Yes! You hit the nail on the head! The US is evil. We're heading in the wrong direction not the right direction. The US has contributed nothing to the world and we are all worse off then we would have been if the US never existed. The US should be destroyed. Let's sneak in, load up our cars with homemade bombs and kill lots of innocent US women and children. That's the ticket. We'll show them. Then, and only then, will we have our revenge.
The big, bad US goverment following the lead of the terrorist Bush, wishes to subvert the world by eliminating leap seconds. Give me a break! Remove the tinfoil hat... I realize how hard that is for most of the slashbot liberal groupthink crowd but seriously, it's time to get over it. The only thing being proposed is to extend daylight savings time. It would take an act of Congress to eliminate leap seconds and any bill being proposed by Congress can be read online. Something like this would NEVER pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by Bush... as much as you hate him, it just wouldn't happen. Abortion on demand has a better shot at becoming law than anything like this, and anyone who knows anything about the current political climate in Washington knows how likely that is to happen. Just bide your time until he's out of office and then convince as many of your buddies as you can to vote for a Democrat is 2008. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of your conspiricy theories about Bush and co trying to take over the world.
I'm so glad IE is supporting tabbed browsing. Now when you visit a malicious website, it will be able to open up multiple tabs and install 30 pieces of adware / spyware / malware simultaneously. Isn't progress wonderful?
Raise your hand if your tired of both the Firefox and iTunes "X Million Downloads" stories. Pretty soon other sites will be running "x Million Stories" updates tracking the number of "X Million Downloads" stories that appear on Slashdot.
If the format war isn't resolved, retailers could unite behind one format and force the issue by not stocking titles that are in the other format. It would take a nearly united retail front, but it would certainly be possible and would probably be in the consumer's best interest. The guys backing the other format would change their tune rather quickly if retail sales were stagnant.
I don't usually reply to my own posts but in this case I think it's warranted. It wouldn't really take a united retail front. If Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Best Buy and few more of the major retail chains got togather and decided to get behind a single format that would seal the deal. Hell Wal-Mart alone might due the trick, look at how the RIAA bend over backwards to make sure Wal-Mart will carry certain CD's.
If the format war isn't resolved, retailers could unite behind one format and force the issue by not stocking titles that are in the other format. It would take a nearly united retail front, but it would certainly be possible and would probably be in the consumer's best interest. The guys backing the other format would change their tune rather quickly if retail sales were stagnant.
The whole concept is simply wrong. I, and I'm certain I'm not alone here, will never go the software as a service route the programs that I depend on and I'll never go for storing certain important documents anywhere but on a local hard drive that I have physical access to and can make verifiable backups of. Add in the fact that if your provider goes down, your done, and there's simply no way I'd ever go for something like this. I doubt many small businesses, with uneven cash flow, would either. If I was a small business man who had a bad month or two, I wouldn't want to worry about suddenly losing access to business critical applications and/or data because I couldn't pony up that month.
The forseeable futurure will more likely be a mix of the two models. Software as a service and dumb terminals for some, plain old hardware / software for others, and still others that run some kind of mix of the two.
Overall a smart idea to have it research, but from the research it was quickly determined that it was impractical to do anything about, and just hope and pray that some attack did not prevent a large number of people from participating in the election.
A large number of people (around 50% of registered voters) already do not participate in our elections. In fact, I'd argue we might get a better result if there were attacks designed to scare people away from the polls. Then, only people who really cared about the issues of the day would show up.
Yeah... and since when did any corporation want to "minimize" our exposure to advertising.
Since the very beginning of advertising. Do you really think corporations enjoy throwing money away on advertising that isn't reaching their target audience or is otherwise ignored? If corporations can cut advertising costs by focusing their advertising dollars on those channels most likely to reach receptive consumers in their target audience, they'll jump at the chance.
The whole Apple/Intel deal gets curiouser and curiouser.
I stoppd reading right there. Curiouser is not a word and anyone who uses it should not be listened to. Apple is moving to Intel for obvious reasons. Laptops. Most of their computer sales are laptops and IBM clearly has not and will not be able to deliver the kind of chips that Apple needs. Jobs looked at IBM's laptop processor roadmap and decided now was the time to make the change. With sales of iPods going through the roof now is the perfect time to make the switch. If sales of Apple systems are hurt during the switch to Intel because users decide to hold off until after the switch is complete, sales of the iPod will help to offset that. You combine that with the price discounts that Intel will throw their way (especially if they find a way to use Intel mobile processors in future versions of the iPod) and it's a no brainer.
Since the cabling is already laid and the routers are already in place, if you don't like that the US is in control you're free to start your own new network where you control things. As it stands, we started it and therefore we will control it.
Are as idiotic as those who pay attention when Rush Limbaugh opens his mouth. They all have an agenda and you better know that when you listen to all of them or you're in trouble. The truth, most of the time, is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
A cure for AIDs has existed for quite some time, it's called abstinence (probably not a difficult thing for most of the geeks here)
From dictionary.com:
Restoration of health; recovery from disease.
Abstinence isn't a cure, abstinence is a form of prevention. If abstinence was a cure all you would have to do if you got AIDS is not have sex for a period of time.
The only thing abstinence cures is a marriage. If neither partner has ever had sex before, especially with each other, then it's a shot in the dark as to weather or not they will have a healthy sex life once they are married. What if one loves sex and the other doesn't? What if one person thinks the other is horrible in the sack? The quickest route to divorce is a bad sex life. There's no way in hell I'd ever consider getting married before having sex with the women unless she was either rich (in which case if it didn't work, I'd get half her dough) or she was otherwise the perfect women in every way. Drop dead gorgeous, funny, smart, healthy, in good spirits almost 100% of the time, employed, energetic, willing to cook and clean if I handle the yard work, willing to be the primary caretaker if she wants children, willing to put up with all of my bullshit, willing to not complain that I spend "too much time with the guys", willing not to complain if she feels that "I never take her with me when I go out with the guys", willing to leave me along when I'm watching the game... aka... a women that doesn't exist.
So in closing, you enjoy your abstinence and your either failed or unhappy marriange when you realize you don't click with your wife sexually, meanwhile I'll be chasing tail and really having a good time and when I finally do settle down and get married it'll either be a long and happy one or I'll come out of it rich.
I'm so sick and tired of the liberal bias on this site. Conservatives, true conservatives would never in a million years go for a decision like this. This has liberal written all over it! Why, you ask? It's an extension of the "transfer of wealth" ideas of the liberals. I've got no problem paying my fair share when it comes to roads, police and fire protection, defense of our country, etc. but that's where I draw the line. Anything else is theft, plain and simple. When money is taken from my paycheck and given to someone else to help pay for their retirement it's theft. If someone takes money out of my paycheck to pay someone else's medical bills it's theft. If I held a gun to your head and took your money, but then gave it to the little old lady down the street, my intentions might have been noble but it's still theft. The government does this crap every single day. Given this line of thinking, why not take private property to give it to some else? After all, if it increases the tax base and we have more money to help the elderly and the people in need then all the better! This is a wonderful idea that liberals everywhere should love! After all, what's the difference between taking money and taking property? There both theft, were just taking about the form of theft here. Hopefully, finally, this decision will make liberals wake the hell up and realize how dangerous their ideas actually are. Under no circumstances should anything be taken from one person and given to another. Money or property (money is property... if I earned it, I own it).
Look at our history people. It is the natural tendency of governments to abuse their power. That what the Declaration of Independence and the our Constitution is (or should I say was) all about! Limiting the power of government is necessary because that kind of absolute power is, and always has been, abused. The Constitution is one back fat stop sign. Laying out, clearly, what the government can not do. This can not, and should not, be a document whose interpretation "changes" over time. It means exactly what it says.
Oh, no say the liberals. "It's not fair that you earn all of this money and other people don't so I'm going to take some of it from you to help those in need". Well, what do you think is the natural extension of that idea? "It's not fair that you own this property and don't pay as much in taxes as someone else could pay if they had the property, after all, we've got to help those in need". Wake up liberals. Your ideas are destructive. You do not have the right, under any circumstances, to take what is mine and give it to someone else. Money or property. You don't have the right. Why? Because it can, will and is being abused. That's why. As noble as your intentions might be, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would be happy to donate my money to someone who was truly in need, and truly wanted to change things and to pick themselves up and get themselves back to a place where they can support themselves. I have and will continue to give to worthy charities. It, however, should be my decision. Not the government's. It's not their place. Once you begin to slide down that slippery slope where one person's money can be taken to "help" another, that persons land is the logical next step.
Slashdot Mirror
The editors and posters make me laugh sometimes. Most don't bother to RTFA.
Yes! You hit the nail on the head! The US is evil. We're heading in the wrong direction not the right direction. The US has contributed nothing to the world and we are all worse off then we would have been if the US never existed. The US should be destroyed. Let's sneak in, load up our cars with homemade bombs and kill lots of innocent US women and children. That's the ticket. We'll show them. Then, and only then, will we have our revenge.
A Democrat proposing to raise taxes? No .....
The big, bad US goverment following the lead of the terrorist Bush, wishes to subvert the world by eliminating leap seconds. Give me a break! Remove the tinfoil hat ... I realize how hard that is for most of the slashbot liberal groupthink crowd but seriously, it's time to get over it. The only thing being proposed is to extend daylight savings time. It would take an act of Congress to eliminate leap seconds and any bill being proposed by Congress can be read online. Something like this would NEVER pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by Bush ... as much as you hate him, it just wouldn't happen. Abortion on demand has a better shot at becoming law than anything like this, and anyone who knows anything about the current political climate in Washington knows how likely that is to happen. Just bide your time until he's out of office and then convince as many of your buddies as you can to vote for a Democrat is 2008. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of your conspiricy theories about Bush and co trying to take over the world.
Maybe, but unfortunately Microsoft lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago.
I'm so glad IE is supporting tabbed browsing. Now when you visit a malicious website, it will be able to open up multiple tabs and install 30 pieces of adware / spyware / malware simultaneously. Isn't progress wonderful?
Raise your hand if your tired of both the Firefox and iTunes "X Million Downloads" stories. Pretty soon other sites will be running "x Million Stories" updates tracking the number of "X Million Downloads" stories that appear on Slashdot.
I don't usually reply to my own posts but in this case I think it's warranted. It wouldn't really take a united retail front. If Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Best Buy and few more of the major retail chains got togather and decided to get behind a single format that would seal the deal. Hell Wal-Mart alone might due the trick, look at how the RIAA bend over backwards to make sure Wal-Mart will carry certain CD's.
If the format war isn't resolved, retailers could unite behind one format and force the issue by not stocking titles that are in the other format. It would take a nearly united retail front, but it would certainly be possible and would probably be in the consumer's best interest. The guys backing the other format would change their tune rather quickly if retail sales were stagnant.
Let's post it on Slashdot for all to see so Microsoft will find out about it and make it harder to get around!
The whole concept is simply wrong. I, and I'm certain I'm not alone here, will never go the software as a service route the programs that I depend on and I'll never go for storing certain important documents anywhere but on a local hard drive that I have physical access to and can make verifiable backups of. Add in the fact that if your provider goes down, your done, and there's simply no way I'd ever go for something like this. I doubt many small businesses, with uneven cash flow, would either. If I was a small business man who had a bad month or two, I wouldn't want to worry about suddenly losing access to business critical applications and/or data because I couldn't pony up that month.
The forseeable futurure will more likely be a mix of the two models. Software as a service and dumb terminals for some, plain old hardware / software for others, and still others that run some kind of mix of the two.
I liked it better when it was called Tiger ... oh wait .....
How is this news? It would be news if they stopped.
A large number of people (around 50% of registered voters) already do not participate in our elections. In fact, I'd argue we might get a better result if there were attacks designed to scare people away from the polls. Then, only people who really cared about the issues of the day would show up.
Since the very beginning of advertising. Do you really think corporations enjoy throwing money away on advertising that isn't reaching their target audience or is otherwise ignored? If corporations can cut advertising costs by focusing their advertising dollars on those channels most likely to reach receptive consumers in their target audience, they'll jump at the chance.
Quote from the article:
I stoppd reading right there. Curiouser is not a word and anyone who uses it should not be listened to. Apple is moving to Intel for obvious reasons. Laptops. Most of their computer sales are laptops and IBM clearly has not and will not be able to deliver the kind of chips that Apple needs. Jobs looked at IBM's laptop processor roadmap and decided now was the time to make the change. With sales of iPods going through the roof now is the perfect time to make the switch. If sales of Apple systems are hurt during the switch to Intel because users decide to hold off until after the switch is complete, sales of the iPod will help to offset that. You combine that with the price discounts that Intel will throw their way (especially if they find a way to use Intel mobile processors in future versions of the iPod) and it's a no brainer.
I trust polls just about as much as I trust W on WMD issues.
Since the cabling is already laid and the routers are already in place, if you don't like that the US is in control you're free to start your own new network where you control things. As it stands, we started it and therefore we will control it.
Are as idiotic as those who pay attention when Rush Limbaugh opens his mouth. They all have an agenda and you better know that when you listen to all of them or you're in trouble. The truth, most of the time, is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
Microsoft Windows ....
From dictionary.com:
Abstinence isn't a cure, abstinence is a form of prevention. If abstinence was a cure all you would have to do if you got AIDS is not have sex for a period of time.
The only thing abstinence cures is a marriage. If neither partner has ever had sex before, especially with each other, then it's a shot in the dark as to weather or not they will have a healthy sex life once they are married. What if one loves sex and the other doesn't? What if one person thinks the other is horrible in the sack? The quickest route to divorce is a bad sex life. There's no way in hell I'd ever consider getting married before having sex with the women unless she was either rich (in which case if it didn't work, I'd get half her dough) or she was otherwise the perfect women in every way. Drop dead gorgeous, funny, smart, healthy, in good spirits almost 100% of the time, employed, energetic, willing to cook and clean if I handle the yard work, willing to be the primary caretaker if she wants children, willing to put up with all of my bullshit, willing to not complain that I spend "too much time with the guys", willing not to complain if she feels that "I never take her with me when I go out with the guys", willing to leave me along when I'm watching the game ... aka ... a women that doesn't exist.
So in closing, you enjoy your abstinence and your either failed or unhappy marriange when you realize you don't click with your wife sexually, meanwhile I'll be chasing tail and really having a good time and when I finally do settle down and get married it'll either be a long and happy one or I'll come out of it rich.
Repeat after me "embrace and extend" ....
I'm so sick and tired of the liberal bias on this site. Conservatives, true conservatives would never in a million years go for a decision like this. This has liberal written all over it! Why, you ask? It's an extension of the "transfer of wealth" ideas of the liberals. I've got no problem paying my fair share when it comes to roads, police and fire protection, defense of our country, etc. but that's where I draw the line. Anything else is theft, plain and simple. When money is taken from my paycheck and given to someone else to help pay for their retirement it's theft. If someone takes money out of my paycheck to pay someone else's medical bills it's theft. If I held a gun to your head and took your money, but then gave it to the little old lady down the street, my intentions might have been noble but it's still theft. The government does this crap every single day. Given this line of thinking, why not take private property to give it to some else? After all, if it increases the tax base and we have more money to help the elderly and the people in need then all the better! This is a wonderful idea that liberals everywhere should love! After all, what's the difference between taking money and taking property? There both theft, were just taking about the form of theft here. Hopefully, finally, this decision will make liberals wake the hell up and realize how dangerous their ideas actually are. Under no circumstances should anything be taken from one person and given to another. Money or property (money is property ... if I earned it, I own it).
Look at our history people. It is the natural tendency of governments to abuse their power. That what the Declaration of Independence and the our Constitution is (or should I say was) all about! Limiting the power of government is necessary because that kind of absolute power is, and always has been, abused. The Constitution is one back fat stop sign. Laying out, clearly, what the government can not do. This can not, and should not, be a document whose interpretation "changes" over time. It means exactly what it says.
Oh, no say the liberals. "It's not fair that you earn all of this money and other people don't so I'm going to take some of it from you to help those in need". Well, what do you think is the natural extension of that idea? "It's not fair that you own this property and don't pay as much in taxes as someone else could pay if they had the property, after all, we've got to help those in need". Wake up liberals. Your ideas are destructive. You do not have the right, under any circumstances, to take what is mine and give it to someone else. Money or property. You don't have the right. Why? Because it can, will and is being abused. That's why. As noble as your intentions might be, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would be happy to donate my money to someone who was truly in need, and truly wanted to change things and to pick themselves up and get themselves back to a place where they can support themselves. I have and will continue to give to worthy charities. It, however, should be my decision. Not the government's. It's not their place. Once you begin to slide down that slippery slope where one person's money can be taken to "help" another, that persons land is the logical next step.
That depends on how big the letters are :-)
I can see the only scrolling headline now: "Stay the Hell Away From Microsoft!"