You are a fortunate non-member of the sheeple population, then (the liberal sheeple, not the conservative sheeple, just to be clear). A lot of people wouldn't bother with that thought, they'd just say something rude and comment on America being an imperialist power.
But back to censorship, two of the original infamous "seven" dirty words, the phrase "blow job", and the FCC...
What it comes down to (and this has been batted around so many times that I'm not sure why this latest PBS concession is news), is that public broadcasting stations have different standards that they have to adhere to than private (cable, scrambled satellite) broadcasters do. There are 2 main reasons for it: anybody can watch/listen, and no two communities have quite the same standards for what constitutes indecency as far as speech is concerned.
The reason that the FCC came out with the guidelines that they just about never have to enforce is so people in the more modest of these communities can watch television or listen to the radio during a certain timeframe without having to worry too much about seeing something that they might find offensive. Later at night (when most kids are sleeping), the rules relax, and there have been a number of similar concessions made over the years that have slowly allowed what would traditionally be considered risqe' words, apparel, or behavior to show up on public broadcasts.
It seems to fly in the face of the first amendment, but it is a long standing concession to the problems that decency standards and country-wide media programming have when they butt heads. I personally have no problem with the fact that boobs or other body parts may show up on TV, but I'd rather know about it ahead of time...that's me. I also have no particular problem with swear words (and the phrase "blow job"...whoever bleeped that one was a plain and simple asshat) on TV, although, again, advance warning would be nice. The system is there to protect those at the lower end of the tolerance-for-what-they-call-indecency spectrum. Yes, they can turn it off, or turn the channel, but should they *expect* to see some boobie with their superbowl? I know I didn't.
The reason I would like advance warning is that I consider the words to be a bit too rude to use in the company of people you don't know, and I don't want my kids to inadvertently see that happen. I'd like the opportunity to have them not watch that content until they're a bit older and a little more socially aware (probably 7 or so), and can actually discuss the words with me.
Some people think that's silly and uneccesary, and that's okay. Some people think it's too lax and irresponsible, and that's okay, too. Us disagreeing is fine with me.
So, since the f-word and the s-word are traditionally not heard on the airwaves (for various reasons), why is there so much commotion over the bleeping?
What's wrong with RICO? Nothing that's not wrong with the PATRIOT Act. They're more than a little but similar. This is extremely common knowledge...perhaps you were in Antarctica?
What part of the word "sensible" don't you understand? Hint: sensible != foolish
That said, no, I'm not just repeating propaganda (and I seldom buy into it...from either major political travest...er...party).
I *mean* exactly what I said. Kerry should figure out what he thinks about a particular thing (or several things), come up with a *sensible* stance, and stick with it for a while.
Picking a foolish stance will, indeed, make it all the more likely that your position is forced to change in order to prevent you from appearing stubborn or silly. Kerry's problem is that he's chosen a number of stances that have not been sensible, and this has made him look uncertain (better than foolish, I suppose).
From this, it is abundantly clear he is a blatant hypocrite.
True...but not moreso than any of the other religious-mined people that don't see these types of problems with their stance on that issue. Like I said, he's a religious-minded person, and I'm not. I'll never be able to understand why stem-cell research is so taboo.
All right, I'll dance with ya' if you really want me to.
I didn't say stem cell research was the only issue that has liberals afraid...what I did was respond to the only issue that the poster bothered providing a link to. Presumably, there was no evidence he/she could bother to dig up for the other issues. As such, I think I answered appropriately.
If you think congress votes straight party line, please do two things: one - remember that this is an election year, two - look at vote results on various bills via the link I included in my previous post. The congresscritters worth keeping vote their conscience, althought there aren't as many of those as I wish there were.
If you don't like COPA, I can understand why you don't like the Patriot Act. I was pretty disturbed by it until I realized that those particular civil liberties had already been co-opted without much fanfare.
"Sometimes the Constitution is a pain in the ass."
True...a thought no doubt echoed on both sides, know any liberals that enjoy the fact that decisions on marriage laws are delegated to the states. I guess it's kind of a moot point, since gay people can already get married (true, they'd have to marry a person of the opposite sex, but they aren't discriminated against based on the *current* definition of marriage). Constitutional difficulties are not a one-party problem...a sign that the Constitution's framers knew what they were doing (they managed to leave something to irritate everybody).
The giving comfort to the enemy thing is a troublesome one. It's true enough that those type of public statements embolden the enemy, but that kind of dissent is part of what makes America what it is.
The biggest winners in the war are the VP's former company and the Pres' family honor...an interesting statement that ignores a lot. The VP's former company has had a long-standing contract with the US army to do pretty much everything that needs doing, so,yeah, in a war, they're bound to come out ahead, but would you care to give me a figure for how much they're profiting? Last number I heard was under 100 million. Not chump change, but also not much more than they'd make if there wasn't a war going on.
As for the president's family honor...c'mon already! Are you saying that his family's esteem has gone up in your eyes because of the war? It was something that needed to be done for a couple of different reasons (IMHO), one humanitarian, and one national-security related.
The humanitarian reasons are obvious to me because I paid a visit to Iraq in early '91 while in uniform, and saw enough to come to the conclusion that Saddam was an unmitigated unscrupulous, sadistic bastard...still not sure why we didn't finish things then. They are not so obvious to many people because America is not the underdog in this fight, and underdogs are who most of America roots for...moreso in the press. There is ample coverage any time we do something wrong (a small percentage of the time), but not much when we do well, act humanely, and try to help out where others won't. Bullets are only part of what we brought to Iraq...those contractors that keep getting killed are helping to (re)build roads, schools, power stations, water treatment facilities, hospitals, and housing...nobody wants to talk about that because it's not as sexy.
I'm not saying Bush doesn't have a number of major policy flaws...border control and illegal immigrant policies are major problem points. He's got the same stupid "war on drugs" mentality that's been not working since Reagan got it going. He's too religious to allow reasonable scientific progress via stem cell research.
As for John Kerry, who knows what he thinks?
Here's to hoping I can find a good candidate other than those two to give my vote to (or that Bush tightens up the borders and quits listening to the pope...or that Kerry decides to pick a sensible stance on something and stay with it for good).
He may have pulled a scandal out of his a**, but that doesn't make the movie any worse or make any of the facts in it untrue.
You're right...the facts *are* true...he just strung them together in a fashion that makes it difficult to distinguish Moore's opinion from factual detail. It's true in 30-second pieces, and pure entertainment in it's entirety.
I watched "Roger and Me" when I was about 12, and thought it was very interesting, and felt bad for the folks in Flint, MI. "Bowling for Columbine" had me fired up until I started finding out how many situations were manufactured or creatively edited. At this point in the game, I think Moore is too angry about politics to do anything like honest documentary work, and the timing of this movie smells so much like politics that I can't stand it.
He's a great director/producer, but not the kind of person I'm going to turn to for factual or historical information...especially not in movie form.
Do you (does anyone, for that matter) *really* think Bush and Hitler are comparable in any way that's remotely important?
Actually, if you want to argue politics, I know of a good place to do it. The crowd leans a bit liberal, but most there can hold there own in an argument. Watch out for Paul..he's cranky.
Yeah...too bad we don't have a congress as part of the system of checks and balances in our country...oh, wait.
Certainly, the liberals out there would never subject us to any kind of excessive government control if they had a chance...oh, wait again.
*sigh*
That article basically says "Bush hampers stem cell research" (which is stupid, IMHO, but hey...he's a religious guy, and I'm not), and "Russian scientists were hampered by politics". Hardly a decent argument that GWB has created a tyranny in the US.
You just want to look at the earth, big difference.
Ahh...now I understand...you proceed from an incorrect assumption. I do want to look at the earth, yes (from space). I'd also like to look at maybe Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and (assuming some unimaginable advance in propulsion systems before I die) planets outside of the sol's gravity well. The ability to take that look is worth something, maybe my life, maybe not...obviously it's not worth your life (we're using two different price lists), but that's just a nice side-benefit of what you'd actually be doing, which is to go to space.
Again...if you'd rather wait until spaceflight for Joe average is routine, then be my guest. That doesn't mean that other people who are eager to go *now* and damn the odds of getting back are stupid, they just have different desires than you do.
Care to wager whether Buzz would have gone even if he wasn't testing all the systems and processes needed to get to space? We could try asking him, but I dunno if we'd get a response.
Space travel is not space colonization. All of the equipment created yet so far cannot sustain life without continuious and expensive resupply from the spacecraft where we currently live (Earth).
Space travel is not space colonization, but the two have a symbiotic relationship, and advancing one means advancing the other. It is true, at present, that we have to resupply all habitats to sustain life...all the more reason for active work to be done on severing that tie.
Early avaiation was explored by two brothers on winter vacations from thier bike building business, without any government money, but within twenty years of 'the first powered flight' (yes, I am aware of claims other than the Wright brothers) there was substantial commerical investments in the business. While the government was an early well-funded client, it certainly didn't provide the seed.
You seem to be saying the same thing that you quoted me as saying. Commercial investment of time and resources was what made aviation go.
Just because you are not aware of it, doesn't mean that most every decsion is a "risk analysis" of some type, hell some guy decided that attaching ballons to a lawn chair was an acceptable risk for the benefit of the experience. I don't know what the odds are for a "lawn chair" launch, but I don't believe that it would be worth the experience.
And I'd have to agree, but then again, I have no burning desire to travel by balloon, and I can't see much point in it, much unlike the subject at hand.
However I do believe that the 1 in 56 chance of DEATH with the space shuttle is both acceptable to me and quite daring. You really have to look to Russian Roulette before you find an experience with "worse odds" for the experience.
I think I understand wher we're differing. I think that space exploration is absolutely essential (not just important) to the human race, so any risks associated with advancing that goal are acceptable. I don't think that russian roulette is essential for any particular purpose, so for me, there isn't a real comparison there. The odds only matter if you're talking about comparable undertakings in terms of how desirable they are to accomplish.
Just because I approach the subject with some logic and careful consideration doesn't mean that that I don't believe in the project. I am all for manned space exploration, and strongly believe that it is important for the future of humanity.
I'm glad to hear it. A lot of people think it's not important at all.
If you think it's stupid, you think it's stupid. I heard you the first time. The fact that you keep repeating it isn't likely to make me agree with you, though.
Buzz Aldrin got more than 60 seconds worth of view, but had no realistic expectation of surviving to tell about it. Does that make him stupid?
I dunno...machines break. Constantly. If the machines you're sending have to be able to do soe useful work, you pretty much have to send along pairs of technicians (or technicians and adventurous "companions" for company.)
By the time people get out there in large numbers, they may have a hostile, well-equipped, robot-enabled, technically-savvy, indigenous population to deal with.
On related matter, I don't think that we'll ever see colonization of space (other than the occasional oddball), the cost of maintaining life there is too high, and will likely remain so through our lifetimes.
*sigh* Right. We won't see colonization of space. Whatever you say. Why don't we just back up a bit and we caqn see how many other things there are that should have been discounted out-of-hand, shall we?
We'll never put a man on the moon/in space
We'll never be able to have computers small enough to fit in our homes
Men will never be able to fly
You can't sail around the world
Yes, I realize that you didn't say we'd never have space colonization at all, but why presume to know that it won't happen before you die? The cost of maintaining life there is to high...ahh...yes. Of course, all of the programs, vehicles, habitats, and support systems created to date to accomplish that goal have been developed by governments. Same thing happened with early aviation, but of course, commercialization changed a lot about the costs.
It's true that we. are. in. space. already. but that's not the point. We have no ability to steer this spaceship, and that makes it a bit difficult to explore anything other than the spaceship we're on. It's also getting a bit crowded in a few of the cabins, and some of the passengers are getting restless.
If your big ambition is just to *look* at the other stars, then I guess I can see your point, but if you have a shred of optimism, and an explorer's spirit (as many of us do), looking at the stars is just the thing that makes you want to *go* there...or at least to try.
You have fun with your risk-analysis and be safe, and others will have fun with their dreams and leap at a chance for something like space travel.
[sarcasm]Ahh...that's what I like to hear...that good old can-do pioneer spirit that makes America great[/sarcasm] (guessing you're American, based on your e-mail).
I guess it's a good thing that not everyone has that attitude, or there'd be no "others" to work out the bugs for you.
If you want to know how to make scalingwork, why not read up on the standard.
You won't see more of this type of thing in browsers...at least I hope not...that would mean that web designers are going to have to wrestle even more control back from know-it-all browsers like I.E. Hell, it took me forever to figure out why IE insisted on putting scroll-bars on my pages and making the text go off the edge of the screen, but only in certain cases (there's some stupid "compatibility mode" it kicks into when it gets scared that things aren't going to render right).
I got around the problem (have to add an xml declaration before the doctype), but then again, the only reason I *noticed* the problem is because of something that nobody much talks about...compatibility testing.
Making sure that your page looks right in IE, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, etc is the job of the web designer. CSS and the w3c provide so many tools to accomplish this that a designer who pleads ignorance or insists on making everything a huge table layout full of rectangular chunks of a sliced-up picture doesn't deserve that title.
If you whine to me that my images don't scale on your monitor, and it's important enough to me, I'll make sure that I write code that takes screen resolution into account. The reason that I'm even able to is that I take the time to find out what the standard is, and a way to do it it spelled out pretty clearly.
So, pick your statement...do they have a right to tell you whether you can make copies, or just to tell you whether you can distribute copies. The distinction is fair use in a nutshell, and it's the reason that this whole protection scheme is a crock of shit.
If they want to crack down on file-sharers or bootleg CD peddlers, fine, but they don't need to impinge on my ability to make 10 million copies for my 10 million hypothetical vehicles, houses, and boats...and , of course, back-up media...at least until they start providing free replacements for scratched media.
That's another interesting point of contention, really. What are you buying? If you're buying only the actual media (as this copy-protection scheme seems to imply), why won't they replace a CD that becomes delaminated through use? The answer, of course, is that they can sell you a replacement CD...unless you made a copy yourself when you got the CD in the first place, and listened to it until it wore out...well, you can see how both sides of that equation work out, I'm sure.
If I'm not distributing them to others, I'm not in violation of copyright law. Hard feelings on the part of the RIAA don't change that. Neither does business mismanagement or a failure to adapt to a changing market.
Slashdot Mirror
But back to censorship, two of the original infamous "seven" dirty words, the phrase "blow job", and the FCC...
What it comes down to (and this has been batted around so many times that I'm not sure why this latest PBS concession is news), is that public broadcasting stations have different standards that they have to adhere to than private (cable, scrambled satellite) broadcasters do. There are 2 main reasons for it: anybody can watch/listen, and no two communities have quite the same standards for what constitutes indecency as far as speech is concerned.
The reason that the FCC came out with the guidelines that they just about never have to enforce is so people in the more modest of these communities can watch television or listen to the radio during a certain timeframe without having to worry too much about seeing something that they might find offensive. Later at night (when most kids are sleeping), the rules relax, and there have been a number of similar concessions made over the years that have slowly allowed what would traditionally be considered risqe' words, apparel, or behavior to show up on public broadcasts.
It seems to fly in the face of the first amendment, but it is a long standing concession to the problems that decency standards and country-wide media programming have when they butt heads. I personally have no problem with the fact that boobs or other body parts may show up on TV, but I'd rather know about it ahead of time...that's me. I also have no particular problem with swear words (and the phrase "blow job"...whoever bleeped that one was a plain and simple asshat) on TV, although, again, advance warning would be nice. The system is there to protect those at the lower end of the tolerance-for-what-they-call-indecency spectrum. Yes, they can turn it off, or turn the channel, but should they *expect* to see some boobie with their superbowl? I know I didn't.
The reason I would like advance warning is that I consider the words to be a bit too rude to use in the company of people you don't know, and I don't want my kids to inadvertently see that happen. I'd like the opportunity to have them not watch that content until they're a bit older and a little more socially aware (probably 7 or so), and can actually discuss the words with me.
Some people think that's silly and uneccesary, and that's okay. Some people think it's too lax and irresponsible, and that's okay, too. Us disagreeing is fine with me.
So, since the f-word and the s-word are traditionally not heard on the airwaves (for various reasons), why is there so much commotion over the bleeping?
What's wrong with RICO? Nothing that's not wrong with the PATRIOT Act. They're more than a little but similar. This is extremely common knowledge...perhaps you were in Antarctica?
That said, no, I'm not just repeating propaganda (and I seldom buy into it...from either major political travest...er...party).
I *mean* exactly what I said. Kerry should figure out what he thinks about a particular thing (or several things), come up with a *sensible* stance, and stick with it for a while.
Picking a foolish stance will, indeed, make it all the more likely that your position is forced to change in order to prevent you from appearing stubborn or silly. Kerry's problem is that he's chosen a number of stances that have not been sensible, and this has made him look uncertain (better than foolish, I suppose).
Not to quibble, but I'm pretty sure it was congress that came up with the Patriot act...and RICO, too.
Sorry...brain fart
True...but not moreso than any of the other religious-mined people that don't see these types of problems with their stance on that issue. Like I said, he's a religious-minded person, and I'm not. I'll never be able to understand why stem-cell research is so taboo.
I didn't say stem cell research was the only issue that has liberals afraid...what I did was respond to the only issue that the poster bothered providing a link to. Presumably, there was no evidence he/she could bother to dig up for the other issues. As such, I think I answered appropriately.
If you think congress votes straight party line, please do two things: one - remember that this is an election year, two - look at vote results on various bills via the link I included in my previous post. The congresscritters worth keeping vote their conscience, althought there aren't as many of those as I wish there were.
If you don't like COPA, I can understand why you don't like the Patriot Act. I was pretty disturbed by it until I realized that those particular civil liberties had already been co-opted without much fanfare.
"Sometimes the Constitution is a pain in the ass."
True...a thought no doubt echoed on both sides, know any liberals that enjoy the fact that decisions on marriage laws are delegated to the states. I guess it's kind of a moot point, since gay people can already get married (true, they'd have to marry a person of the opposite sex, but they aren't discriminated against based on the *current* definition of marriage). Constitutional difficulties are not a one-party problem...a sign that the Constitution's framers knew what they were doing (they managed to leave something to irritate everybody).
The giving comfort to the enemy thing is a troublesome one. It's true enough that those type of public statements embolden the enemy, but that kind of dissent is part of what makes America what it is.
The biggest winners in the war are the VP's former company and the Pres' family honor...an interesting statement that ignores a lot. The VP's former company has had a long-standing contract with the US army to do pretty much everything that needs doing, so ,yeah, in a war, they're bound to come out ahead, but would you care to give me a figure for how much they're profiting? Last number I heard was under 100 million. Not chump change, but also not much more than they'd make if there wasn't a war going on.
As for the president's family honor...c'mon already! Are you saying that his family's esteem has gone up in your eyes because of the war? It was something that needed to be done for a couple of different reasons (IMHO), one humanitarian, and one national-security related.
The humanitarian reasons are obvious to me because I paid a visit to Iraq in early '91 while in uniform, and saw enough to come to the conclusion that Saddam was an unmitigated unscrupulous, sadistic bastard...still not sure why we didn't finish things then. They are not so obvious to many people because America is not the underdog in this fight, and underdogs are who most of America roots for...moreso in the press. There is ample coverage any time we do something wrong (a small percentage of the time), but not much when we do well, act humanely, and try to help out where others won't. Bullets are only part of what we brought to Iraq...those contractors that keep getting killed are helping to (re)build roads, schools, power stations, water treatment facilities, hospitals, and housing...nobody wants to talk about that because it's not as sexy.
I'm not saying Bush doesn't have a number of major policy flaws...border control and illegal immigrant policies are major problem points. He's got the same stupid "war on drugs" mentality that's been not working since Reagan got it going. He's too religious to allow reasonable scientific progress via stem cell research.
As for John Kerry, who knows what he thinks?
Here's to hoping I can find a good candidate other than those two to give my vote to (or that Bush tightens up the borders and quits listening to the pope...or that Kerry decides to pick a sensible stance on something and stay with it for good).
You're right...the facts *are* true...he just strung them together in a fashion that makes it difficult to distinguish Moore's opinion from factual detail. It's true in 30-second pieces, and pure entertainment in it's entirety.
I watched "Roger and Me" when I was about 12, and thought it was very interesting, and felt bad for the folks in Flint, MI. "Bowling for Columbine" had me fired up until I started finding out how many situations were manufactured or creatively edited. At this point in the game, I think Moore is too angry about politics to do anything like honest documentary work, and the timing of this movie smells so much like politics that I can't stand it.
He's a great director/producer, but not the kind of person I'm going to turn to for factual or historical information...especially not in movie form.
Do you (does anyone, for that matter) *really* think Bush and Hitler are comparable in any way that's remotely important?
Actually, if you want to argue politics, I know of a good place to do it. The crowd leans a bit liberal, but most there can hold there own in an argument. Watch out for Paul..he's cranky.
Certainly, the liberals out there would never subject us to any kind of excessive government control if they had a chance...oh, wait again.
*sigh*
That article basically says "Bush hampers stem cell research" (which is stupid, IMHO, but hey...he's a religious guy, and I'm not), and "Russian scientists were hampered by politics". Hardly a decent argument that GWB has created a tyranny in the US.
Of course, you could have just said that before, but this *is* Slashdot. I salute you on your ability to protract an argument.
emerge peaceonearth
...and what kind of words are often used to describe terrorists? Brutal? Evil? Hmm...
It's a media-worthy (read 'soundbite') statement, but it's not true in any obvious way.
Islamic extremists suck, but so does/did Saddam. Him staying in power would have been (IMHO) a "Very Bad Thing" (tm).
Ahh...now I understand...you proceed from an incorrect assumption. I do want to look at the earth, yes (from space). I'd also like to look at maybe Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and (assuming some unimaginable advance in propulsion systems before I die) planets outside of the sol's gravity well. The ability to take that look is worth something, maybe my life, maybe not...obviously it's not worth your life (we're using two different price lists), but that's just a nice side-benefit of what you'd actually be doing, which is to go to space.
Again...if you'd rather wait until spaceflight for Joe average is routine, then be my guest. That doesn't mean that other people who are eager to go *now* and damn the odds of getting back are stupid, they just have different desires than you do.
Care to wager whether Buzz would have gone even if he wasn't testing all the systems and processes needed to get to space? We could try asking him, but I dunno if we'd get a response.
Space travel is not space colonization, but the two have a symbiotic relationship, and advancing one means advancing the other. It is true, at present, that we have to resupply all habitats to sustain life...all the more reason for active work to be done on severing that tie.
Early avaiation was explored by two brothers on winter vacations from thier bike building business, without any government money, but within twenty years of 'the first powered flight' (yes, I am aware of claims other than the Wright brothers) there was substantial commerical investments in the business. While the government was an early well-funded client, it certainly didn't provide the seed.
You seem to be saying the same thing that you quoted me as saying. Commercial investment of time and resources was what made aviation go.
Just because you are not aware of it, doesn't mean that most every decsion is a "risk analysis" of some type, hell some guy decided that attaching ballons to a lawn chair was an acceptable risk for the benefit of the experience. I don't know what the odds are for a "lawn chair" launch, but I don't believe that it would be worth the experience.
And I'd have to agree, but then again, I have no burning desire to travel by balloon, and I can't see much point in it, much unlike the subject at hand.
However I do believe that the 1 in 56 chance of DEATH with the space shuttle is both acceptable to me and quite daring. You really have to look to Russian Roulette before you find an experience with "worse odds" for the experience.
I think I understand wher we're differing. I think that space exploration is absolutely essential (not just important) to the human race, so any risks associated with advancing that goal are acceptable. I don't think that russian roulette is essential for any particular purpose, so for me, there isn't a real comparison there. The odds only matter if you're talking about comparable undertakings in terms of how desirable they are to accomplish.
Just because I approach the subject with some logic and careful consideration doesn't mean that that I don't believe in the project. I am all for manned space exploration, and strongly believe that it is important for the future of humanity.
I'm glad to hear it. A lot of people think it's not important at all.
Buzz Aldrin got more than 60 seconds worth of view, but had no realistic expectation of surviving to tell about it. Does that make him stupid?
By the time people get out there in large numbers, they may have a hostile, well-equipped, robot-enabled, technically-savvy, indigenous population to deal with.
*sigh* Right. We won't see colonization of space. Whatever you say. Why don't we just back up a bit and we caqn see how many other things there are that should have been discounted out-of-hand, shall we?
Yes, I realize that you didn't say we'd never have space colonization at all, but why presume to know that it won't happen before you die? The cost of maintaining life there is to high...ahh...yes. Of course, all of the programs, vehicles, habitats, and support systems created to date to accomplish that goal have been developed by governments. Same thing happened with early aviation, but of course, commercialization changed a lot about the costs.
It's true that we. are. in. space. already. but that's not the point. We have no ability to steer this spaceship, and that makes it a bit difficult to explore anything other than the spaceship we're on. It's also getting a bit crowded in a few of the cabins, and some of the passengers are getting restless.
If your big ambition is just to *look* at the other stars, then I guess I can see your point, but if you have a shred of optimism, and an explorer's spirit (as many of us do), looking at the stars is just the thing that makes you want to *go* there...or at least to try.
You have fun with your risk-analysis and be safe, and others will have fun with their dreams and leap at a chance for something like space travel.
I guess it's a good thing that not everyone has that attitude, or there'd be no "others" to work out the bugs for you.
You won't see more of this type of thing in browsers...at least I hope not...that would mean that web designers are going to have to wrestle even more control back from know-it-all browsers like I.E. Hell, it took me forever to figure out why IE insisted on putting scroll-bars on my pages and making the text go off the edge of the screen, but only in certain cases (there's some stupid "compatibility mode" it kicks into when it gets scared that things aren't going to render right).
I got around the problem (have to add an xml declaration before the doctype), but then again, the only reason I *noticed* the problem is because of something that nobody much talks about...compatibility testing.
Making sure that your page looks right in IE, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, etc is the job of the web designer. CSS and the w3c provide so many tools to accomplish this that a designer who pleads ignorance or insists on making everything a huge table layout full of rectangular chunks of a sliced-up picture doesn't deserve that title.
If you whine to me that my images don't scale on your monitor, and it's important enough to me, I'll make sure that I write code that takes screen resolution into account. The reason that I'm even able to is that I take the time to find out what the standard is, and a way to do it it spelled out pretty clearly.
1. one man's "-1 troll" is another man's "+5 funny" (and this AC owes me a new keyboard...apparently mine doesn't like cherry coke)
2. you had the balls to say "I only get one spam a day" and didn't think anything would happen? Puh-leeeeeease.
If they want to crack down on file-sharers or bootleg CD peddlers, fine, but they don't need to impinge on my ability to make 10 million copies for my 10 million hypothetical vehicles, houses, and boats...and , of course, back-up media...at least until they start providing free replacements for scratched media.
That's another interesting point of contention, really. What are you buying? If you're buying only the actual media (as this copy-protection scheme seems to imply), why won't they replace a CD that becomes delaminated through use? The answer, of course, is that they can sell you a replacement CD...unless you made a copy yourself when you got the CD in the first place, and listened to it until it wore out...well, you can see how both sides of that equation work out, I'm sure.
If I'm not distributing them to others, I'm not in violation of copyright law. Hard feelings on the part of the RIAA don't change that. Neither does business mismanagement or a failure to adapt to a changing market.
Wait...don't answer that. I'm not sure whether I'd be more upset if you are ir if you aren't...
You are aware that most of the trains in operation today are diesel/electric hybrids, right?
Well, it wasn't about *my* sister...