Umm... Most of the cost that Europeans pay for fuel is in the form of taxes, which they have voluntarily inflicted upon themselves, and not some kind of relationship to status as a world power. Oil is traded in a world market, whoever pays more gets the oil.
Also, the housing prices you linked to are in cost/square METER. Given that there are roughly ten square feet in a square meter, the costs are 2x, not 24x as you suggest.
I think you're seeing things through a tinted lens... Intel DID care about 64-bit, provably so as they wasted billions on Itanium--a ground up redesign, like what you wanted, unlike AMD64 which was just a bolt on. Seeing all the negative comments in the "x86 hits 30 years of age" thread a week or so ago, I can't help but wonder if AMD's move will turn out, in hindsight, to have been something that held back computing by further extending the lifespan of the x86 architecture--something you would otherwise seem to be against, given your reference to PowerPC.
Lastly, MS spends huge amounts of effort on backward compatibility because their customer base demands it. Even so, x64 builds of Windows do not support 16bit applications at all, so I don't know why you brought that up.
I had 64bit command line/linux back in 2003 with my first G5 1600 switched from PC at last, so it was 64bit processor, I could install 8 gig of RAM. Now imagine I switch back to Vista 64 bit and watch people saying how cool 64bit is after 5 years.
That's not a technology problem, that's an adoption rate problem... Windows has supported 64-bit operation since 2002 (for Itanium.)
I would, but like the other residents of the District of Columbia, we don't get a say in the matter.
Well, given that you live in the United States of America, and DC is neither a state, nor part of any state, what do you expect? You do have three viable options to fix this, though:
Start a movement geared toward obtaining statehood for the District of Columbia.
Petition the government to return the residential parts of DC to Maryland and Virginia.
Move somewhere that IS part of a state.
Personally, I like option 2... there's something very wrong with your city, and the fact that the federal government has such broad jurisdiction over it is a big part of that.
I wish I had mod points, because you state the case very well. There's really only one area I disagree with you, and that's your point about Exchange. If you do the math, it's really not that expensive, and is pretty much worth the money... it also doesn't require hardware that's particularly beefy unless you're talking about some fairly large installations.
There's also the bit that if you're a Linux shop, you don't HAVE to go to the community and use the latest flavor of Exchange killer... there's always Domino. Not free or Free, but if you're trying to push Microsoft out of the environment, it might be a worth looking at.
Lots of other nice minor improvements since the XP days. The only real complaint most folks I encounter have with Outlook is that you cant have your Calendar and your Mail as separate windows (so you can alt+tab between them).
This is untrue. Just right-click on the calendar or contacts folder and click "open in new window."
On a side note, whats with those extremely long terms in prison? Anyone going in for 25 years will never be able to get back into society - I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order.
Funny, why did you seize upon one word? Did I only quote "regulate?" Or is that just the easiest way to attack? The phrases "well regulated" and "security of a free state," taken in conjunction with the phrases "bear arms" (you might want to check 18th century uses of that phrase--it refers to military service and not private gun ownership) suggests a collective right, not an individual one.
I can only assume--and forgive me if I do so incorrectly--that you support some form of gun control. If that's true, then I've had this conversation dozens of times previously. I "seized upon" (as you put it) that one word because it handily refutes your argument. Most gun control advocates point to the phrase "well regulated" as if it is acceptable to propagate "regulations" (i.e. laws) that infringe on the right to bear arms. However, when you take the language out of a modern context, and read it using the meanings the words had when it was written, you find that it's a simple statement: a well trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state. I ask you: where is the ambiguity here?
As for "bear arms," someone else has already pointed out that there is language is state constitutions of the time that recognize the right to bears arms in defense of self in addition to the state. While this has no bearing in the federal context (except perhaps as a lens to view the 2nd amendment through) it's fairly clear that "bear arms" can mean something beyond military service.
Last, let's say--just for the sake of argument--that you're correct about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, that "bear arms" applies only in connection with military service, and that "regulate" implies the modern sense of the word. We'll also ignore all the contemporary writings on the subject, and conclude that the 2nd amendment is not a bar to restricting the ownership of firearms. We're still left with a problem: the constitution states that the federal government is one of limited powers, and has only those powers specifically delegated to it. Nowhere in the constitution will you find the power of the federal government to pass laws against firearms ownership.
And the whole "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," has absolutely no meaning and is completely extraneous?
No, of course it has meaning. You might want to find an 18th century dictionary, though, and look up the word "regulate." If I can steal a line from the Princess Bride: "You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
The Second Amendment defends the rights of the states to form militias, it's a collective state right, not an individual one
Right. Because "The People" in the 2nd amendment are obviously not the same "The People" from the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Those are clearly some other people. Or maybe the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments are also some kind of nebulous collective right that can be defined out of existence on a whim?
If one were intellectually honest, they might even question themselves on why the 2nd amendment would be about state militias when the congress has the power to federalize them... if it were about balance between the federal government and the states, why would the federal government have the power to take those militias away for federal service?
By the way, neither states nor the federal government have rights--they have powers.
The Second Amendment is arcane, and it doesn't give private citizens the right to have guns for whatever purposes they want.
If you don't like it, work to change it. There's a mechanism in the constitution to do just that. But unless and until you change it, it remains the supreme law of the land. When you attempt to define it out of existence, you just weaken all other constitutional protections. Here's a hint: the constitution says that the federal government has NO POWER other than what is specifically granted to it by the constitution. Nowhere in there will you find the authority to propagate laws restricting the ownership of firearms.
If by "shitting" on it, you mean, actually keeping it confined to something resembling what it was meant to do, then yes, we have been. There's a reason violent gun deaths here dwarf all of Europe combined, and it's not because gun control laws are too strict.
I think you misundersand what "it was meant to do." The 2nd amendment was meant to leave ultimate power in the hands of the people--by enabling them to take up arms against a tyrannical government if required. Recall that the men who wrote the constitution has just done this very thing themselves--in fact, Lexington and Concord, the first battles of the Revolutionary War, were fought because the government was attempting to disarm the citizenry.
As far as "gun deaths" go, the sad truth is that Americans just seem to like killing each other... take away guns, and those intending to murder will use knives. Take away knives and they'll use baseball bats. Take away bats, and they'll use hands and feet. I'm not saying that I LIKE that this is the way things are, but this is the way things are. I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore, but I thought he made some really good points in Bowling for Columbine... it's a pity that instead of following them to their logical conclusion, he just settled on blaming an old man with Alzheimers instead.
What about using EM induction to slow down trains? How much electricity could a freight train generate if it stopped using a "third rail" and some magnets beginning a few miles out of town (when it'll already begin slowing down). The savings in mech braking wear and tear, the usefulness of the quantity of electricity generated, the predictability, reliability, simplicity, and cost of such a system make this idea seem so much better than trying to harness the power of "walking."
What you're suggesting has been done for decades. This is how freight engines already work--they don't use any kind of third rail, they're basically large diesel generators, a bunch of batteries, and some electric motors. When slowing down, they reclaim some energy in a similar way to what you propose.
I didn't turn my back on the Republicans. They turned their backs on me. I wanted fiscal conservatives. I got spending that made the liberals turn green with envy. I wanted strong foriegn policy. I got a war over non-existant WMDs, which has weakened both our military and our political capital with other nations. I wanted to escape the Democrats fear-mongering. I got Republican fear-mongering.
I agree with everything you say above, and have been saying much the same thing since 2002-2003. I also agree with another poster who responded to your post--welcome to my friends list.
That said, I cannot understand how you believe the above, and then say (or at least imply, given the post you responded to) that you will vote for Obama. I've heard Ron Paul supporters say the same thing, and am completely mystified by it--yes, I agree that we need change in Washington, but he appears to want to go in the opposite direction of where I want to head... he has ties to corrupt businessmen, just like every other politician, lies through his teeth about his knowledge and beliefs (unless you really think he could have gone to Wright's church for two decades and actually been ignorant about what it apparently stands for), and has absolutely no record on anything. WTF?
Umm, you do realize that this entire article is about Obama WINNING the nomination right? That means Hillary can't get the nomination, or in other words, SHE LOST.
Shouting doesn't make you correct, it just makes you look stupid.
The primaries are very similar to the general election in that you are not voting for a candidate, you are voting for a delegate pledged to that candidate. Those delegates will vote at the party conventions to elect a candidate. Until they vote, there is no nominee. Yes, enough superdelegates have said they will vote for Obama that he can safely claim victory, but they can change their minds, they do not HAVE to vote that way. Unless Clinton drops out before the convention, it is possible that she could be the nominee.
I will agree that this is very unlikely, but it is not impossible, and does NOT require any kind of vote rigging to occur.
If someone pushes in the fender of your Ferrari, it's cosmetic, and an annoyance. You take the car to a body and fender shop (as upscale as you want to be... it IS a Ferrari, after all) and they fix your vehicle in a couple of hours, maybe a day or three.
If someone pushes in the "fender" of this car/plane hybrid, it's a damaged airfoil and potentially hazardous. You take it to a federally certificated A&P mechanic, of which there are relatively few these days--your airport may or may not have one--who will take a couple of days if you're lucky, and weeks to months if you're not.
I really shudder at the thought of something like this. It's scary enough what GA aircraft can be subject to at airports, but can you imagine trusting your $150,000 light aircraft to the mercies of rush hour traffic? You're a braver man than I am...
Remember: Only you can prevent firewire. This is your computer. This is your computer in a botnet. Got v146rA?....Please, buy your pharmaceuticals from a pharmacy, not junk email.
I just got a disturbing image of R. Lee Ermey chanting, "This is my PC, this is my Mac!"
I have as many problems with the current state of copyright law as you apparently do, but if given an outlet like hulu to get the content I want, I'll take it over bittorrent. In the end, someone has to pay for production, or the show will fail and there will be no more episodes.
since when do cappers keep the commercials? or are the encoders putting in adds?
He's talking about sites like hulu.com which offer (apparently) legit streaming video of things like TV shows and movies. They include limited commercial breaks--in BSG episodes (which is all I have watched) it's three 30-second ads to the standard episode. Ninety seconds of ads sure beats the standard of Sci-fi network, which is closer to fifteen minutes.
And there's been a great deal of debate as to the choice of the phrase "A well regulated militia". Some have chosen to interpret the amendment as a blanket statement protecting the right to bear arms for all citizens. But not everyone agrees with that.
I understand that not everyone agrees with that. I keep coming back to the idea, though, that anybody focusing on that bit of prose--to the point where they believe that it trumps what is clearly labeled a "right of the people"--is usually doing so in a vacuum.
Have you ever gone through the writings of the people who founded our nation, and their thoughts on the right to bear arms? Have you ever looked at the phrase "well regulated militia" through the meaning of the time, instead of the definition of "regulate" as it is understood today? How about state constitutions of the same vintage? Most of them have a similar provision, some less ambiguous (and some more ambiguous, to be sure.) How about the notion that the Constitution defines a federal government of limited powers, and none of those powers appears to allow it to disarm the people? Even if there is no explicit right to bear arms defined in the second amendment (and I disagree completely with such a position) what about the ninth and the tenth?
Focusing on the entirety of the issue, I find it hard to come to another conclusion other than that there is a right of the people to keep and bear arms (for defense of themselves and the state) that is NOT subject to infringement by the federal government (now whether or not the individual states may do so is another question, and this would seem to be a 14th amendment issue that has, so far, not been addressed by the supreme court.)
No, such matters should be debated on their merits alone, not defended just because some people wrote them on a piece of paper a couple hundred years ago.
I, personally, support the right to bear arms because I believe it to be necessary for man (and I use that word in its gender neutral sense--women need that right just as much, if not more) to have the right to defend himself--be it from a wild animal, his fellow man, his government, or some foreign power. I do not believe in it simply because someone wrote it down a few hundred years ago. I'd like to think that Heston felt the same way, and I think his marching with Dr. King points in that direction.
I agree with you, though--matters should be debated on the merits. Most proponents of gun control do not want to debate the issue on it's merits, or follow the process--it's usually "ZOMG! Think of the childrens!!!11one" Again, like it or not, our constitution is the supreme law of the land, and not just a piece of paper the way some in the white house would have you believe. It cannot, MUST NOT simply be circumvented! The men who wrote our Constitution were pretty bright guys though, and knew that it would not (could not!) possibly cover every situation. Their solution to this was to allow the document to be changed, and they included a process for doing so.
If you can ignore this process for the right to bear arms, what does that say about free speech? Freedom of religion? Or any other freedoms you hold dear?
However, when I heard he was involved with the gun association, it disappointed me and lowered him in my eyes. He may have been a great actor but I just don't share his thinking on such matters like gun control.
When you look at his life in its entirety, it makes perfect sense. What it comes down to is that Charlton Heston became involved with the NRA for the same reason that he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King--to him, it was a civil rights issue.
You can debate the right and wrong of the American right to keep and bear arms until the cows come home, but like it or not, the men who founded our nation had certain beliefs about what constituted the natural rights of men. They wrote some of these rights into our Constitution: free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, the right to be secure from intrusive government searches, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the right to bear arms, and more. Heston was a man who believed in those rights, and was willing to lend his fame to various causes in support of them. That's really all there is to it.
So, feel free to think less of him for it (I'm sure that while he disagreed with what you had to say, he would have defended to the death your right to say it) but while you're doing so, also think about the notion that if you start to pick and choose what rights you think people ought to have, and try to redefine those rights out of existence, then someone else later will have an easier time of stripping the citizenry of the rights that YOU yourself hold dear. One need look no further than the current occupant of the white house to see such a process in action.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... Most of the cost that Europeans pay for fuel is in the form of taxes, which they have voluntarily inflicted upon themselves, and not some kind of relationship to status as a world power. Oil is traded in a world market, whoever pays more gets the oil.
Also, the housing prices you linked to are in cost/square METER. Given that there are roughly ten square feet in a square meter, the costs are 2x, not 24x as you suggest.
I think you're seeing things through a tinted lens... Intel DID care about 64-bit, provably so as they wasted billions on Itanium--a ground up redesign, like what you wanted, unlike AMD64 which was just a bolt on. Seeing all the negative comments in the "x86 hits 30 years of age" thread a week or so ago, I can't help but wonder if AMD's move will turn out, in hindsight, to have been something that held back computing by further extending the lifespan of the x86 architecture--something you would otherwise seem to be against, given your reference to PowerPC.
Lastly, MS spends huge amounts of effort on backward compatibility because their customer base demands it. Even so, x64 builds of Windows do not support 16bit applications at all, so I don't know why you brought that up.
That's not a technology problem, that's an adoption rate problem... Windows has supported 64-bit operation since 2002 (for Itanium.)
Yep, my mistake.
Well, given that you live in the United States of America, and DC is neither a state, nor part of any state, what do you expect? You do have three viable options to fix this, though:
Personally, I like option 2... there's something very wrong with your city, and the fact that the federal government has such broad jurisdiction over it is a big part of that.
I wish I had mod points, because you state the case very well. There's really only one area I disagree with you, and that's your point about Exchange. If you do the math, it's really not that expensive, and is pretty much worth the money... it also doesn't require hardware that's particularly beefy unless you're talking about some fairly large installations.
There's also the bit that if you're a Linux shop, you don't HAVE to go to the community and use the latest flavor of Exchange killer... there's always Domino. Not free or Free, but if you're trying to push Microsoft out of the environment, it might be a worth looking at.
This is untrue. Just right-click on the calendar or contacts folder and click "open in new window."
So what do you suggest for murder? 12 months?
I can only assume--and forgive me if I do so incorrectly--that you support some form of gun control. If that's true, then I've had this conversation dozens of times previously. I "seized upon" (as you put it) that one word because it handily refutes your argument. Most gun control advocates point to the phrase "well regulated" as if it is acceptable to propagate "regulations" (i.e. laws) that infringe on the right to bear arms. However, when you take the language out of a modern context, and read it using the meanings the words had when it was written, you find that it's a simple statement: a well trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state. I ask you: where is the ambiguity here?
As for "bear arms," someone else has already pointed out that there is language is state constitutions of the time that recognize the right to bears arms in defense of self in addition to the state. While this has no bearing in the federal context (except perhaps as a lens to view the 2nd amendment through) it's fairly clear that "bear arms" can mean something beyond military service.
Last, let's say--just for the sake of argument--that you're correct about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, that "bear arms" applies only in connection with military service, and that "regulate" implies the modern sense of the word. We'll also ignore all the contemporary writings on the subject, and conclude that the 2nd amendment is not a bar to restricting the ownership of firearms. We're still left with a problem: the constitution states that the federal government is one of limited powers, and has only those powers specifically delegated to it. Nowhere in the constitution will you find the power of the federal government to pass laws against firearms ownership.
Nothing more than feelings?
No, of course it has meaning. You might want to find an 18th century dictionary, though, and look up the word "regulate." If I can steal a line from the Princess Bride: "You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
Right. Because "The People" in the 2nd amendment are obviously not the same "The People" from the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Those are clearly some other people. Or maybe the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments are also some kind of nebulous collective right that can be defined out of existence on a whim?
If one were intellectually honest, they might even question themselves on why the 2nd amendment would be about state militias when the congress has the power to federalize them... if it were about balance between the federal government and the states, why would the federal government have the power to take those militias away for federal service?
By the way, neither states nor the federal government have rights--they have powers.
If you don't like it, work to change it. There's a mechanism in the constitution to do just that. But unless and until you change it, it remains the supreme law of the land. When you attempt to define it out of existence, you just weaken all other constitutional protections. Here's a hint: the constitution says that the federal government has NO POWER other than what is specifically granted to it by the constitution. Nowhere in there will you find the authority to propagate laws restricting the ownership of firearms.
I think you misundersand what "it was meant to do." The 2nd amendment was meant to leave ultimate power in the hands of the people--by enabling them to take up arms against a tyrannical government if required. Recall that the men who wrote the constitution has just done this very thing themselves--in fact, Lexington and Concord, the first battles of the Revolutionary War, were fought because the government was attempting to disarm the citizenry.
As far as "gun deaths" go, the sad truth is that Americans just seem to like killing each other... take away guns, and those intending to murder will use knives. Take away knives and they'll use baseball bats. Take away bats, and they'll use hands and feet. I'm not saying that I LIKE that this is the way things are, but this is the way things are. I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore, but I thought he made some really good points in Bowling for Columbine... it's a pity that instead of following them to their logical conclusion, he just settled on blaming an old man with Alzheimers instead.
What you're suggesting has been done for decades. This is how freight engines already work--they don't use any kind of third rail, they're basically large diesel generators, a bunch of batteries, and some electric motors. When slowing down, they reclaim some energy in a similar way to what you propose.
I agree with everything you say above, and have been saying much the same thing since 2002-2003. I also agree with another poster who responded to your post--welcome to my friends list.
That said, I cannot understand how you believe the above, and then say (or at least imply, given the post you responded to) that you will vote for Obama. I've heard Ron Paul supporters say the same thing, and am completely mystified by it--yes, I agree that we need change in Washington, but he appears to want to go in the opposite direction of where I want to head... he has ties to corrupt businessmen, just like every other politician, lies through his teeth about his knowledge and beliefs (unless you really think he could have gone to Wright's church for two decades and actually been ignorant about what it apparently stands for), and has absolutely no record on anything. WTF?
Shouting doesn't make you correct, it just makes you look stupid.
The primaries are very similar to the general election in that you are not voting for a candidate, you are voting for a delegate pledged to that candidate. Those delegates will vote at the party conventions to elect a candidate. Until they vote, there is no nominee. Yes, enough superdelegates have said they will vote for Obama that he can safely claim victory, but they can change their minds, they do not HAVE to vote that way. Unless Clinton drops out before the convention, it is possible that she could be the nominee.
I will agree that this is very unlikely, but it is not impossible, and does NOT require any kind of vote rigging to occur.
BRI ISDN is 2 64kb B-channels, and 1 16kb D-channel.
If someone pushes in the fender of your Ferrari, it's cosmetic, and an annoyance. You take the car to a body and fender shop (as upscale as you want to be... it IS a Ferrari, after all) and they fix your vehicle in a couple of hours, maybe a day or three.
If someone pushes in the "fender" of this car/plane hybrid, it's a damaged airfoil and potentially hazardous. You take it to a federally certificated A&P mechanic, of which there are relatively few these days--your airport may or may not have one--who will take a couple of days if you're lucky, and weeks to months if you're not.
This is not an apples to apples comparison.
I really shudder at the thought of something like this. It's scary enough what GA aircraft can be subject to at airports, but can you imagine trusting your $150,000 light aircraft to the mercies of rush hour traffic? You're a braver man than I am...
I just got a disturbing image of R. Lee Ermey chanting, "This is my PC, this is my Mac!"
Meh.
I have as many problems with the current state of copyright law as you apparently do, but if given an outlet like hulu to get the content I want, I'll take it over bittorrent. In the end, someone has to pay for production, or the show will fail and there will be no more episodes.
He's talking about sites like hulu.com which offer (apparently) legit streaming video of things like TV shows and movies. They include limited commercial breaks--in BSG episodes (which is all I have watched) it's three 30-second ads to the standard episode. Ninety seconds of ads sure beats the standard of Sci-fi network, which is closer to fifteen minutes.
I understand that not everyone agrees with that. I keep coming back to the idea, though, that anybody focusing on that bit of prose--to the point where they believe that it trumps what is clearly labeled a "right of the people"--is usually doing so in a vacuum.
Have you ever gone through the writings of the people who founded our nation, and their thoughts on the right to bear arms? Have you ever looked at the phrase "well regulated militia" through the meaning of the time, instead of the definition of "regulate" as it is understood today? How about state constitutions of the same vintage? Most of them have a similar provision, some less ambiguous (and some more ambiguous, to be sure.) How about the notion that the Constitution defines a federal government of limited powers, and none of those powers appears to allow it to disarm the people? Even if there is no explicit right to bear arms defined in the second amendment (and I disagree completely with such a position) what about the ninth and the tenth?
Focusing on the entirety of the issue, I find it hard to come to another conclusion other than that there is a right of the people to keep and bear arms (for defense of themselves and the state) that is NOT subject to infringement by the federal government (now whether or not the individual states may do so is another question, and this would seem to be a 14th amendment issue that has, so far, not been addressed by the supreme court.)
I, personally, support the right to bear arms because I believe it to be necessary for man (and I use that word in its gender neutral sense--women need that right just as much, if not more) to have the right to defend himself--be it from a wild animal, his fellow man, his government, or some foreign power. I do not believe in it simply because someone wrote it down a few hundred years ago. I'd like to think that Heston felt the same way, and I think his marching with Dr. King points in that direction.
I agree with you, though--matters should be debated on the merits. Most proponents of gun control do not want to debate the issue on it's merits, or follow the process--it's usually "ZOMG! Think of the childrens!!!11one" Again, like it or not, our constitution is the supreme law of the land, and not just a piece of paper the way some in the white house would have you believe. It cannot, MUST NOT simply be circumvented! The men who wrote our Constitution were pretty bright guys though, and knew that it would not (could not!) possibly cover every situation. Their solution to this was to allow the document to be changed, and they included a process for doing so.
If you can ignore this process for the right to bear arms, what does that say about free speech? Freedom of religion? Or any other freedoms you hold dear?
When you look at his life in its entirety, it makes perfect sense. What it comes down to is that Charlton Heston became involved with the NRA for the same reason that he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King--to him, it was a civil rights issue.
You can debate the right and wrong of the American right to keep and bear arms until the cows come home, but like it or not, the men who founded our nation had certain beliefs about what constituted the natural rights of men. They wrote some of these rights into our Constitution: free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, the right to be secure from intrusive government searches, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the right to bear arms, and more. Heston was a man who believed in those rights, and was willing to lend his fame to various causes in support of them. That's really all there is to it.
So, feel free to think less of him for it (I'm sure that while he disagreed with what you had to say, he would have defended to the death your right to say it) but while you're doing so, also think about the notion that if you start to pick and choose what rights you think people ought to have, and try to redefine those rights out of existence, then someone else later will have an easier time of stripping the citizenry of the rights that YOU yourself hold dear. One need look no further than the current occupant of the white house to see such a process in action.