart way to go.
If the device breaks, and the beam sticks in one place, can't it burn a spot on your retina?
The letters aren't even next to each other.
We aren't concerned with terrorism, because terrorism is mostly affecting the US.
But it's not. The USA faces practically zero terrorism. 9/11 was a spike, and we've caused at least 20x the damage to innocent civilians in our fight against terrorism. Americans have a better chance of having a new disease named after them than dying in a terrorist attack.
Bush wants Americans to be afraid, so he can push his agenda and use that fear to get reelected. Bush has many killed more Americans than have all the terrorists combined, through fear and budgetting, and even more foreigners in the name of preventing another 9/11. Americans will vote for Bush because they believe his lies.
We didn't catch many of the terrorists behind 9/11 because Bush allowed them to leave by plane the next day to Saudi Arabia, when all other planes in the country were grounded. Among them were several members of the bin Laden family. Authorized by the president himself. The bin Ladens gave the Bush family $1.4 billion before the 2000 election. If we caught the terrorists, there could be no war on terror, no war for the control of middle east oil production, which is the greatest concern of the Bush family.
I vote Republican for one big reason - Democrats are big cry babies.
So, let me get this straight. You vote Republican because when Democrats see something seriously wrong, they challenge it? It's better than sitting idly while your freedoms, liberties, and livelihood is challenged.
They proved that with the 2000 election.
Gore won that election, even in Florida. I was a Republican, but crossed over to the Democratic party after watching the Republican party steal the presidency. Bush is president only by title. Even this election, several republicans funded by the GOP have been caught disposing of tens of thousands of valid democrat voter registrations in swing states, and rarely vice versa, probably a fraction of the total fraud going on.
Don't hate me because I think John Kerry is a douche bag
But I'm voting for him anyway
Blah blah blah preaching to the converted for attention blah blah.
Bush with 76.4% and Kerry with 21.0%?
That's a probability estimate, not vote %.
I'm a Bush supporter
You already told us that.
This guy has the same sort of daily predictions. Funny his prediction for today is the opposite that Stanford predicts. I sent him an excel file demonstrating the use of error estimates and probabilities to get a better prediction, but haven't heard back. Though even with that the prediction would still be in Kerry's favor, so I'm not sure what all Stanford is and isn't taking into account. He apparently gets a lot of crap in his email from opponents.
In Soviet Russia, a good thing is doing Microsoft for suggesting a score of -1 that gets new Dancing Santa here who must be You! (-;
Now to find the $2 CPU.
Blackhole email from AOL
I doubt it'll affect anything. They already blackhole so much of their incoming email, it's near impossible to talk to most AOL users except through AIM. AOL is their own little world.
You can't make a standard anymore if you hold a patent and are unwilling to grant a free license. Submarine tactics are just too popular these days. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 20 times, shame on me. Nobody buys into this "don't worry, we're just defending ourselves" crap anymore. They all start out that way, but without a real license we can use, it's just an empty promise.
XBOX! You can find em for $100.
Yeah, but:
All components must be new
XBox is sort of pushing it.
The last anti-abortion bill that Bush tried to pass didn't even allow abortions necessary to save the mother's life, in which case both would have to die. He knew the bill would not get any support. I doubt Bush really has the means or intent to do away with abortion.
I don't know where we should draw the line but abortion is neither all bad nor all good. The pro-choice side mostly believes the law should accept this and leave the decision of where to draw the line to the mother. Nearly all the time they do it early and with good reason. Those very few do it later usually have a better reason. And a small minority (1%) who get late abortions for stupid, irresponsible reasons typically aren't fit to take care of or have children.
I'd like to see some better ways of reducing late term abortions. It's a really inhuman way to deal with unwanted pregnancies. But look at the republican platform on this. They're off on the other deep end. No abortions under any circumstances. The supreme court struck them down for that, and there's yet to be any consensus on how to handle the issue.
Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win and that while Bush is screwing up a lot of things pretty badly, we can survive another term with him at the helm.
I was thinking just the opposite. Bush is fighting personal liberties, giving corporations increased power over individuals, pissing off all our friends and allies, and driving the country into bankruptcy. I made a big mistake voting for him in 2000.
If he wins this election, he'll take it as warrant to continue in the direction he's headed, and on top of that he'll have nothing to lose, nobody to appease, since he won't be able to run in 2008.
The electoral system is unfairly biased in Bush's favor, so if there's any uncertainty in who you want, you ought to vote to balance the scale.
The whole terrorism issue is a scare tactic. 20000 americans die a day of random causes. 3000 more died on September 11th. America's decade losses to terrorism are less than 1 american per day. For every person who died from the 9/11 attacks, we killed 5 innocent bystanders and spent $200 million in Iraq. And many more elderly people simply died of fright as Bush raised and lowered the national terror threat level and spoke on the dangers of terrorism over time.
So say, for ever life lost to terrorism, we take 1/5th of a terrorist's life, 10 of our own lives, burn $300 million dollars of our own money, and take 100 more people out of the work force. Who ya gonna vote for? The man who threatens our digital freedom just happens to be the same who threatens our life, liberty, and happiness.
We want to know Kerry's stance on copyrights not because we're deciding whether or not to vote for him. When you ask a candidate their position you tell them it's something that you're concerned about. If we ask and he commits to defanging the DMCA or USAPATRIOT acts, he's slightly more likely to go through with it than if nobody asked.