People who publish trade secrets that might hurt a company are forced to reveal their sources, but people who publish Top Secret documents are protected. (Anybody remember that stupid ruling on The Pentagon Papers?) I guess that proves that businesses are more important than National Security.
Type II is what you get when you consume so much sugar your body can't produce enough insulin.
Wrong. That's nothing but an old wive's tale. You get Type II diabetes when your body has trouble keeping your blood sugar at the right level. It's not just insulin, you have problems when it gets too low too, because your body may not react properly and pump some more sugar into your blood. Among other things, Type II diabetes is caused by exposure to Agent Orange. That's why any Viet Nam era veteran with Type II gets payments, provided that they were ever in-country. In my case, my service was off-shore, so it's assumed that I wasn't exposed.
If this does get a PG-13 rating, it will be so that all the parents will want to go to it on their own first, to see if it's OK for their kids, then back to see it again with them. Just a marketing ploy.
I really doubt he will be moving closer to his real source material. If you'd like to see what he orignally wanted to do, check out The Lensman Series, by Doc Smith. Ignore the crap vidio, and the three by David Kyle. He ended up making Star Wars because Smith's daughter didn't understand what he wanted and wouldn't give premission.
You do know, don't you, that Episode 6 was originally titled Revenge of the Jedi, but Lucas changed it before release because "Jedi don't take revenge."
If Microsoft got caught doing this, we'd be jumping all over them. Not for doing it, but because the first thing the'd do is try to cover it up, and when that didn't work, the second thing they'd do is claim that it was OK for them to do it because it's their site. Google is getting off easy because they're not making excuses, they're not pretending it didn't happen. Google is cleaning up their act and earning our respect for their honesty.
Yes, I did until they closed the office I worked at. I was trying to be discrete about it, and now you're the second person to give it away. Please note that, contrary to his complaints, Earthlink had no problem with him having the site, just with his mimicing theirs too closely.
So wait - you aren't naming the ISP because it should be obvious?
No, I didn't want to name it because I didn't want to be too obvious about which ISP I worked at. Most Slashdotters never bother to check poster's websites, so most of them wouldn't be able to figure it out. I don't care if an occasional poster has the sense to check, but I didn't think it right to come right out with it.
Most people I talk to who use Linux have expressed a strong preference for KDE over GNOME.
When I first installed Linux, I used fvwm. Last time I upgraded, I decided I might as well give either Gnome or KDE a chance. I looked at the Gnome site and found a big list of neat things about it. Then I looked at the KDE site and found advocacy. "KDE is neat, KDE is great, use KDE and you'll love it!" Nothing about what there was about KDE to like, just that you would. I sent them an email asking for reasons other than advocacy to use KDE and got back a reply filled with more advocacy and nothing else. I installed Gnome and never regretted it.
I used to work for an ISP. (Won't name it for reasons that will be obvious.) We had a hate-site set up by a former employee with a grudge. When we learned about it, it got lots of hits because we all had to take a look at it. I never heard anybody at work agree with the site, but nobody thought we should do anything about it. Then, the owner changed the site to look almost exactly like our own home page. In short order, he'd gotten a letter from our lawyers, telling him to change his site's appearance to one that didn't mimic ours so exactly. He did, and posted a big complaint about it. From then on, he kept his site looking at least a little differnt from ours and we ignored him. It's been years since I've visited it, but I'll bet it's still there, and my former employers still don't care.
You just don't get it do you? I'm not denying that and never have. I am, however, suggesting that there might be things she's not telling us because of her bias that might have given them a reason to do so. Might, mind you, not are.
Please get real. Using that argument, it's equally possible to believe that men who are trained to kill, among other folks, Communists, may have shot at one deliberately and without tacit approval or sufficient reason beyond politics.
Not only aren't American soldiers trained to kill Communists, they had no reason to know she was one at the time. They may or may not be telling all the truth about what happened; I don't know, but I'm reasonably certain her politics had nothing to do with the incident itself. As far as how she reported it, it may have influenced her story and that's the problem. Do you trust her to tell the truth about people she may hate? If so, you may be right. Not everybody with a bias lies to support it. All I was doing was pointing out the possibility.
So because she's communist she's automatically a liar?
No, of course not. However, she does have a built-in bias that may well be anti-US, and if so, we should take it into account. The question is, did she report what happened, or what her bias would have liked to have happened and I have no idea. I am skeptical about her account because of her politics, but I'm willing to believe that she's telling the truth if that's what the evidence shows.
Not quite. Ants don't really understand cooperation, but their instictive behaivior is such that they end up working together. The U robots have no instructions to cooperate, but those they have make them look like they do.
I have heard rumors that laws are sometimes affected internationally by presidents set in other countries.
Yes, courts can take cases in other countries into account, and sometimes do. Usually, from what I understand, in cases where there are no local precedents, and only as advisories. They're not bound by them, of course, but can base their rulings on them if appropriate.
What exactly did Saddam do that made you think he had them? Deny that he had them? That sets up a bit of a Catch-22, don't you think? And in fact that's exactly how it played out before the invasion. If Saddam admits he has WMD, that's grounds for invasion. If he doesn't admit he has WMD, he's lying. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy, circular logic at it's finest.
No, what Hussein did was refuse to let the inspectors in so that they could see for themselves that he was clean. He threw the earlier inspectors out, and even when he agreed to let them back, he kept stalling, putting barriers in their way and doing everything he could to look like a man with something to hide.
His denial that he had WMDs, although true, was unconvincing under the circumstances. Combined with his actions, it looked like he was pretending he'd complied with the orders to get rid of them, but hadn't. Of course, what he was probably doing was bluffing to make it look like he still had them, while telling the truth that he didn't. For me, probably for many others and possibly for President Bush, his bluff succeeded all to well.
It looks like you've been fooled twice, first by Saddam, then by Bush.
No, because what Bush said about WMDs had nothing to do with my belief. Saddam Hussein's actions were what fooled me, because he acted exactly like I would have expected him to if he really had them.
Kerry and Clinton are pushing for this not because it's in the public interest, but because they still believe "We were robbed!" They think the Republicans did a better job of cheating on the last two elections than the Democrats did and want to eliminate the possibility of it happening again. They can't admit to themselves that enough people either liked what the Republicans said or disliked what the Democrats said to change the outcome of the election. As long as they fail to learn from the past, they will continue to make the same mistakes over and over and become less of an influence on American politics. This is not a good thing. America needs two parties that are fairly well balanced to keep one party from complete domination of the nation.
Re:This sounds like a dystopia
on
Exultant
·
· Score: 1
I don't know, I think the Manifold Time proposed an unescapable dystopia. Eventually, the universe ends.
The eventual heat-death of the Universe does not, in and of itself, create a dystopia. All things must come to an end eventually, and a future in which mankind accepts this isn't a dystopia. A story where the last few remnants of life are warring over the few remaining energy sources trying to stave off personal extinction at the cost of killing everybody else would be dystopic.
This sounds like a dystopia
on
Exultant
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The review makes the book sound like an enormous dystopia: I have seen the future, and it is horrible. Dystopias succeed, when they do, by pointing out dangerous trends in the present, and showing what could happen if they're allowed to grow unchecked. Nothing in the review gives any suggestion of that, and without the insight into today, a dystopia is simply depressing and morose. Even so, it's a good review, because it told me exactly why I personally wouldn't want to read this. If you're interested in this type of thing, I hope you enjoy it.
A number of characters in the story, such as Granny Wetherwax, Nanny Ogg and the various wizards are supposed to be fairly old. Alas, you can see that the actors and actresses are much too young. Proper makeup would have helped, for those of us familiar with the series. Even so, it doesn't spoil the film, it's just a little bit of "that's not right; they're too young" when you first see them. I'm sure I'll stop paying attention to it quickly when I see it.
Slashdot Mirror
People who publish trade secrets that might hurt a company are forced to reveal their sources, but people who publish Top Secret documents are protected. (Anybody remember that stupid ruling on The Pentagon Papers?) I guess that proves that businesses are more important than National Security.
Wrong. That's nothing but an old wive's tale. You get Type II diabetes when your body has trouble keeping your blood sugar at the right level. It's not just insulin, you have problems when it gets too low too, because your body may not react properly and pump some more sugar into your blood. Among other things, Type II diabetes is caused by exposure to Agent Orange. That's why any Viet Nam era veteran with Type II gets payments, provided that they were ever in-country. In my case, my service was off-shore, so it's assumed that I wasn't exposed.
If this does get a PG-13 rating, it will be so that all the parents will want to go to it on their own first, to see if it's OK for their kids, then back to see it again with them. Just a marketing ploy.
I really doubt he will be moving closer to his real source material. If you'd like to see what he orignally wanted to do, check out The Lensman Series, by Doc Smith. Ignore the crap vidio, and the three by David Kyle. He ended up making Star Wars because Smith's daughter didn't understand what he wanted and wouldn't give premission.
You do know, don't you, that Episode 6 was originally titled Revenge of the Jedi, but Lucas changed it before release because "Jedi don't take revenge."
If Microsoft got caught doing this, we'd be jumping all over them. Not for doing it, but because the first thing the'd do is try to cover it up, and when that didn't work, the second thing they'd do is claim that it was OK for them to do it because it's their site. Google is getting off easy because they're not making excuses, they're not pretending it didn't happen. Google is cleaning up their act and earning our respect for their honesty.
Yes, I did until they closed the office I worked at. I was trying to be discrete about it, and now you're the second person to give it away. Please note that, contrary to his complaints, Earthlink had no problem with him having the site, just with his mimicing theirs too closely.
No, I didn't want to name it because I didn't want to be too obvious about which ISP I worked at. Most Slashdotters never bother to check poster's websites, so most of them wouldn't be able to figure it out. I don't care if an occasional poster has the sense to check, but I didn't think it right to come right out with it.
Oh, I don't think so. It's easy to change to using progman instead of explorer for your shell if you really want to.
When I first installed Linux, I used fvwm. Last time I upgraded, I decided I might as well give either Gnome or KDE a chance. I looked at the Gnome site and found a big list of neat things about it. Then I looked at the KDE site and found advocacy. "KDE is neat, KDE is great, use KDE and you'll love it!" Nothing about what there was about KDE to like, just that you would. I sent them an email asking for reasons other than advocacy to use KDE and got back a reply filled with more advocacy and nothing else. I installed Gnome and never regretted it.
I used to work for an ISP. (Won't name it for reasons that will be obvious.) We had a hate-site set up by a former employee with a grudge. When we learned about it, it got lots of hits because we all had to take a look at it. I never heard anybody at work agree with the site, but nobody thought we should do anything about it. Then, the owner changed the site to look almost exactly like our own home page. In short order, he'd gotten a letter from our lawyers, telling him to change his site's appearance to one that didn't mimic ours so exactly. He did, and posted a big complaint about it. From then on, he kept his site looking at least a little differnt from ours and we ignored him. It's been years since I've visited it, but I'll bet it's still there, and my former employers still don't care.
Maybe it should be "KDE trolls are Kumming?"
You just don't get it do you? I'm not denying that and never have. I am, however, suggesting that there might be things she's not telling us because of her bias that might have given them a reason to do so. Might, mind you, not are.
Not only aren't American soldiers trained to kill Communists, they had no reason to know she was one at the time. They may or may not be telling all the truth about what happened; I don't know, but I'm reasonably certain her politics had nothing to do with the incident itself. As far as how she reported it, it may have influenced her story and that's the problem. Do you trust her to tell the truth about people she may hate? If so, you may be right. Not everybody with a bias lies to support it. All I was doing was pointing out the possibility.
No, of course not. However, she does have a built-in bias that may well be anti-US, and if so, we should take it into account. The question is, did she report what happened, or what her bias would have liked to have happened and I have no idea. I am skeptical about her account because of her politics, but I'm willing to believe that she's telling the truth if that's what the evidence shows.
Not quite. Ants don't really understand cooperation, but their instictive behaivior is such that they end up working together. The U robots have no instructions to cooperate, but those they have make them look like they do.
Yes, courts can take cases in other countries into account, and sometimes do. Usually, from what I understand, in cases where there are no local precedents, and only as advisories. They're not bound by them, of course, but can base their rulings on them if appropriate.
Five points from Slytherin for responding to a lame post with an even lamer one.
No, what Hussein did was refuse to let the inspectors in so that they could see for themselves that he was clean. He threw the earlier inspectors out, and even when he agreed to let them back, he kept stalling, putting barriers in their way and doing everything he could to look like a man with something to hide.
His denial that he had WMDs, although true, was unconvincing under the circumstances. Combined with his actions, it looked like he was pretending he'd complied with the orders to get rid of them, but hadn't. Of course, what he was probably doing was bluffing to make it look like he still had them, while telling the truth that he didn't. For me, probably for many others and possibly for President Bush, his bluff succeeded all to well.
No, because what Bush said about WMDs had nothing to do with my belief. Saddam Hussein's actions were what fooled me, because he acted exactly like I would have expected him to if he really had them.
Kerry and Clinton are pushing for this not because it's in the public interest, but because they still believe "We were robbed!" They think the Republicans did a better job of cheating on the last two elections than the Democrats did and want to eliminate the possibility of it happening again. They can't admit to themselves that enough people either liked what the Republicans said or disliked what the Democrats said to change the outcome of the election. As long as they fail to learn from the past, they will continue to make the same mistakes over and over and become less of an influence on American politics. This is not a good thing. America needs two parties that are fairly well balanced to keep one party from complete domination of the nation.
The eventual heat-death of the Universe does not, in and of itself, create a dystopia. All things must come to an end eventually, and a future in which mankind accepts this isn't a dystopia. A story where the last few remnants of life are warring over the few remaining energy sources trying to stave off personal extinction at the cost of killing everybody else would be dystopic.
No it wasn't and don't call me Shirley.
The review makes the book sound like an enormous dystopia: I have seen the future, and it is horrible. Dystopias succeed, when they do, by pointing out dangerous trends in the present, and showing what could happen if they're allowed to grow unchecked. Nothing in the review gives any suggestion of that, and without the insight into today, a dystopia is simply depressing and morose. Even so, it's a good review, because it told me exactly why I personally wouldn't want to read this. If you're interested in this type of thing, I hope you enjoy it.
A number of characters in the story, such as Granny Wetherwax, Nanny Ogg and the various wizards are supposed to be fairly old. Alas, you can see that the actors and actresses are much too young. Proper makeup would have helped, for those of us familiar with the series. Even so, it doesn't spoil the film, it's just a little bit of "that's not right; they're too young" when you first see them. I'm sure I'll stop paying attention to it quickly when I see it.