Americans DON'T watch The Biggest Loser. Most people I know are disgusted at the idea of watching huge (300lb+) people excercise for an hour, with closeups of the bouncing, sweating rolls of fat.*
Real Americans watch South Park:P
*Disclaimer: I'm only going off the first 30 seconds of the commercial... I went to the bathroom and threw up after that.
And last time I checked most Australians share that common language.
I think the GP post was trying to say that OTHER countries surrounding Australia do not speak english, thus meaning floating satelites to support Australia means that it will be exclusively for Australia, as opposed to Canada (where it IS (theoretically) possible to recieve US satellite TV with no added satellites)
You'd be wrong again. Like Canada, Autralia's population is concentrated in several big cities.
It's also worth noting that Canada's large cities (in general) are much more clustered together (close to American border) than Australia's cities (all more or less costal).
the abolition of basic human rights (as happens in Guantanamo) coupled with the lack of habeus corpus and the right to legal representation
IIRC, Guantanamo camped MILITARY prisioners. Not citizens of the USA. Thus your argument is null. And Guantanamo wasn't that bad. I don't see any bodies being shipped out.
a) people with money have more than one vote and b) corporations have a say in government...a government which supposedly is by and for the people, with no mention of corporations.
IIRC...coporations are made up of people too. Also, they provide jobs. Granted, they do a lot of corrupt stuff. But is it worth dying for? Not yet. I have no beef with rich people. You know why? They're still people. Maybe because I don't feel that it's right for ANYBODY to unwillingly give up 1/2 their salary just because they make more than other people. Maybe it's just that "personal responsibility" thing that I was raised with.
The rest of your post is unintelligable garbage.
What I gather from it is that you have no understanding just how BIG a revolution is. A revolution is for SERIOUS problems (aka: martial law, beheding those who oppose you). All this stuff that is happening now is minor squabbles compared to what a revolution would bring. That is why, in 3 years, if people are THAT dissatisfied, congress will be completely restructured to reflect that.
You really have no idea how America is, I doubt you've ever been here, or even have the remotest understanding what it's like. You are just a petty bitter European (emphasis on petty), who is just angry that the USA isn't bending to YOUR wishes. The majority didn't vote for Bush cause he was Christian, they voted for him because he pisses you off.
We Americans like being the center of our own attention. Especially in regards to a revolution, which shouldn't have SHIT to do with international affairs.
(and note to mods: who the hell modded this troll up)
Total crime (including drugs+rape+assault) (all of which USA leads in vs UK) UK: 86.04 (rank 4) USA: 81.55 (rank 5) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cr i_ca p&id=OECD
So it seems the USA leads in rape, murder, assault, drugs, and a few other categories. But somehow the USA is lower in "total crime", despite all this. How much you wanna bet a fair number of those "murders" are foiled robberies?
I would also like to point out that the differences in crime rate between US cities and US rural areas (where gun prevalance is much higher) is phenomenal. It's like comparing Mexico (high crime) with Finland (no crime).
People living in rural areas tend to own more guns, vote Republican (well, at least a 55% ratio do, compared w/ less than 20% in cities), and suffer fewer crimes.
The very fact that more people own guns means that it's less likely they'll need to use them (in the self-defence way).
(and since when was ANY police force effecient enough to deter crime....certainly not in the UK)
(and a side note: It is amazing how fast a convo here switches from 1st amendment to 2nd amendment. I wonder why that always happens)
Dunno bout you, but I saw Galápagos about 4 years ago... Memory is a little hazy, but I don't recall anything offensive.
Big whoopdee freaking do. If you really wanna watch it, you could probably buy it on DVD.
But still...not showing a 5 yr old IMAX...not a big freaking surprise. You woulda thought some new material woulda come out since then. (Oct 1999 was earliest date I've found).
I can vouch for Bill Bryson's books. While not strictly geeky, they are witty and often informative.
I'm currently reading "Notes from a Big Country," and it is quite an interesting perspective on the differences between the US and the world (at least the UK).
I agree that online advertising has failed. It has failed for the same reason I find radio and TV almost unwatchable. Because almost no matter what, the company decides that if some advertising is good, more advertising is better.
Why are there so many ads on basic cable? Because broadcasters realized they could charge for broadcast AND make ad revenue.
Advertising will always exist on the net. Even if the whole system goes to a "micropayment" style, ads will be reintroduced as a way of "keeping costs down".
Besides, I am totally jaded with ads. Almost everything has ads now, and I'm sick of it. Ads on TV(in TV shows), radio, in movies, on billboards, in stores, in print, and on the net. And we already pay for TV, movies, and print (books, magazines, newspapers, etc).
I'll use whatever methods are available to me to block ads, because I know that no matter what, the corporate world will always try to feed me more.
Doesn't work for Firefox 1.0 on XP SP2. I had AdBlock disabled.
I'm not even running a firewall. The only security measures are my adblocking hosts file and AVG.
So unless hitting the adservers was a mandatory part of that... I see no working exploit code.
Re:Sony will no doubt release a better battery lat
on
PSP Battery Journal
·
· Score: 1
Please note that when the SP came out, it was the SAME price the GBA was released for, and the GBA dropped in price.
If the GBA was soo bad, why did *everyone* buy one?
God forbid a company respond to feedback and release an updated version of a product that was better than the original. If you're that concerned, don't buy it right away, and wait 9-18 months and see what happens.
Buyer freaking beware. Is it that hard of a concept?
Protowall is great. It is definitely faster AND more secure. One great thing is that Protowall filters ALL IP packets (not just TCP like the current PeerGuardian).
I tried both PG and PW. With the same sized lists (massive), PG used 40 MB of RAM, and a decent chunk of CPU usage as well. PW only used 7 MB of RAM, and less CPU usage.
Getting PW installed was a bit tricker, but once I got it running (XP SP2), I've never looked back at PG.
If you do start using Protowall, also get the Blocklist Manager to make the blocklists. It is great, and I highly reccomend the anti-spyware/virus/trogan list.
Because of that list, I install Protowall on comps I repair for people (with only the spyware lists). Even if they never update the list, they'll still be a LITTLE better protected.
But neither Bush nor Kerry was able to win over a significant proportion of the voters that bothered to show up.
Excuse me? I think 3 million votes IS a significant number. ESP since he actually won more than a majority (51% to 49%), which hasn't happened since his dad ran.
I love how hypocritical the liberals are. Apparently the electoral college is only good when it helps their candidate win.
(And CNN is slow as fuck. They took HOURS before declaring New Hampshire for Kerry. And CNN has verified Ohio as Bush's as well. So STFU)
It's apparently only ok to be open-minded if it involves dissing Christianity and "traditional" beliefs.
Apparently, I'm "wrong" because I think partial-birth abortions should be as illegal as murder, parental notification is perfectly acceptable (you can't buy cigarrettes when you're 18, and that owning and shooting a gun is a perfectly acceptable hobby. (and I'm not even a bible-thumping southerner)
While I totally agree w/ your arguement (my mother is the most brainwashed Republican I know), I wish you (and others) would get off the "Fox News is mega-conservative" angle. (I am a conservative-leaning Libertarian)
If you actually WATCH Fox News, you'll find that the news is not really horribly skewed in either direction. Ever watch Beltway boys? It's two people intelligently arguing issues in point-counterpoint fashion. Hanity-Colmes? Both are extremists for either side of the party. While Hanity is the dominate personality, the fact is both sides actually get to present an argument (as opposed to say...Hardball w/ Matthews).
Not to mention the fact that Badnarik actually got an interview on Fox New's Day Side(if you don't believe me... google it), and Fox News is actually running his ads. Do you see any other news stations doing that?
They lean conservative, yes. Is that a crime? I don't see nearly enough/.ers bitching about how MSNBC, Al Jazerra, BBC, CBS, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, all lean liberal. Fox News is no less legitimate than any of the others. Nay, almost every one of the ones you listed agree with each other as "sources". If you want me to take your argument seriously, compare the data from Washington Post, Wall St Journal, Fox News, MSNBC, and Factcheck.org.
You wanna listen to conservative brainwashing? Listen to AM radio (Rush Limbaugh) for more than an hour a day. You won't bitch about Fox News anymore. (hence the reason the show is Hanity AND Colmes)
Having more active troops in Iraq would only INCREASE casualties. A better solution would be to have more troops at home, and rotate everyone out FREQUENTLY. Sure, more people would have to go back more than once, but then again, what would you choose: Going once for 3 months or going twice for a total of 2 months?
You want lower casualties/better performance? Give the troops more advanced weaponry. Support military R&D (besides the fact that advanced military gear becomes civilian gear in the future). Saving more lives costs more money. You can fight a cheap war or a "good" (in the sense of minimum casualties) war. You can't have both.
Now, for a mild rant: As far as "war for oil" is concerned: Dude, come on. If oil was THAT big an issue, we'd be pumping in alaska right now (if you can "architect a war," killing some animals to drill can't be that hard to pull). If you can't come up with better points than the old "war for oil conspiracy theory," just stop. The only people who truely believe this was "just for oil" are the weak-minded fools who will believe anything.
Mary Cheney did not ask to be mentioned. Nay, did she give permission. She IS a private figure, because she chose not to involve herself in the election process.
Kerry could have just as easily formed a point without mentioning names. To mention names is a dirty politician's trick, and should not be done by either side. (as far as the GOP homophobe thing...I think he did do it for that reason. They won't align themselves w/ Kerry, but they may not vote for Bush, so to Kerry it is still a small victory)
Slashdot Mirror
It's damn near essential with the pre-compiled Live-CD version (which I'm DLing for my lappy).
Installing programs on live-cds is annoying, it's much easier when they're precompiled for Linux n00bs such as myself.
Americans DON'T watch The Biggest Loser. Most people I know are disgusted at the idea of watching huge (300lb+) people excercise for an hour, with closeups of the bouncing, sweating rolls of fat.*
:P
Real Americans watch South Park
*Disclaimer: I'm only going off the first 30 seconds of the commercial... I went to the bathroom and threw up after that.
And last time I checked most Australians share that common language.
I think the GP post was trying to say that OTHER countries surrounding Australia do not speak english, thus meaning floating satelites to support Australia means that it will be exclusively for Australia, as opposed to Canada (where it IS (theoretically) possible to recieve US satellite TV with no added satellites)
You'd be wrong again. Like Canada, Autralia's population is concentrated in several big cities.
It's also worth noting that Canada's large cities (in general) are much more clustered together (close to American border) than Australia's cities (all more or less costal).
www.planetia.net - free Planetarion clone.
There's lots of them around, many of them working to be how PA used to be...
the abolition of basic human rights (as happens in Guantanamo) coupled with the lack of habeus corpus and the right to legal representation
IIRC, Guantanamo camped MILITARY prisioners. Not citizens of the USA. Thus your argument is null. And Guantanamo wasn't that bad. I don't see any bodies being shipped out.
a) people with money have more than one vote and b) corporations have a say in government...a government which supposedly is by and for the people, with no mention of corporations.
IIRC...coporations are made up of people too. Also, they provide jobs. Granted, they do a lot of corrupt stuff. But is it worth dying for? Not yet. I have no beef with rich people. You know why? They're still people. Maybe because I don't feel that it's right for ANYBODY to unwillingly give up 1/2 their salary just because they make more than other people. Maybe it's just that "personal responsibility" thing that I was raised with.
The rest of your post is unintelligable garbage.
What I gather from it is that you have no understanding just how BIG a revolution is. A revolution is for SERIOUS problems (aka: martial law, beheding those who oppose you). All this stuff that is happening now is minor squabbles compared to what a revolution would bring. That is why, in 3 years, if people are THAT dissatisfied, congress will be completely restructured to reflect that.
You really have no idea how America is, I doubt you've ever been here, or even have the remotest understanding what it's like. You are just a petty bitter European (emphasis on petty), who is just angry that the USA isn't bending to YOUR wishes. The majority didn't vote for Bush cause he was Christian, they voted for him because he pisses you off.
We Americans like being the center of our own attention. Especially in regards to a revolution, which shouldn't have SHIT to do with international affairs.
(and note to mods: who the hell modded this troll up)
http://www.nationmaster.com/
r i_ca p&id=OECD
Is a great stats page. A quick summary of several graphs (all per-capita, the only fair stat)
(UK + USA #/1000) (rankings based on OECD countries)
Burglaries
UK: 13.91 (rank 5)
USA: 7.23 (rank 11)
Murders
USA: 0.04 (rank 3)
UK: 0.01 (rank 15)
Murders with firearms
USA: 0.02 (rank 2)
UK: 0.00 (rank 16)
Total crime (including drugs+rape+assault) (all of which USA leads in vs UK)
UK: 86.04 (rank 4)
USA: 81.55 (rank 5)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_c
So it seems the USA leads in rape, murder, assault, drugs, and a few other categories. But somehow the USA is lower in "total crime", despite all this. How much you wanna bet a fair number of those "murders" are foiled robberies?
I would also like to point out that the differences in crime rate between US cities and US rural areas (where gun prevalance is much higher) is phenomenal. It's like comparing Mexico (high crime) with Finland (no crime).
People living in rural areas tend to own more guns, vote Republican (well, at least a 55% ratio do, compared w/ less than 20% in cities), and suffer fewer crimes.
The very fact that more people own guns means that it's less likely they'll need to use them (in the self-defence way).
(and since when was ANY police force effecient enough to deter crime....certainly not in the UK)
(and a side note: It is amazing how fast a convo here switches from 1st amendment to 2nd amendment. I wonder why that always happens)
Dunno bout you, but I saw Galápagos about 4 years ago... Memory is a little hazy, but I don't recall anything offensive.
Big whoopdee freaking do. If you really wanna watch it, you could probably buy it on DVD.
But still...not showing a 5 yr old IMAX...not a big freaking surprise. You woulda thought some new material woulda come out since then. (Oct 1999 was earliest date I've found).
Yea, there are no "Egyptians" in Egypt anymore. They're all Arabic.
:)
Good people, if a little strange
(seriously...the concept of a line is lost on them)
I can vouch for Bill Bryson's books. While not strictly geeky, they are witty and often informative.
I'm currently reading "Notes from a Big Country," and it is quite an interesting perspective on the differences between the US and the world (at least the UK).
I agree that online advertising has failed. It has failed for the same reason I find radio and TV almost unwatchable. Because almost no matter what, the company decides that if some advertising is good, more advertising is better.
Why are there so many ads on basic cable? Because broadcasters realized they could charge for broadcast AND make ad revenue.
Advertising will always exist on the net. Even if the whole system goes to a "micropayment" style, ads will be reintroduced as a way of "keeping costs down".
Besides, I am totally jaded with ads. Almost everything has ads now, and I'm sick of it. Ads on TV(in TV shows), radio, in movies, on billboards, in stores, in print, and on the net. And we already pay for TV, movies, and print (books, magazines, newspapers, etc).
I'll use whatever methods are available to me to block ads, because I know that no matter what, the corporate world will always try to feed me more.
BitComet is also not Open Source. I may be confused, but doesn't that mean that they're violating the licence?
I use it, and it's a nice client, but it isn't open source, and that worries me.
....sooo...good battery life AND performance when power is not an issue.
Considering I'm running a 1.6 GHz 8200, almost anything is an upgrade.
(besides, power laptops are usually plugged in, often they are little more than portable desktops)
Doesn't work for Firefox 1.0 on XP SP2. I had AdBlock disabled.
I'm not even running a firewall. The only security measures are my adblocking hosts file and AVG.
So unless hitting the adservers was a mandatory part of that... I see no working exploit code.
Please note that when the SP came out, it was the SAME price the GBA was released for, and the GBA dropped in price.
If the GBA was soo bad, why did *everyone* buy one?
God forbid a company respond to feedback and release an updated version of a product that was better than the original. If you're that concerned, don't buy it right away, and wait 9-18 months and see what happens.
Buyer freaking beware. Is it that hard of a concept?
Protowall is great. It is definitely faster AND more secure. One great thing is that Protowall filters ALL IP packets (not just TCP like the current PeerGuardian).
I tried both PG and PW. With the same sized lists (massive), PG used 40 MB of RAM, and a decent chunk of CPU usage as well. PW only used 7 MB of RAM, and less CPU usage.
Getting PW installed was a bit tricker, but once I got it running (XP SP2), I've never looked back at PG.
If you do start using Protowall, also get the Blocklist Manager to make the blocklists. It is great, and I highly reccomend the anti-spyware/virus/trogan list.
Because of that list, I install Protowall on comps I repair for people (with only the spyware lists). Even if they never update the list, they'll still be a LITTLE better protected.
And you assume it's going to say that way?
Maybe part of the reason they made this announcement was to initiate the change.
btw: the computer labs at Penn State York use IE by default, but you can also use netscape or opera atm
It all has to do w/ what the local admin wants to do (and any interns that have the power to motivate them)
Even more interestingly, the USA has 5% of the world's population, but emits 25% of the world's pollution
Some interesting math, taken from CIA factbook
China: 20% of population, yet only 12.5% of GWP
Russia: 2.3% pop, 2.5% GWP
Japan: 2% pop, 7% GWP
France: 0.9% pop, 3.2% GWP
Germany: 1.3% pop, 4.4% GWP
United K: 0.9% pop, 3.2% GWP
USA: 4.6% pop, 21% GWP
Hmmm... so a country w/ 4.6% of population yet 21% of the GWP emits 25% air pollution(assuming that number is true).
Maybe economic productivity is more of a factor on polution than population. As such...strict controls on polution would definitly hurt the economy.
You're right, it IS all in how you look at things.
Quit bashing Bush. You have no idea what you're talking about.
n it y/managing%20spent%20fuel/yucca_mountain.htm
Yucca mountain has been under SERIOUS consideration since 1978... Which would make the president... Jimmy Carter!! How bout dat?
Just because Bush signed the go-ahead doesn't mean he chose the location.
http://www.cogema-inc.com/serving%20our%20commu
But neither Bush nor Kerry was able to win over a significant proportion of the voters that bothered to show up.
Excuse me? I think 3 million votes IS a significant number. ESP since he actually won more than a majority (51% to 49%), which hasn't happened since his dad ran.
I love how hypocritical the liberals are. Apparently the electoral college is only good when it helps their candidate win.
(And CNN is slow as fuck. They took HOURS before declaring New Hampshire for Kerry. And CNN has verified Ohio as Bush's as well. So STFU)
You don't know the half of it.
It's apparently only ok to be open-minded if it involves dissing Christianity and "traditional" beliefs.
Apparently, I'm "wrong" because I think partial-birth abortions should be as illegal as murder, parental notification is perfectly acceptable (you can't buy cigarrettes when you're 18, and that owning and shooting a gun is a perfectly acceptable hobby. (and I'm not even a bible-thumping southerner)
Amazing. People who hold their values over their job. I'll be damned. What will they think of next?
People who fight for them? Die for them?
While I totally agree w/ your arguement (my mother is the most brainwashed Republican I know), I wish you (and others) would get off the "Fox News is mega-conservative" angle. (I am a conservative-leaning Libertarian)
/.ers bitching about how MSNBC, Al Jazerra, BBC, CBS, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, all lean liberal. Fox News is no less legitimate than any of the others. Nay, almost every one of the ones you listed agree with each other as "sources". If you want me to take your argument seriously, compare the data from Washington Post, Wall St Journal, Fox News, MSNBC, and Factcheck.org.
If you actually WATCH Fox News, you'll find that the news is not really horribly skewed in either direction. Ever watch Beltway boys? It's two people intelligently arguing issues in point-counterpoint fashion. Hanity-Colmes? Both are extremists for either side of the party. While Hanity is the dominate personality, the fact is both sides actually get to present an argument (as opposed to say...Hardball w/ Matthews).
Not to mention the fact that Badnarik actually got an interview on Fox New's Day Side(if you don't believe me... google it), and Fox News is actually running his ads. Do you see any other news stations doing that?
They lean conservative, yes. Is that a crime? I don't see nearly enough
You wanna listen to conservative brainwashing? Listen to AM radio (Rush Limbaugh) for more than an hour a day. You won't bitch about Fox News anymore. (hence the reason the show is Hanity AND Colmes)
Here's a tip: Insulting the person your debating's intelligence is not a valid strategy for winning the debate. :)
:)
Not according to the presidential candidates
I wish more people would realize this...
MORE TROOPS != BETTER COMBAT
Having more active troops in Iraq would only INCREASE casualties. A better solution would be to have more troops at home, and rotate everyone out FREQUENTLY. Sure, more people would have to go back more than once, but then again, what would you choose: Going once for 3 months or going twice for a total of 2 months?
You want lower casualties/better performance? Give the troops more advanced weaponry. Support military R&D (besides the fact that advanced military gear becomes civilian gear in the future). Saving more lives costs more money. You can fight a cheap war or a "good" (in the sense of minimum casualties) war. You can't have both.
Now, for a mild rant:
As far as "war for oil" is concerned: Dude, come on. If oil was THAT big an issue, we'd be pumping in alaska right now (if you can "architect a war," killing some animals to drill can't be that hard to pull). If you can't come up with better points than the old "war for oil conspiracy theory," just stop. The only people who truely believe this was "just for oil" are the weak-minded fools who will believe anything.
Mary Cheney did not ask to be mentioned. Nay, did she give permission. She IS a private figure, because she chose not to involve herself in the election process.
Kerry could have just as easily formed a point without mentioning names. To mention names is a dirty politician's trick, and should not be done by either side. (as far as the GOP homophobe thing...I think he did do it for that reason. They won't align themselves w/ Kerry, but they may not vote for Bush, so to Kerry it is still a small victory)