In the Sunderland South constituency in England, in 2001 they counted 30,000 votes in 43 minutes. Each year they try to count them as fast and as accurately as possible, and they apparently do a great job.
Nope - the laser doesn't destroy the missile but screws with its IR guidance system. It's a countermeasure with no offensive capabilities, though I guess it could be used against epileptics.
It's a countermeasure, not a weapon. Considering it takes a 747 to hold a chemical laser with enough power to destroy something, I think people would notice their civilian airliners are now weapons when each ticket costs $150,000 and a 747 can only seat 2 passengers... This device simply screws with the IR guidance system of a missile, it doesn't blow it up.
Does the person receiving the call on a cell phone still pay in the uk?
Nope - unless they're roaming, in which case they pay the roaming charges only. If you're on your home network, you don't pay. You don't pay to receive any calls or SMSs in the UK if your phone (be it a landline or mobile) is operating on the network's own infrastructure.
Nope. The IRA used Strela 2s to target British military helicopters, not civilian airliners. They did, however, launch a mortar attack at Heathrow, which didn't do much but shut down a runway, as they failed to explode when they landed. It wasn't intended to down any aircraft, but was an act of protest.
Close - the 80s attack you speak of was between the USS Vincennes and Iran Air Flight 655, which happened in 1988. The USS Vincennes knew they were targetting an aircraft, though they thought the Airbus A300B2-203 was an F-14 Tomcat. They tried to talk to the pilot, but they only tried on emergency frequencies (both military and civilian), which the plane was not monitoring (as it was an Iranian airliner in Iranian airspace, on a scheduled civilian flight with nothing untoward happening, or so they thought). And the PT boats they were being harassed by were only gunboats - no torpedoes, just guns. Not to mention the Vincennes was not under attack when they launched the missile against the Airbus. "oops".
I love this sentiment, as if criminals actually pay attention to that one law and ignore the others. Why don't you also stop mugging and bank thievery by outlawing those activities too?
Well, they pay more attention to the fact there aren't gun shops all over the place selling them, that you can't actually get your hands on one, and when anyone's caught with one it's confiscated and destroyed.
As for the rabbits and cane toads, those two pests taught the world a lot about the perils of introducing new species, which is why Australia (and many other parts of the world, Hawaii springs to mind) have strict flora and fauna import laws.
Victimless crimes? Hardly. Gun control is there because most folks don't want to have to be armed to walk the streets. Check out the gun crime statistics of countries other than the US to see what very well could happen. It's not pretty. As for your other "victimless" crimes - please give examples. Otherwise your rant seems like the usual right-winger "political correctness gone mad" sandy-vagina whining.
"Nanny government"? No, it's called "stopping some asshat from negatively impacting others". If when you fall and choke on your thumb other folks have to pay to fix you up, then it's in everyone's interest to stop you from falling and choking on your thumb. Heck, it's in your best interests too.
It would be a monopoly if you couldn't install other browsers on your PC. Just having one bundled with it (which you can remove if you want) isn't a monopoly, surely.
I was suggesting it wouldn't make sense to remove IE from the OS, and that providing others in the media would increase the bloat. IE, or rather MSHTML, IS built-in to the OS. I'm not talking about physically built-in, but it being an integral part. Explorer uses it to render its windows, CHM help files use it, MMC uses it, heck - all sorts of stuff use it - if any Windows application wants to render HTML for any reason, they can assume it's installed, instead of them having to include their own HTML renderer (which they can still do if they want). I'm not confusing IE with Explorer. I know the difference, but thanks for assuming I'm an idiot. The bloat I'm talking about is having them on the install media. Microsoft aren't the OEM - they don't make the restore partition, so that argument isn't exactly applicable to this situation.
As for removing IE and MSHTML from 98, of course it can be done. It does, however, break Explorer's HTML rendering, which begs the question - where does the unbundling stop?
I understand your point. What if, say, I'm an Apple user, and I want to use a different PDF-renderer. How would I go about uninstalling Apple's version, and installing my own? I think that's a more accurate example, albeit a bit exaggerated, as IE's HTML-rendering is a vital part of the whole UI, as PDF-rendering is to OS X. If it was switched out with another HTML-renderer that had bugs, it could render (no pun intended) the whole UI broken, with no way of reinstalling IE. OEMs can remove IE and include their own browser if they want - that's been a possibility for years and years now. You can uninstall IE as a browser (though the mshtml renderer, which is what IE uses, has to remain), and the OEMs can install Firefox, Opera, Safari, whatever floats their boat. You're left with a computer with no Internet Explorer, and a non-IE browser.:)
Let me play devil's advocate here - I mean no disrespect and I have no trollish intent. IE is part of the core UI, definitely. Explorer uses it to render its panels, and all CHM help files use it, not to mention a slew of less obvious uses. If it was removed, all other browsers that support Windows would have to be able to step in to fill those positions. What if you don't have net access? How does that let you install WMP and these "other things"? It would be brilliant for them to follow the standards, but with their market share of the browser world, it would risk breaking the web for 80%+ of the users out there. Where should the unbundling end? Should Windows also include a version of Linux to install? Or several? We might end up with Windows install media being a range of 10 DVDs, mostly containing various Linux distros:) I think your Ford analogy might be a bit flawed, as IE is made by the same company as the OS. It would be like Ford putting Ford stereos in their cars, which they do, and that hasn't stopped all these other stereo manufacturers (such as Sirius and XM) entering the market.
Not everyone is mistreated or abused by Microsoft. Many people have a great experience, and many businesses would be greatly harmed if Windows was not an option.
2% is plenty when it's claimed he's viciously anti-anything-not-Islam. Heck, just 1 person would be enough.
In that linked article, he's suggesting moving the Jews to somewhere else, which is a perfectly fair point to argue. Creating a nation where previously there wasn't one is obviously not going to go down too well - talking about it can only help. Or does talking make him a bad person?
The smart weapons barb is not silly. The US has attacked civilians, on purpose, or at least not given a shit about them in the process. All those safe houses where Saddam was supposed to be, and wasn't? Who do you think was there? Or the wedding that was blown up? Or all the Japanese women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or the firebombing of German cities? You can't argue that the US hasn't knowingly attacked women and children. But I'm sure you will try, anyway.
Why should Microsoft do that? It's not like you can't install another browser if you don't want. Unbundling it would mean the OS doesn't have a functioning browser (not to mention it's built-in to the OS, so removal would be only a cosmetic feat (removing the icon) not actually removing the browser). Including other browsers makes more sense, but won't it make Windows even more bloaty? Is this just a sandy vagina move, or do they have a point?
And even if it's a beautiful still day, no humidity, your targets are stationary and without smoke grenades - how do you know they're actually legitimate targets, and not another Chinese embassy?
I don't want to sound like a troll, but there are many americans who are very proud of Nasa, which got started by a nazi, using nazi technology. It seems a nation, on a whole, will find a way to ignore something that makes them feel bad.
They don't determine policy, they just strike it down if it's not the Islamic thing to do. They've already issued fatwas saying Iran can never have nuclear weapons, let alone use them. Considering Iran hasn't invaded or attacked anyone in over a century, I'd be more scared of the parties in the world who have nukes, and who don't mind attacking others.
Iran was ruled by a US ally simply because the US and the UK installed him, and removed the democracy that existed beforehand. The hostages? Yup - that is terrible. If the US hadn't ever held hostages for years, you'd have a point. Iran hasn't called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", but for their government to stop oppressing the Palestinians. They're calling for a regime change, not genocide. Holocaust denial? Hardly. He accepts it happened - he (and many other people) don't know why the Palestinians have to suffer for something Nazi Germany did. The holocaust denial conferences everyone talks about do have whackos in them, but he's not one of them. He's trying to solve the problem by encouraging people on every side to simply talk about it. If that happens, then the whackos figure out they're wrong and go away. Simply putting fingers in ears and saying "YOU CAN'T THINK THAT! BAD MUSLIM!" doesn't educate anyone, or fix the problem. FYI they're not "terrorists" in Iraq, but muslims helping other muslims get the US and UK out of there (muslims, when pressured from non-muslim sources, will strongly identify with each other - "Islam doesn't know borders", etc.). Not all fighters in Iraq are the same - some are simply trying to get invaders out of their country (akin to what the 2nd amendment is there for - to ensure any invader can get their asses handed to them). Some are involved in power-struggles, and they have indeed killed women and children. We, on the other hand, have smart weapons, and we still kill women and children. If you apply your level of moral judgement to our actions, we come out even worse. For your information, there are plenty of Christians and Jews in Iran - they're not being killed. If Iran hated non-Muslims as much as you say, they'd be dead by now.
Ex-freakin'-actly. It's fashionable to have a pop at him, to poke holes in what he says, because most folks doing it will get nothing but high-fives and back-slaps from everyone else. He's got issues, obviously, but - and wait for this - so does every other country in the world. Iran is one of the more peaceful nations in the middle east, and offered all the help it could to the US after 9/11. It was only added to the "Axis of Evil" so it didn't look like the US was bagging on Iraq and North Korea. Now those other two issues are being resolved (or at least changed into non-evil problems), the US is left with Iran. Either it admits it made up the whole "they're evil" part, or it has to lie in its poorly-made bed.
Surely clean drinking water would be a better idea than $200 of rice. It doesn't run out, and helps people stop dying. I think access to computers for poor folks is fantastic, but it's not nearly at the top of the list. I don't want to agree with this Dvorak asshat, but he has a point with "first things first". He just gets confused with what actually should be first.
Because more and more sites are using HTML to show video, and having a standard format means you don't have to support 5 different players, just one format, and you know it'll work perfectly on any browser that supports HTML5.
Slashdot Mirror
In the Sunderland South constituency in England, in 2001 they counted 30,000 votes in 43 minutes. Each year they try to count them as fast and as accurately as possible, and they apparently do a great job.
Vista's doing better than XP did, so how is it flopping?
Nope - the laser doesn't destroy the missile but screws with its IR guidance system. It's a countermeasure with no offensive capabilities, though I guess it could be used against epileptics.
It's a countermeasure, not a weapon. Considering it takes a 747 to hold a chemical laser with enough power to destroy something, I think people would notice their civilian airliners are now weapons when each ticket costs $150,000 and a 747 can only seat 2 passengers... This device simply screws with the IR guidance system of a missile, it doesn't blow it up.
Please forgive the OTness of this comment!
Does the person receiving the call on a cell phone still pay in the uk?
Nope - unless they're roaming, in which case they pay the roaming charges only. If you're on your home network, you don't pay. You don't pay to receive any calls or SMSs in the UK if your phone (be it a landline or mobile) is operating on the network's own infrastructure.
Nope. The IRA used Strela 2s to target British military helicopters, not civilian airliners. They did, however, launch a mortar attack at Heathrow, which didn't do much but shut down a runway, as they failed to explode when they landed. It wasn't intended to down any aircraft, but was an act of protest.
Close - the 80s attack you speak of was between the USS Vincennes and Iran Air Flight 655, which happened in 1988. The USS Vincennes knew they were targetting an aircraft, though they thought the Airbus A300B2-203 was an F-14 Tomcat. They tried to talk to the pilot, but they only tried on emergency frequencies (both military and civilian), which the plane was not monitoring (as it was an Iranian airliner in Iranian airspace, on a scheduled civilian flight with nothing untoward happening, or so they thought). And the PT boats they were being harassed by were only gunboats - no torpedoes, just guns. Not to mention the Vincennes was not under attack when they launched the missile against the Airbus. "oops".
Because it's easier and cheaper to load up a truck with explosives and drive it at US soldiers?
I love this sentiment, as if criminals actually pay attention to that one law and ignore the others. Why don't you also stop mugging and bank thievery by outlawing those activities too?
Well, they pay more attention to the fact there aren't gun shops all over the place selling them, that you can't actually get your hands on one, and when anyone's caught with one it's confiscated and destroyed.
As for the rabbits and cane toads, those two pests taught the world a lot about the perils of introducing new species, which is why Australia (and many other parts of the world, Hawaii springs to mind) have strict flora and fauna import laws.
Victimless crimes? Hardly. Gun control is there because most folks don't want to have to be armed to walk the streets. Check out the gun crime statistics of countries other than the US to see what very well could happen. It's not pretty. As for your other "victimless" crimes - please give examples. Otherwise your rant seems like the usual right-winger "political correctness gone mad" sandy-vagina whining.
"Nanny government"? No, it's called "stopping some asshat from negatively impacting others". If when you fall and choke on your thumb other folks have to pay to fix you up, then it's in everyone's interest to stop you from falling and choking on your thumb. Heck, it's in your best interests too.
It would be a monopoly if you couldn't install other browsers on your PC. Just having one bundled with it (which you can remove if you want) isn't a monopoly, surely.
Thanks for pulling apart my mangled grammar :)
I was suggesting it wouldn't make sense to remove IE from the OS, and that providing others in the media would increase the bloat. IE, or rather MSHTML, IS built-in to the OS. I'm not talking about physically built-in, but it being an integral part. Explorer uses it to render its windows, CHM help files use it, MMC uses it, heck - all sorts of stuff use it - if any Windows application wants to render HTML for any reason, they can assume it's installed, instead of them having to include their own HTML renderer (which they can still do if they want). I'm not confusing IE with Explorer. I know the difference, but thanks for assuming I'm an idiot. The bloat I'm talking about is having them on the install media. Microsoft aren't the OEM - they don't make the restore partition, so that argument isn't exactly applicable to this situation.
As for removing IE and MSHTML from 98, of course it can be done. It does, however, break Explorer's HTML rendering, which begs the question - where does the unbundling stop?
I understand your point. What if, say, I'm an Apple user, and I want to use a different PDF-renderer. How would I go about uninstalling Apple's version, and installing my own? I think that's a more accurate example, albeit a bit exaggerated, as IE's HTML-rendering is a vital part of the whole UI, as PDF-rendering is to OS X. If it was switched out with another HTML-renderer that had bugs, it could render (no pun intended) the whole UI broken, with no way of reinstalling IE. OEMs can remove IE and include their own browser if they want - that's been a possibility for years and years now. You can uninstall IE as a browser (though the mshtml renderer, which is what IE uses, has to remain), and the OEMs can install Firefox, Opera, Safari, whatever floats their boat. You're left with a computer with no Internet Explorer, and a non-IE browser. :)
Let me play devil's advocate here - I mean no disrespect and I have no trollish intent. IE is part of the core UI, definitely. Explorer uses it to render its panels, and all CHM help files use it, not to mention a slew of less obvious uses. If it was removed, all other browsers that support Windows would have to be able to step in to fill those positions. What if you don't have net access? How does that let you install WMP and these "other things"? It would be brilliant for them to follow the standards, but with their market share of the browser world, it would risk breaking the web for 80%+ of the users out there. Where should the unbundling end? Should Windows also include a version of Linux to install? Or several? We might end up with Windows install media being a range of 10 DVDs, mostly containing various Linux distros :) I think your Ford analogy might be a bit flawed, as IE is made by the same company as the OS. It would be like Ford putting Ford stereos in their cars, which they do, and that hasn't stopped all these other stereo manufacturers (such as Sirius and XM) entering the market.
Having wheels is a feature of a car - that doesn't make my bike a car :)
Not everyone is mistreated or abused by Microsoft. Many people have a great experience, and many businesses would be greatly harmed if Windows was not an option.
2% is plenty when it's claimed he's viciously anti-anything-not-Islam. Heck, just 1 person would be enough.
In that linked article, he's suggesting moving the Jews to somewhere else, which is a perfectly fair point to argue. Creating a nation where previously there wasn't one is obviously not going to go down too well - talking about it can only help. Or does talking make him a bad person?
The smart weapons barb is not silly. The US has attacked civilians, on purpose, or at least not given a shit about them in the process. All those safe houses where Saddam was supposed to be, and wasn't? Who do you think was there? Or the wedding that was blown up? Or all the Japanese women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or the firebombing of German cities? You can't argue that the US hasn't knowingly attacked women and children. But I'm sure you will try, anyway.
Why should Microsoft do that? It's not like you can't install another browser if you don't want. Unbundling it would mean the OS doesn't have a functioning browser (not to mention it's built-in to the OS, so removal would be only a cosmetic feat (removing the icon) not actually removing the browser). Including other browsers makes more sense, but won't it make Windows even more bloaty? Is this just a sandy vagina move, or do they have a point?
And even if it's a beautiful still day, no humidity, your targets are stationary and without smoke grenades - how do you know they're actually legitimate targets, and not another Chinese embassy?
I don't want to sound like a troll, but there are many americans who are very proud of Nasa, which got started by a nazi, using nazi technology. It seems a nation, on a whole, will find a way to ignore something that makes them feel bad.
They don't determine policy, they just strike it down if it's not the Islamic thing to do. They've already issued fatwas saying Iran can never have nuclear weapons, let alone use them. Considering Iran hasn't invaded or attacked anyone in over a century, I'd be more scared of the parties in the world who have nukes, and who don't mind attacking others.
Iran was ruled by a US ally simply because the US and the UK installed him, and removed the democracy that existed beforehand. The hostages? Yup - that is terrible. If the US hadn't ever held hostages for years, you'd have a point. Iran hasn't called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", but for their government to stop oppressing the Palestinians. They're calling for a regime change, not genocide. Holocaust denial? Hardly. He accepts it happened - he (and many other people) don't know why the Palestinians have to suffer for something Nazi Germany did. The holocaust denial conferences everyone talks about do have whackos in them, but he's not one of them. He's trying to solve the problem by encouraging people on every side to simply talk about it. If that happens, then the whackos figure out they're wrong and go away. Simply putting fingers in ears and saying "YOU CAN'T THINK THAT! BAD MUSLIM!" doesn't educate anyone, or fix the problem. FYI they're not "terrorists" in Iraq, but muslims helping other muslims get the US and UK out of there (muslims, when pressured from non-muslim sources, will strongly identify with each other - "Islam doesn't know borders", etc.). Not all fighters in Iraq are the same - some are simply trying to get invaders out of their country (akin to what the 2nd amendment is there for - to ensure any invader can get their asses handed to them). Some are involved in power-struggles, and they have indeed killed women and children. We, on the other hand, have smart weapons, and we still kill women and children. If you apply your level of moral judgement to our actions, we come out even worse. For your information, there are plenty of Christians and Jews in Iran - they're not being killed. If Iran hated non-Muslims as much as you say, they'd be dead by now.
Ex-freakin'-actly. It's fashionable to have a pop at him, to poke holes in what he says, because most folks doing it will get nothing but high-fives and back-slaps from everyone else. He's got issues, obviously, but - and wait for this - so does every other country in the world. Iran is one of the more peaceful nations in the middle east, and offered all the help it could to the US after 9/11. It was only added to the "Axis of Evil" so it didn't look like the US was bagging on Iraq and North Korea. Now those other two issues are being resolved (or at least changed into non-evil problems), the US is left with Iran. Either it admits it made up the whole "they're evil" part, or it has to lie in its poorly-made bed.
Surely clean drinking water would be a better idea than $200 of rice. It doesn't run out, and helps people stop dying. I think access to computers for poor folks is fantastic, but it's not nearly at the top of the list. I don't want to agree with this Dvorak asshat, but he has a point with "first things first". He just gets confused with what actually should be first.
Because more and more sites are using HTML to show video, and having a standard format means you don't have to support 5 different players, just one format, and you know it'll work perfectly on any browser that supports HTML5.