(Also note, that for the price of one SCSI controller, you can buy quite a few IDE controllers, most of which have 2 controllers per card, so 4 disks would only take up 2 PCI slots, one if you also use the onboard controllers that usually come on motherboards..)
Also note the above failure to quote the number of disks a single SCSI controller can attach. Anyone, anyone? And btw, most motherboards have two on-board controllers, so having four disks takes approximately zero PCI slots if you're not attaching any other IDE devices.
You're not speaking on the same level. You're claiming efficiency, which is true. He's claiming ease-of-use, which is also true (more so of Windows). Efficiency != ease-of-use, in fact, quite the opposite much of the time. Most users don't have the time or patience to learn different interfaces to various programs, many of which are not readily apparent. For all of its technical inferiority, Windows has a broad base of applications which tend towards a consistent interface that has a shallow learning curve. That is where Windows wins.
A virus is an RNA and/or DNA strand inside a protective protein capsule. Saying it is alive is like saying a printing press is alive. They both do a specific job with specific materials, and nothing else. The virus replicates itself, often swapping DNA coding with the host, and sometimes causing extraneous damage.
That right is guaranteed to US citizens, not to the US government. The US government is supposed to be accountable to the citizens that it is there to serve. Saying a large, secret, governmental organization shouldn't get intense scrutiny just because nobody knows what they do is like saying that you shouldn't keep a careful eye on a person wearing a ski mask prowling around your house at midnight. Just because you can't prove he's committed any crimes or has intent to by the situation doesn't mean jack. It's called using common sense. The power is there to be abused. Power-abusers are drawn to this sort of organization, and thus should be watched very closely. Look at any office or organization that comprises the "government." Bet you can't name many where there haven't been major abuses of power. Additionally, those abuses are routinely more flagrant in the executive branch. Anyway, anyone who thinks other countries who want strong crypto won't get it if the US is out of the market are deluding themselves. If those people make up the NSA, I wouldn't trust them. Since that's not likely the case, it's more likely that the government is perfectly happy crippling an entire industy just so that they have a little easier time controlling domestic encryption technologies. I'm just guessing though, because, as you said, nobody knows what the agenda really is.
Ah, I'm sorry Messieur Joke Connoisseur. Like I said, most jokes deal with stereotypes, so if you don't have the capacity to look past stereotypes, and find all such creatures to be horribly repugnant to you, I suggest that you go somewhere where there is no humor being practiced. Like I said in my first post, humor-impaired need not reply. You are obviously humor-impaired, since you bow up at the mere thought of something you believe in being poked fun of. It was not done seriously, and therefore should not be taken seriously. I believe that surgury may be necessary to remove whatever it is you have stuck up your nether regions. Believe me, it will feel much better when it's removed. You might actually be able to look at something in parody of something you like or take seriously and be able to chuckle. *gasp* Yes, even you! But no, you'll probably take this post way too seriously, think I'm mocking you terribly, bow up, and write something about me that would seek to discredit anything and everything I've said, and justify your position. That's your problem, not mine. I was just pointing out that since you obviously found the humor to be terribly wrong, you shouldn't read it. Anyway, tell me, if all humor dealing with stereotypes is weak, what do you find humorous? Certainly not anything dealing in any way with people, because that all deals with stereotypes (or generalizations on human behaviour, which have much basic foundation in truth, but are often exaggerated.)
I don't see your point. Taxing intrastate and interstate transactions do not equally qualify, and I never said anything to the contrary. You really are capable of answering your position yourself. California and Nevada are considered foreign governments to each other. When California imposes a tax upon goods entering from the jurisdiction of a foreign goverment, that is an import tariff. Since California cannot impose import tariffs on goods from other States of the Union, they cannot tax the transaction. Nevada imposes a tax on goods leaving its jurisdiction. Thus, it is an export tariff. Since Nevada cannot impose an export tariff on goods moving into another State of the Union, Nevada cannot tax the transaction. If you were trying to make some other point, please try to be a little more concise (or maybe it's my sleep-fogged brain.:). Regardless, if you really need a case to validate my point, I'm sure you can find one. I won't be doing so because it's a waste of my time to further defend such a well-established issue of interstate taxation.
However, a marriage is also a legal contract, which falls under the purview of the government. That said, they can make any conditions that don't conflict with the state and national Constitutions. I personally feel it is wrong to descriminate against someone based upon their sexuality, but since I haven't really done any research into this issue, I can't comment on whether or not it is legally wrong to discriminate in this manner.
"Thou shalt do no murder" is a bit more accurate, and more telling. You've still got ambiguity of what constitutes murder, but the Bible does not by any means prohibit all killing. If you think it does, maybe you should read the Old Testament again.
Ah, how textualist ideals have influenced most of the people in the US.
If you read the Bill of Rights, you'll realize that the rights outlined there are not inclusive. Since there is no provision in the federal Constitution (and any of the State Constitutions I've read) which gives the government control over privacy, it's a right retained by the people. Therefore, there is a Constitutional right to privacy.
I think you need to change your crack dealer, cause he's been selling you some bad sh*t. Do you really think the feds would give up the biggest cash cow they have voluntarily? In no way, shape, or form would an internet tax replace the money they make from people getting wages withheld and sent to the gubmint. An e-tax would have to be so enormous that it would be prohibitive to buy online to replace the income tax.
Just one thing of note here. If we had a tiny government, Saddam wouldn't be interested. Do you know why so many of the Arab States hate the US? They hate it because the US politicians love to meddle in the affairs of their governments. If you ask many Arabs, you'll find that the animosity they hold towards the US is reserved for the government, and not the people, per se.
And what many people don't realize is that is is essentially treated the same. The "internet taxation" issue is about the feds getting money. If you order something online from a business in your state, I bet you you're gonna pay state sales tax (unless you're in a state like Oregon, which doesn't have one.) If you buy from out-of-state, you won't pay any sales tax, just like if you ordered over the phone. So yes, there is tax in e-commerce. It's just that the federal government wants a piece.
Hmm, methinks your sarcasm detector must be broken. Of course he was trolling, but I found it both amusing and accurate. America has become a slothful,socialistic country. We have welfare, medicare, government schools, licensing for everything you can think of, you've got to pay "your fair share" (Don't mind me while I laugh at that one.). It's socialism, baby, yeah! And the people in this country deserve another big dose of socialism so that they can assure their own slavery to a government that they've become increasingly more dependant on. The "socialism would do us some good" was pure sarcasm.
Anyway, these are my opinions, and not those of the poster you replied to, so I may be completely wrong. Oh well, it happens.
There are more than just the candidates who have the money to get on TV and who are allowed into the Presidential Debates. If you took the time to read a voter pamphlet and do some research on some of the lesser-known candidates, maybe you'd find one that you could identify with. Personally, I feel it's better for my vote to go to a Libertarian candidate than to not vote. If nothing else, it's one more vote to stand out when the big-name candidates take their yearly look at the small guys and laugh. Every additional vote that goes to someone other than the big guys makes that laughter a little more strained, and that's the kind of protest I like. However, your mileage will surely vary.
Q) Why do people commit crimes to get money for drugs?
A) Drugs are expensive.
Q) Why are drugs expensive?
A) Drugs are expensive because they're illegal.
Q) What would happen if drugs were legalized?
A) The bottom would fall out of the drug market just like it did upon the repeal of Prohibition.
Q) Don't drugs make people more apt to commit crimes?
A) Certain drugs make people violent, but certain alcohols make people violent as well. There is no difference save the stigma that many drugs face in "polite society." As for crimes such as burglary and theft, see above.
I've never used any illicit drugs. Never felt a need or desire to. That doesn't change the fact that many people enjoy the recreational use of drugs. The people who use them as an escape will continue to, illegal or not. If you take the drugs away, they'll do something else to escape. Drugs are not the problem. They are a symptom of the problem. Eliminating them is not the answer, and frankly, is a pitched battle.
Unfortunate, but true. Generally when you don't issue the disclaimer, you're assumed to be a bigot. It really has nothing to do with the issue, but with the amount of misinformation and missing information, most people don't even know what the real issues are.
The 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). The German equivalent of the Federal Register. Can be found in the Library of Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
(Also note, that for the price of one SCSI controller, you can buy quite a few IDE controllers, most of which have 2 controllers per card, so 4 disks would only take up 2 PCI slots, one if you also use the onboard controllers that usually come on motherboards..)
Also note the above failure to quote the number of disks a single SCSI controller can attach. Anyone, anyone?
And btw, most motherboards have two on-board controllers, so having four disks takes approximately zero PCI slots if you're not attaching any other IDE devices.
You're not speaking on the same level. You're claiming efficiency, which is true. He's claiming ease-of-use, which is also true (more so of Windows). Efficiency != ease-of-use, in fact, quite the opposite much of the time. Most users don't have the time or patience to learn different interfaces to various programs, many of which are not readily apparent. For all of its technical inferiority, Windows has a broad base of applications which tend towards a consistent interface that has a shallow learning curve. That is where Windows wins.
A virus is an RNA and/or DNA strand inside a protective protein capsule. Saying it is alive is like saying a printing press is alive. They both do a specific job with specific materials, and nothing else. The virus replicates itself, often swapping DNA coding with the host, and sometimes causing extraneous damage.
That right is guaranteed to US citizens, not to the US government. The US government is supposed to be accountable to the citizens that it is there to serve. Saying a large, secret, governmental organization shouldn't get intense scrutiny just because nobody knows what they do is like saying that you shouldn't keep a careful eye on a person wearing a ski mask prowling around your house at midnight. Just because you can't prove he's committed any crimes or has intent to by the situation doesn't mean jack. It's called using common sense. The power is there to be abused. Power-abusers are drawn to this sort of organization, and thus should be watched very closely. Look at any office or organization that comprises the "government." Bet you can't name many where there haven't been major abuses of power. Additionally, those abuses are routinely more flagrant in the executive branch. Anyway, anyone who thinks other countries who want strong crypto won't get it if the US is out of the market are deluding themselves. If those people make up the NSA, I wouldn't trust them. Since that's not likely the case, it's more likely that the government is perfectly happy crippling an entire industy just so that they have a little easier time controlling domestic encryption technologies. I'm just guessing though, because, as you said, nobody knows what the agenda really is.
Ah, I'm sorry Messieur Joke Connoisseur. Like I said, most jokes deal with stereotypes, so if you don't have the capacity to look past stereotypes, and find all such creatures to be horribly repugnant to you, I suggest that you go somewhere where there is no humor being practiced. Like I said in my first post, humor-impaired need not reply. You are obviously humor-impaired, since you bow up at the mere thought of something you believe in being poked fun of. It was not done seriously, and therefore should not be taken seriously. I believe that surgury may be necessary to remove whatever it is you have stuck up your nether regions. Believe me, it will feel much better when it's removed. You might actually be able to look at something in parody of something you like or take seriously and be able to chuckle. *gasp* Yes, even you!
But no, you'll probably take this post way too seriously, think I'm mocking you terribly, bow up, and write something about me that would seek to discredit anything and everything I've said, and justify your position. That's your problem, not mine. I was just pointing out that since you obviously found the humor to be terribly wrong, you shouldn't read it. Anyway, tell me, if all humor dealing with stereotypes is weak, what do you find humorous? Certainly not anything dealing in any way with people, because that all deals with stereotypes (or generalizations on human behaviour, which have much basic foundation in truth, but are often exaggerated.)
I don't see your point. Taxing intrastate and interstate transactions do not equally qualify, and I never said anything to the contrary. You really are capable of answering your position yourself. California and Nevada are considered foreign governments to each other. When California imposes a tax upon goods entering from the jurisdiction of a foreign goverment, that is an import tariff. Since California cannot impose import tariffs on goods from other States of the Union, they cannot tax the transaction. Nevada imposes a tax on goods leaving its jurisdiction. Thus, it is an export tariff. Since Nevada cannot impose an export tariff on goods moving into another State of the Union, Nevada cannot tax the transaction. If you were trying to make some other point, please try to be a little more concise (or maybe it's my sleep-fogged brain. :). Regardless, if you really need a case to validate my point, I'm sure you can find one. I won't be doing so because it's a waste of my time to further defend such a well-established issue of interstate taxation.
If you haven't realized, most jokes deal with stereotypes in some form or other, even if the stereotype is human stupidity. Deal.
However, a marriage is also a legal contract, which falls under the purview of the government. That said, they can make any conditions that don't conflict with the state and national Constitutions. I personally feel it is wrong to descriminate against someone based upon their sexuality, but since I haven't really done any research into this issue, I can't comment on whether or not it is legally wrong to discriminate in this manner.
"Thou shalt do no murder" is a bit more accurate, and more telling. You've still got ambiguity of what constitutes murder, but the Bible does not by any means prohibit all killing. If you think it does, maybe you should read the Old Testament again.
Ah, how textualist ideals have influenced most of the people in the US.
If you read the Bill of Rights, you'll realize that the rights outlined there are not inclusive. Since there is no provision in the federal Constitution (and any of the State Constitutions I've read) which gives the government control over privacy, it's a right retained by the people. Therefore, there is a Constitutional right to privacy.
Hmm, I'm still waiting for the "civil" part.
A short lesson on taxation:
States cannot tax interstate transactions. Period.
I think you need to change your crack dealer, cause he's been selling you some bad sh*t. Do you really think the feds would give up the biggest cash cow they have voluntarily? In no way, shape, or form would an internet tax replace the money they make from people getting wages withheld and sent to the gubmint. An e-tax would have to be so enormous that it would be prohibitive to buy online to replace the income tax.
Just one thing of note here. If we had a tiny government, Saddam wouldn't be interested. Do you know why so many of the Arab States hate the US? They hate it because the US politicians love to meddle in the affairs of their governments. If you ask many Arabs, you'll find that the animosity they hold towards the US is reserved for the government, and not the people, per se.
And what many people don't realize is that is is essentially treated the same. The "internet taxation" issue is about the feds getting money. If you order something online from a business in your state, I bet you you're gonna pay state sales tax (unless you're in a state like Oregon, which doesn't have one.) If you buy from out-of-state, you won't pay any sales tax, just like if you ordered over the phone. So yes, there is tax in e-commerce. It's just that the federal government wants a piece.
I've got a one-word explanation for them kicking Western ass. It's a little thing known as drive .
Humour impaired need not reply.
Hmm, methinks your sarcasm detector must be broken. Of course he was trolling, but I found it both amusing and accurate. America has become a slothful,socialistic country. We have welfare, medicare, government schools, licensing for everything you can think of, you've got to pay "your fair share" (Don't mind me while I laugh at that one.). It's socialism, baby, yeah! And the people in this country deserve another big dose of socialism so that they can assure their own slavery to a government that they've become increasingly more dependant on. The "socialism would do us some good" was pure sarcasm.
Anyway, these are my opinions, and not those of the poster you replied to, so I may be completely wrong. Oh well, it happens.
I'd love to see a /. interview with Browne.
Right-wing != Libertarian
There are more than just the candidates who have the money to get on TV and who are allowed into the Presidential Debates. If you took the time to read a voter pamphlet and do some research on some of the lesser-known candidates, maybe you'd find one that you could identify with. Personally, I feel it's better for my vote to go to a Libertarian candidate than to not vote. If nothing else, it's one more vote to stand out when the big-name candidates take their yearly look at the small guys and laugh. Every additional vote that goes to someone other than the big guys makes that laughter a little more strained, and that's the kind of protest I like. However, your mileage will surely vary.
A quick Q&A:
Q) Why do people commit crimes to get money for drugs?
A) Drugs are expensive.
Q) Why are drugs expensive?
A) Drugs are expensive because they're illegal.
Q) What would happen if drugs were legalized?
A) The bottom would fall out of the drug market just like it did upon the repeal of Prohibition.
Q) Don't drugs make people more apt to commit crimes?
A) Certain drugs make people violent, but certain alcohols make people violent as well. There is no difference save the stigma that many drugs face in "polite society." As for crimes such as burglary and theft, see above.
I've never used any illicit drugs. Never felt a need or desire to. That doesn't change the fact that many people enjoy the recreational use of drugs. The people who use them as an escape will continue to, illegal or not. If you take the drugs away, they'll do something else to escape. Drugs are not the problem. They are a symptom of the problem. Eliminating them is not the answer, and frankly, is a pitched battle.
Unfortunately, you always get ideological crap. I do it too, though I try to refrain most of the time. Oh well, it's not a perfect world... ;)
Unfortunate, but true. Generally when you don't issue the disclaimer, you're assumed to be a bigot. It really has nothing to do with the issue, but with the amount of misinformation and missing information, most people don't even know what the real issues are.
The 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). The German equivalent of the Federal Register. Can be found in the Library of Congress.