I'm in the UK, on Virgin Media broadband. It's 10Mb/s, and there are no restrictions. They tried using packet shaping to offset the straight-home-from-work-cane-the-bittorrents crowd, but they only tried that in a few areas. I live in central London, and I can download at 1.17MB/s (MB not Mb) no problem. And I've straight-up hurt my connection too, and never heard a peep from my ISP.
If I'd not been on US highways, I might believe you. Germany's are better. So are France's, Switzerland's, and pretty much most of the western world. But, I guess, whatever gets you through the night:)
It would, if those fighting in Iraq were the ordinary citizens. They're not. They're either the Iraqi Army of the Saddam era, who disappeared into the woodwork to fight a guerilla campaign, or the Al Qaida-allied religious freedom fighters. They both want the Americans and British out, and both have had serious miliary training, have access to some serious weapons, communication equipment, and intelligence. A bunch of civilians with limited or no training is not going to put up much of a resistance.
Plus, and far more importantly, the situation in Iraq is inherently different to an uprising in the US. The US can't pacify the resistance in Iraq as brutally as it would a rebellion in its own country. First of all, the US army doesn't speak Arabic (it keeps firing its interpreters), has really, REALLY shitty intelligence (see the first point), and has the eyes of the world staring at it to make sure it is there to promote freedom and set up a free government. Obviously controlling a rebellion in your own country means you will stop at nothing, as it's *your* government, and *your* country at risk. It's an all-or-nothing deal. Clearly that's not the case for the US in Iraq. There is no holding back. Look at Vietnam - that's a more accurate comparison. The US really DID feel like its ass was on the line (damned commies). The US obliterated entire villages of folks who were allegedly helping the Viet Minh. The only fighters who survived that were those soldiers materially supported by the north, not farmers or other civilians. They got roasted, yet they were armed. By your logic, those farmers should have been enough to send the US packing, yet clearly that wasn't the case.
As I said in my original post, if the US population decided the current president is an ass and storms government installations across the US, either the US government fights back (using its far superior weaponry, training, tactics, logistics, infrastructure, command hierarchy, etc.) and destroys them. Handguns are no match for a tank.
You might count them as being the same, but they're clearly not the same actual injury. We're talking accurate reporting here, not "oh that adds up to about one of these". The idea of statistics, when collected, is to get the best overall picture you can, which means being as accurate as you can. THEN you can start to understand things from the statistics, but that comes after collection. You seem to want to get rid of statistics, and just get a kind of emotion-based summation of injuries based on your perceptions of ability. genius.
Indeed - it says in the article I posted that they do not include the amputation of fingers/toes in those statistics, just entire limbs. And yes, I'm sure the progress made in the field of combat trauma care means people are less likely to lose their legs. But then couple that with a war where most people are killed by explosives (on our side, anyway), and the statistics are going to be very confusing to most people, usually not reflecting what they'd expect. Iraq is not like any other war we in the west have really seen before.
It's not the "national failsafe". The Army is. If the government becomes corrupt beyond legislative correction, the Army either sides with the government or the people. If it sides with the government, there is no way all the handgun-owning, rifle-owning, assault-rifle-owning people could fight back. They would only be able to make a very suicidal gesture at best, as they don't have jets/aircraft carriers/artillery/tanks/cruise missiles/etc. If, on the other hand, the Army sides with the people, then the people's guns aren't needed anyway, as they wouldn't be able to aid the Army in any way at all, specifically due to the gun-owning citizens not have military training (and if they did, it won't be up-to-date for most). The 2nd amendment made sense when the population could own and use any piece of military hardware the armed forces could, where they *could* fight the army, and possibly win. Now the difference between the armed forces and the population is so massive to effectively render the weapons held by the population useless, the 2nd amendment does nothing to protect the liberty of the people.
It will, as it might not work on IE. If it doesn't work for them, it makes IE users go somewhere else, removing that site from the loop, not the IE users. I've yet to keep using a site that says it doesn't support my browser - I just go somewhere else. It won't make people change their default browser.
Or maybe that there is no way to do what they're trying to do on FireFox? Remember they have to assure the owners of the copyright of the media they distribute that the films aren't going to get ripped off. Couple that with the fact that most folks use IE anyway, and their choice to not invest more time and money in developing a Safari/FF/IE solution seems to make financial sense. They're not in it for the advocacy - they have money to make.
That's great advocacy, but shitty for businesses. Cutting out 80%-90% of your clients simply because "they should know better" is, quite honestly, childish. Yes, IE isn't the de jure standard, but it sure as hell is the de facto one. Fair enough if it's your own personal webpage, but if it has to generate revenue, you're shooting yourself in the foot by thumbing your nose at IE. It won't make people drop IE, but it will make them drop your site.
And so it's not combatting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the whole point of Branson's $25m:) This process should be *very* carbon negative, not neutral.
First of all, you were confusing the US with the rest of the world when you implied what goes on in the US is reflected in the rest of the world, or at least failed to make that obvious.
As for the scare-mongering, it's not illegitimate at all. Showing that a nuclear power station, when it fucks up, is ridiculously dangerous compared to a more traditional power station. Sure, Chernobyl was under Soviet control, but that itself is no guard against local incompetence where these people live, be that anywhere in Europe, or even the US.
They're NOT happy with coal power, either. Or gas. They're not happy with ANY energy source that screws with the environment or threatens their homes. I'm not talking about environmentalists either, but normal folks. They shouldn't have to be happy with the least-polluting or least-dangerous power source. They should, as they are, push for more research into energy sources that don't fuck with things quite so much.
Don't pin it all on the long-hairs - people are also a bit worried about nuclear reactors/plants blowing the fuck up on their doorstop, or the effects from such an explosion raining down on their homes. Those folks are not greenist nutters - they have legitimate worries.
And don't confuse the US with the rest of the world. The rest of the world hasn't "politicized" nuclear power to the extent you claim the US has. Maybe the US will take the lead from other countries, once it's realised it's beneficial.
The "hungry planet" left after the apocalypse will most likely just be about 5 norwegians who happen to live near this thing. It sounds more than possible it'll work, provided they can get in.
If there weren't people providing quality releases to BitTorrent, where the tracks are encoded using a good encoder, tagged correctly, including artwork, etc., then you'd have more of a point. BitTorrent is great for 99% of the music you want to hear. Even the obscure stuff is available, and download speeds are more than adequate. If it's not on BitTorrent, it might not even be on the online services anywhere.
So delays mean they should have AV wrapped up? That is a completely baseless statement. What if they were working on that right up until the launch? It doesn't excuse the AV situation, but it would mean his statement is bullshit. I'm all for activism, but straight-up being a little girl about it doesn't help.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in the UK, on Virgin Media broadband. It's 10Mb/s, and there are no restrictions. They tried using packet shaping to offset the straight-home-from-work-cane-the-bittorrents crowd, but they only tried that in a few areas. I live in central London, and I can download at 1.17MB/s (MB not Mb) no problem. And I've straight-up hurt my connection too, and never heard a peep from my ISP.
If I'd not been on US highways, I might believe you. Germany's are better. So are France's, Switzerland's, and pretty much most of the western world. But, I guess, whatever gets you through the night :)
You've always been able to do this natively in XP, since its release. Same for 2000 and 2003 server. just fyi.
habeas corpus?
It would, if those fighting in Iraq were the ordinary citizens. They're not. They're either the Iraqi Army of the Saddam era, who disappeared into the woodwork to fight a guerilla campaign, or the Al Qaida-allied religious freedom fighters. They both want the Americans and British out, and both have had serious miliary training, have access to some serious weapons, communication equipment, and intelligence. A bunch of civilians with limited or no training is not going to put up much of a resistance.
Plus, and far more importantly, the situation in Iraq is inherently different to an uprising in the US. The US can't pacify the resistance in Iraq as brutally as it would a rebellion in its own country. First of all, the US army doesn't speak Arabic (it keeps firing its interpreters), has really, REALLY shitty intelligence (see the first point), and has the eyes of the world staring at it to make sure it is there to promote freedom and set up a free government. Obviously controlling a rebellion in your own country means you will stop at nothing, as it's *your* government, and *your* country at risk. It's an all-or-nothing deal. Clearly that's not the case for the US in Iraq. There is no holding back. Look at Vietnam - that's a more accurate comparison. The US really DID feel like its ass was on the line (damned commies). The US obliterated entire villages of folks who were allegedly helping the Viet Minh. The only fighters who survived that were those soldiers materially supported by the north, not farmers or other civilians. They got roasted, yet they were armed. By your logic, those farmers should have been enough to send the US packing, yet clearly that wasn't the case.
As I said in my original post, if the US population decided the current president is an ass and storms government installations across the US, either the US government fights back (using its far superior weaponry, training, tactics, logistics, infrastructure, command hierarchy, etc.) and destroys them. Handguns are no match for a tank.
You might count them as being the same, but they're clearly not the same actual injury. We're talking accurate reporting here, not "oh that adds up to about one of these". The idea of statistics, when collected, is to get the best overall picture you can, which means being as accurate as you can. THEN you can start to understand things from the statistics, but that comes after collection. You seem to want to get rid of statistics, and just get a kind of emotion-based summation of injuries based on your perceptions of ability. genius.
Indeed - it says in the article I posted that they do not include the amputation of fingers/toes in those statistics, just entire limbs. And yes, I'm sure the progress made in the field of combat trauma care means people are less likely to lose their legs. But then couple that with a war where most people are killed by explosives (on our side, anyway), and the statistics are going to be very confusing to most people, usually not reflecting what they'd expect. Iraq is not like any other war we in the west have really seen before.
Time says the 500th amputee was a Corporal, injured on January 12th 2007.
It's not the "national failsafe". The Army is. If the government becomes corrupt beyond legislative correction, the Army either sides with the government or the people. If it sides with the government, there is no way all the handgun-owning, rifle-owning, assault-rifle-owning people could fight back. They would only be able to make a very suicidal gesture at best, as they don't have jets/aircraft carriers/artillery/tanks/cruise missiles/etc. If, on the other hand, the Army sides with the people, then the people's guns aren't needed anyway, as they wouldn't be able to aid the Army in any way at all, specifically due to the gun-owning citizens not have military training (and if they did, it won't be up-to-date for most). The 2nd amendment made sense when the population could own and use any piece of military hardware the armed forces could, where they *could* fight the army, and possibly win. Now the difference between the armed forces and the population is so massive to effectively render the weapons held by the population useless, the 2nd amendment does nothing to protect the liberty of the people.
So people imagining it makes it true? Does that excuse the opinion presented as fact? Nope. That's FUD.
It will, as it might not work on IE. If it doesn't work for them, it makes IE users go somewhere else, removing that site from the loop, not the IE users. I've yet to keep using a site that says it doesn't support my browser - I just go somewhere else. It won't make people change their default browser.
Or maybe that there is no way to do what they're trying to do on FireFox? Remember they have to assure the owners of the copyright of the media they distribute that the films aren't going to get ripped off. Couple that with the fact that most folks use IE anyway, and their choice to not invest more time and money in developing a Safari/FF/IE solution seems to make financial sense. They're not in it for the advocacy - they have money to make.
And WalMart will never even notice. Their bottom line is too high up for merely advocates to scupper them. It's already too late.
That's great advocacy, but shitty for businesses. Cutting out 80%-90% of your clients simply because "they should know better" is, quite honestly, childish. Yes, IE isn't the de jure standard, but it sure as hell is the de facto one. Fair enough if it's your own personal webpage, but if it has to generate revenue, you're shooting yourself in the foot by thumbing your nose at IE. It won't make people drop IE, but it will make them drop your site.
And so it's not combatting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the whole point of Branson's $25m :) This process should be *very* carbon negative, not neutral.
First of all, you were confusing the US with the rest of the world when you implied what goes on in the US is reflected in the rest of the world, or at least failed to make that obvious.
As for the scare-mongering, it's not illegitimate at all. Showing that a nuclear power station, when it fucks up, is ridiculously dangerous compared to a more traditional power station. Sure, Chernobyl was under Soviet control, but that itself is no guard against local incompetence where these people live, be that anywhere in Europe, or even the US.
They're NOT happy with coal power, either. Or gas. They're not happy with ANY energy source that screws with the environment or threatens their homes. I'm not talking about environmentalists either, but normal folks. They shouldn't have to be happy with the least-polluting or least-dangerous power source. They should, as they are, push for more research into energy sources that don't fuck with things quite so much.
the photos were emailed. it says so at the top of the very page you posted on.
You just got your ass handed to you by hippies. hehehe. they're probably LOADED right now, too.
If you burn the plants, aren't you just releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere?
Don't pin it all on the long-hairs - people are also a bit worried about nuclear reactors/plants blowing the fuck up on their doorstop, or the effects from such an explosion raining down on their homes. Those folks are not greenist nutters - they have legitimate worries.
And don't confuse the US with the rest of the world. The rest of the world hasn't "politicized" nuclear power to the extent you claim the US has. Maybe the US will take the lead from other countries, once it's realised it's beneficial.
The "hungry planet" left after the apocalypse will most likely just be about 5 norwegians who happen to live near this thing. It sounds more than possible it'll work, provided they can get in.
You're right. Until the software needs to directly access hardware, in which case "Windows only" or "Mac only" will still apply.
If there weren't people providing quality releases to BitTorrent, where the tracks are encoded using a good encoder, tagged correctly, including artwork, etc., then you'd have more of a point. BitTorrent is great for 99% of the music you want to hear. Even the obscure stuff is available, and download speeds are more than adequate. If it's not on BitTorrent, it might not even be on the online services anywhere.
So delays mean they should have AV wrapped up? That is a completely baseless statement. What if they were working on that right up until the launch? It doesn't excuse the AV situation, but it would mean his statement is bullshit. I'm all for activism, but straight-up being a little girl about it doesn't help.