ID is as much scientific as evolution. Both require a leap of faith to believe in something. Evolution has been droned so much into the heads of Scientists over the last 83 years (since the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925). Evolution has become a religion to many, and many defend it with religious zeal! If someone even begins to challenge it, then they get made fun of and picked on. That is not scientific. That is religious zeal. If Evolution is correct, then it will survive the challenges.
Further, there are holes the size of millions of years in evolution. THat is not a small gap. They have yet to find a true transitional form from one stage to another stage. Apparently, at some point through mutation, a particular member of a species has a mutated "ugly" baby. Then that gene is passed on to the children's children etc.. You'd figure that in millions of years, more transitional forms could be found that are closer than millions of years. My point is that how life start can't be proven as a fact. You must take a leap of faith that one idea (or combination of ideas) is how it happens. Although it is highly unlikely, you really can't prove or disprove that some spider creatures dropped off life on this planet to later harvest it a food. Scientists have gotten to complacent and religious.
You sir, have no understanding of international economics supply & demand or international finance. In the old world, where the US was the primary driving force of demand for oil, that may have potentially worked. But, we now have China and India in the game with the potential to suck down more oil than we do. Sure speculation raised the price a bit, but the main increases thanks to China and India. As for oil barrel prices, those are set by the cost to produce the most recent barrel of crude, LIFO - Last In First Out Pricing method. Thus, opening the reserves really wouldn't do sh*t other than hurt us in the long run.
Actually, oil prices are not set by supply and demand completely, but buy the cost of oil is set by the commodities market. When the only people buying the oil are people who will use it, then supply and demand play a very important part, but currently, there are speculators in the oil market just to make a profit. These speculators have been artificially driving up the cost of oil. Supply and demand is not playing as big a part in this as you seem to think.
Since you brought it up, unlike America, China is actually drilling for oil itself all over the world!!!! They are even drilling 60 miles off the coast of Florida!
Why not? It is simple. Congress has a lower approval rating than the President. The war in Iraq is going well--in fact Baghdad is having a housing market boom. The Democrats who control Congress have been quieting down the "lets get out of Iraq now" mantra. In fact, Obama is now saying there would be troops staying there. That's changed from his original position of bringing everyone home.
Next, Congressional Democrats keep crying about high gas prices, and they are doing nothing about it. The only thing they have done (today 6/10/2008 the Republicans saved us) is try to raise taxes on the oil companies. This may come as a shock to some of you, but in the real world, business don't pay taxes--their customers do!!!! What does this mean in regards to the oil companies? Higher taxes from them will translate to higher gas prices for us!!! The Republicans blocked this from happening...thankfully!!! If Congressional Democrats really wanted to do something about high gas prices (not just spew hot air about oil companies' big profits), they would have a 4 pronged attack. First, encourage Bush, and other countries with the ability, to flood the market with oil. In the case of the US, we could release 1/3 of the oil reserves at one time. This would flood the oil commodities market and drop the price of oil. This would cause the people investing in oil commodities (who are driving up the cost) to lose their money. Then, Congressional Democrats would allow more drilling in and near the US. China is drilling off the shores of Florida!!! That should be our oil!!!
The first item is only a short term fix, so thirdly, Congressional Democrats should encourage research and development in to new technologies and energy sources. They should encourage a bang for your buck energy policy. This means encouraging improving the percentage of energy efficiency you achieve in comparison to the lost energy potential! If something else becomes more efficient and product to produce our energy needs we will move to it.
Forth, Congressional Democrats should open up trading on the commodities so that all trades are public with all parties known (i.e. the person putting up the money). I can come up with reasons for everyone to have their money in the pot...including Democrats.
In the last election, the Democrats kept crying about Republican pork spending. They promised to change it. They did change it, but it was them doing the pork spend at levels higher than the Republicans.
Finally, (but not the last problem) the truth is that the Democrats in Congress can't even think about stirring the pot with an impeachment when Barak is on such shaky ground! Barak can't even handle reporters like the light weight "Fox and Friends" show (which Hillary went on several times). If he can handle an interview with Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, then he can't handle being president! Part of the Democrat party is seriously considering voting for McCain!!! They need to play it safe!
For me, it comes down to the cost and performance. I use OpenOffice.org because it's free, and I can't afford MS Office or Word Perfect office (if it's still around). I use Code::Blocks because it is still a traditionally compiled program unlike Visual Studio which appears to be a.NET (i.e. twice compile application) Code::Blocks worked fine on my 3GHz 512M XP SP2 computer, Visual Studio needed more to work properly end efficiently.
OS software can play a role in reducing the cost of software if the companies realize it before they go broke.
Have you tried to read Dianetics? I tried. It read like a lot of double talk. Have you ever read any Scientology documents? I got to once--before the site was shut down. It was overseas I think. It read like a Science Fiction novel. It was a weird, and these people believe this stuff. Any religion where most of it's documents are shrouded in secrecy and mystery is really a cult. Plain and simple. Scientology happens to be a very rich cult. Ever hear what happens when you publish one of their secret documents on line? You get your computer taken away from you. The use the money they suck out of Will Smith, Tom Cruise, and everyone else to keep it a secret. What do they have to hide?
Now, take a look at the majority of the other major religions. You can go to a bookstore, buy a book (or two, or three), and after reading it, you can know most of what there is to know about that religion. It doesn't mean you will be an expert or completely understand the teaching, but you have access to the teaching openly without having to join. That goes for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Frankly, Scientology appears to above the law in most countries because they can buy their way around the countries.
Personally, I think L. Ron Hubbard flipped his lid and started to REALLY get into his characters while working on a story, or two, which was soon followed by believing it completely. Did anyone else notice that the Scientology took a page from the Liberals play book:
'Anonymous' is perpetrating religious hate crimes against Churches of Scientology and individual Scientologists for no reason other than religious bigotry," read the statement.
That sounds similar to stuff I have heard from liberals when they couldn't debate the facts. It reminds me of HIllary's "vast right wing conspiracy" comments during her husband's presidency. Maybe Scientology should publish all there material. I don't blame these people for staying anonymous! I would too if I was boycotting Scientology. I would like to keep my stuff and not be harassed!
Obama is scary! Before you go into the racist rants, it is not because of his skin color. It is foreign policy. When his critics were saying he was weak on foreign policy, he decided to take advantage of the political situation at the time. He said he would invade Pakistan to find Osama Bin Laden. That incredibly stupid on several account. First and foremost, Pakistan is an ally! It can seriously be debated whether or not they really are an ally, but that debate would be pointless because they still have the title ally. It doesn't send a good message to all our other allies if we go invading an ally over the ally's objections! Second, Pakistan is a delicate situation internally. They always seem to be a few moments away from an Islamic revolution. This would not be good. Pakistan is barely getting along with India, and Pakistan also has nuclear capability.
Obama also says he can unite people from all parties. I doubt that can happen. The Republican and Democrats are too far apart on the issues. How can you reconcile to parties when one side believes in the right of an unborn child to live and the other doesn't believe in that right. Obama has been in congress. What happened to their promise to cut ear marks? Have you been paying attention? They haven't been cut. There are just as many ear marks now as when the Republican were in control.
Hillary is worse. I really want to live, so I will not say anything about her here. She just might have the full power of the White House under her control. If she wins, that means for nearly 30 years (24 or 28 years) the Executive branch of the United States will have been controlled by just two families! If you really want change, then you need someone who is not from Congress. Romney was the best option and hope. McCain & Huckabee will not be able to unite the Republican party to many people don't like them, and Ron Paul never had a chance. Ron Paul wanted to eliminate the military! That is insane!
It is hard to have a real debate these days. If you criticize Hitlary, I mean Hillary, she won't debate. She polarizes the situation. Anybody remember the "vast right wing conspiracy" charges? If a Democrat win the White House, we are doomed.
Nope. I didn't need that article to point it out, but there are people out there that did. Which is why I said it. They get lost in the euphoria of the latest thing without thinking about who is controlling the data. The shock and "outrage" about what Google did proves this point. There will always be someone who gets lost in the euphoric experience of the latest thing without caring about stuff like who controls your data. You know the "small details".
FUD? Really? Seriously, this does point out a drawback with using online applications. You are trusting your data to a foreign entity that may not even reside in the country. Then you can split hairs by having the company in the country and the servers in a different country that has laws more to their liking. Nothing is to stop the company from publishing your data. If I were someone important, like a politician, I would not use yahoo or google email. To dangerous. I will stick to my plain old desktop readers thank you. I know where that data is stored and usually I can control the updates.
I think this is just poor code debugging skills. The new garbage collected languages (C# and Java) seem to be creating coders that don't know the basics of debugging. If this was C++, the bug would have shown up when an event occurred and the code called a deleted object. It would have been harder to track down. In any case, I would have added code to analyze the state of the stack and it's objects since it only occurred after the program/car had been running for a while. Also, had it not occurred to them to increase the number of obstacles beyond the "controlled" environment? You can easily write test code to to add a lot of objects into the stack without the use of the car.
Our cars used an asynchronous event-based code stack written from scratch by us. They wrote their code stack from scratch. They should have modified an existing one that was proven to work. Either way, I think this is a case of sloppy programming. I don't think it is worth mention aside from the case what the closest thing to a memory leak is that you can have. Unfortunately, that too should have come to mind from them. They ruled that out because "most of [their] code is written in garbage-collected C#". Just because a language is garbage collected, it doesn't mean you can just ignore the issues. All reference to the object must be removed for it to be deleted. This is definitely a case of sloppy programming. I would be embarrassed if my name were attached to this.
Some old Visual Basic programmer jokes come to mind when I read this article. People use to make fun of Visual Basic programmers because it was to easy to write programs in VB. They thought it would produce sloppy code with errors, and other similar things. To some extent, it appears that same case could be made for C#, and to a lesser extent Java. In the end this is simply a case of not stress testing their event stack.
Interesting post, but the proof used in post is of the phylum Foraminifera for the "scientist's wet-dream" of evidence of evolution. Unfortunately, the phylum is full of simple organisms. The post admits "[m]ost of the fossil record is indeed quite spotty." This would include the phylum Chordata of which Primates is a member. It seems the more complex the organism, the less evidence of evolution that exists. The vast evidence of one phylum does not say that evolution is true on a macro scale. When I said, "[e]volution requires you to believe (i.e. have faith in) that over hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years one form of proto-human becomes another without any other 'steps' in between the two." I was referring to macro-scale evolution. That is where you are required to take a leap of faith. I still say that evolution has become a religion. All who dare to challenge it are ridiculed. There is no questioning the Darwin's holy book, and the modern prophets who spout it words of wisdom.
Scientific? It is more of a religion. Webster's online defines faith as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith def 2b). Evolution requires you to believe (i.e. have faith in) that over hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years one form of proto-human becomes another without any other "steps" in between the two. That requires a step of faith. It would seem that at least one other form would be there. Add to this the fact that scientists continue to change what they say as they learn more about things. For example, take the so-called "junk DNA". Now scientists are starting to think these genes sequences are not junk, and they have some bigger functions (Here).
Some people may also be waiting for the whole book to be written rather than reading the snapshots of how it is thought to have happened. Evolution itself seems to evolve over time. In the end you still have to take a leap of faith to believe in it.
IANAL, but isn't maintaining and creating a monopoly illegal in the US? The RIAA, and all their bastard children, just use mob enforcement tactics to raise money. Isn't this just more shakedowns from these guys? While I doubt we'll get anywhere with them. Their existence needs to be challenged. They are attempting to stifle there only real competition--internet radio.
The only sure way to stop them is to stop feeding them. Stop buying CDs. Stop going to concerts. Stop buying t-shirts. Every time you buy this stuff, you are feeding their hunger and greed for more. Don't be surprised if there's a new digital format forced down your throat that requires a per listening fee. Stop feeding the RIAA and there scumbag children. If you want music go to independent music.
I was attempting to put a realistic picture of the stupid corpse count by CNN, ABC, the Democrats, et. al.. Numbers wise this has been clean. While death is not something to be taken lightly, no war or battle has been perfect. I would hate to think what people would have done in WW2 if we had a daily body count of the dead soldiers. D-Day would have been interesting to watch the news by these people (if they had covered it). There was a political cartoon not to long ago that sums up my opinion of these groups (especially the Democrats who have invest so much in America losing) which basically pictured the Democrats raising a white flag while saying, "hurry up before we win the war."
I didn't actually argue that AC should be forbidden. It has it uses--like when one could face extreme criticism (or worse), but I did say that it can be abused.
You just proved the point that people say stuff they wouldn't when they use AC. How is AC any better? Your still being fake (hiding behind AC and not saying something that could be associated with you), and I doubt it just an American thing. Get over your American envy.
That still doesn't excuse the hackers. Whether it's just for fun or not, they still may be breaking the law (IANAL). The lack of any clue by the reporters and research teams doesn't change the actions of the hackers. What they did in the two cases mentioned was a form of cyber bullying. What was their reasoning for doing this to these people, "I don't like that you are doing {fill in the here}! So I going to hack your site an ruin you", or whatever their reasoning. Whether, or not, the victims are stupid, or just clueless, is irrelevant, they still are victims. AC can be abused just as much as it is useful. There is something to having the guts to say you disagree with someone and have a polite discourse with them about it. Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't mean it's right to go an trash their website. That's just childish, and possibly criminal (IANAL).
In the end, I think AC is abused more than it is helpful. As another poster pointed out, people tend to do more extreme things when they can be an AC. Take that away, and they act nice and respectable. It's like the a school kid who is nice to you when your there, but mean, disrespectful, vindictive, and goes out of their way to cause trouble for you when you're not around.
Is it? Matt 5:17-18 disagrees with you. "New Covenant" or not, the laws of the OT are still supposed to apply. Have you noticed Jesus never preached to the Gentiles, and his main audience was the Jews. If you read the book of Acts, following the OT laws was brought up in the early church. Paul, and Peter, argued against placing the yoke of the OT laws on the Gentiles since there forefathers were unable to bare the yoke. If I remember correctly, James, the brother of Jesus, agreed to a point. I will leave finding the answer to this as homework. (Hint: read the book of Acts.) As for a true Christian, that would be a follower of Christ based on the Bible.
Fun fact: the Old Testament is part of the Bible too, and your Jesus said the laws are still in effect. Well, that's not entirely true. You'd know that if you had read the Bible. I suggest you read the books of Acts.
First, you spelled my name wrong. I never said he was above the law. I have many issues with Bush myself! I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy involved in Slashdot's postings. What the Clinton administration person did was a criminal act, and he didn't even get punished for it. It's nature is similar to what people a whining about now. The issue the Democrats are pursuing is not even a real issue. Bush has the right to fire people--especially when they are not following Bush's policies/agenda. Congress has no say over this. It's not in their powers. Clinton fired all of the attorneys just to get rid of the two that were investigating him. I am sure they are not the only ones to do this too. I am still waiting for the Democrats to lower gas prices like they promised in the election, and I am waiting for them to show fiscal responsibility too.
Sure. Complain about some missing emails. Do you keep all you emails? How many email accounts do you have? I didn't notice any complaints when a former Clinton Administration official admitted to stealing & destroying official records from the national archive to destroy. I don't hear any complaints about what they are hiding, and I also don't see any slashdot articles on it.
Why use GTK? GTK still limits you to GTKs look and feel--even on other platforms. I am not sure if it is available, but why not leverage another open source cross-platform framework that's been around since 1992. I am talking about wxWidgets. It is already cross-platform, and it has been bound to other languages like ruby & python. wx.NET started this, but has stalled. You could even use SWIG 1.3.18, or newer, to make the library available to C#.
I have always taken the nutshell books more as a reference than a learning tool. I use the C++ one for a reference from time to time. If you want a book to learn with, don't buy a nutshell book. If you want a book for reference, check out the nutshell books.
Slashdot Mirror
ID is as much scientific as evolution. Both require a leap of faith to believe in something. Evolution has been droned so much into the heads of Scientists over the last 83 years (since the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925). Evolution has become a religion to many, and many defend it with religious zeal! If someone even begins to challenge it, then they get made fun of and picked on. That is not scientific. That is religious zeal. If Evolution is correct, then it will survive the challenges.
Further, there are holes the size of millions of years in evolution. THat is not a small gap. They have yet to find a true transitional form from one stage to another stage. Apparently, at some point through mutation, a particular member of a species has a mutated "ugly" baby. Then that gene is passed on to the children's children etc.. You'd figure that in millions of years, more transitional forms could be found that are closer than millions of years. My point is that how life start can't be proven as a fact. You must take a leap of faith that one idea (or combination of ideas) is how it happens. Although it is highly unlikely, you really can't prove or disprove that some spider creatures dropped off life on this planet to later harvest it a food. Scientists have gotten to complacent and religious.
Actually, rising demand is not enough to account for the current rise in cost. Right now it is speculators in the commodities market.
Why not? It is simple. Congress has a lower approval rating than the President. The war in Iraq is going well--in fact Baghdad is having a housing market boom. The Democrats who control Congress have been quieting down the "lets get out of Iraq now" mantra. In fact, Obama is now saying there would be troops staying there. That's changed from his original position of bringing everyone home.
Next, Congressional Democrats keep crying about high gas prices, and they are doing nothing about it. The only thing they have done (today 6/10/2008 the Republicans saved us) is try to raise taxes on the oil companies. This may come as a shock to some of you, but in the real world, business don't pay taxes--their customers do!!!! What does this mean in regards to the oil companies? Higher taxes from them will translate to higher gas prices for us!!! The Republicans blocked this from happening...thankfully!!! If Congressional Democrats really wanted to do something about high gas prices (not just spew hot air about oil companies' big profits), they would have a 4 pronged attack. First, encourage Bush, and other countries with the ability, to flood the market with oil. In the case of the US, we could release 1/3 of the oil reserves at one time. This would flood the oil commodities market and drop the price of oil. This would cause the people investing in oil commodities (who are driving up the cost) to lose their money. Then, Congressional Democrats would allow more drilling in and near the US. China is drilling off the shores of Florida!!! That should be our oil!!!
The first item is only a short term fix, so thirdly, Congressional Democrats should encourage research and development in to new technologies and energy sources. They should encourage a bang for your buck energy policy. This means encouraging improving the percentage of energy efficiency you achieve in comparison to the lost energy potential! If something else becomes more efficient and product to produce our energy needs we will move to it.
Forth, Congressional Democrats should open up trading on the commodities so that all trades are public with all parties known (i.e. the person putting up the money). I can come up with reasons for everyone to have their money in the pot...including Democrats.
In the last election, the Democrats kept crying about Republican pork spending. They promised to change it. They did change it, but it was them doing the pork spend at levels higher than the Republicans.
Finally, (but not the last problem) the truth is that the Democrats in Congress can't even think about stirring the pot with an impeachment when Barak is on such shaky ground! Barak can't even handle reporters like the light weight "Fox and Friends" show (which Hillary went on several times). If he can handle an interview with Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, then he can't handle being president! Part of the Democrat party is seriously considering voting for McCain!!! They need to play it safe!
For me, it comes down to the cost and performance. I use OpenOffice.org because it's free, and I can't afford MS Office or Word Perfect office (if it's still around). I use Code::Blocks because it is still a traditionally compiled program unlike Visual Studio which appears to be a .NET (i.e. twice compile application) Code::Blocks worked fine on my 3GHz 512M XP SP2 computer, Visual Studio needed more to work properly end efficiently.
OS software can play a role in reducing the cost of software if the companies realize it before they go broke.
Apparently not everything is available: http://www.xenu.net/censored/ I got that a couple of time.
Obama is scary! Before you go into the racist rants, it is not because of his skin color. It is foreign policy. When his critics were saying he was weak on foreign policy, he decided to take advantage of the political situation at the time. He said he would invade Pakistan to find Osama Bin Laden. That incredibly stupid on several account. First and foremost, Pakistan is an ally! It can seriously be debated whether or not they really are an ally, but that debate would be pointless because they still have the title ally. It doesn't send a good message to all our other allies if we go invading an ally over the ally's objections! Second, Pakistan is a delicate situation internally. They always seem to be a few moments away from an Islamic revolution. This would not be good. Pakistan is barely getting along with India, and Pakistan also has nuclear capability.
Obama also says he can unite people from all parties. I doubt that can happen. The Republican and Democrats are too far apart on the issues. How can you reconcile to parties when one side believes in the right of an unborn child to live and the other doesn't believe in that right. Obama has been in congress. What happened to their promise to cut ear marks? Have you been paying attention? They haven't been cut. There are just as many ear marks now as when the Republican were in control.
Hillary is worse. I really want to live, so I will not say anything about her here. She just might have the full power of the White House under her control. If she wins, that means for nearly 30 years (24 or 28 years) the Executive branch of the United States will have been controlled by just two families! If you really want change, then you need someone who is not from Congress. Romney was the best option and hope. McCain & Huckabee will not be able to unite the Republican party to many people don't like them, and Ron Paul never had a chance. Ron Paul wanted to eliminate the military! That is insane!
It is hard to have a real debate these days. If you criticize Hitlary, I mean Hillary, she won't debate. She polarizes the situation. Anybody remember the "vast right wing conspiracy" charges? If a Democrat win the White House, we are doomed.
Nope. I didn't need that article to point it out, but there are people out there that did. Which is why I said it. They get lost in the euphoria of the latest thing without thinking about who is controlling the data. The shock and "outrage" about what Google did proves this point. There will always be someone who gets lost in the euphoric experience of the latest thing without caring about stuff like who controls your data. You know the "small details".
FUD? Really? Seriously, this does point out a drawback with using online applications. You are trusting your data to a foreign entity that may not even reside in the country. Then you can split hairs by having the company in the country and the servers in a different country that has laws more to their liking. Nothing is to stop the company from publishing your data. If I were someone important, like a politician, I would not use yahoo or google email. To dangerous. I will stick to my plain old desktop readers thank you. I know where that data is stored and usually I can control the updates.
Some old Visual Basic programmer jokes come to mind when I read this article. People use to make fun of Visual Basic programmers because it was to easy to write programs in VB. They thought it would produce sloppy code with errors, and other similar things. To some extent, it appears that same case could be made for C#, and to a lesser extent Java. In the end this is simply a case of not stress testing their event stack.
Interesting post, but the proof used in post is of the phylum Foraminifera for the "scientist's wet-dream" of evidence of evolution. Unfortunately, the phylum is full of simple organisms. The post admits "[m]ost of the fossil record is indeed quite spotty." This would include the phylum Chordata of which Primates is a member. It seems the more complex the organism, the less evidence of evolution that exists. The vast evidence of one phylum does not say that evolution is true on a macro scale. When I said, "[e]volution requires you to believe (i.e. have faith in) that over hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years one form of proto-human becomes another without any other 'steps' in between the two." I was referring to macro-scale evolution. That is where you are required to take a leap of faith. I still say that evolution has become a religion. All who dare to challenge it are ridiculed. There is no questioning the Darwin's holy book, and the modern prophets who spout it words of wisdom.
Scientific? It is more of a religion. Webster's online defines faith as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith def 2b). Evolution requires you to believe (i.e. have faith in) that over hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years one form of proto-human becomes another without any other "steps" in between the two. That requires a step of faith. It would seem that at least one other form would be there. Add to this the fact that scientists continue to change what they say as they learn more about things. For example, take the so-called "junk DNA". Now scientists are starting to think these genes sequences are not junk, and they have some bigger functions (Here).
Some people may also be waiting for the whole book to be written rather than reading the snapshots of how it is thought to have happened. Evolution itself seems to evolve over time. In the end you still have to take a leap of faith to believe in it.
IANAL, but isn't maintaining and creating a monopoly illegal in the US? The RIAA, and all their bastard children, just use mob enforcement tactics to raise money. Isn't this just more shakedowns from these guys? While I doubt we'll get anywhere with them. Their existence needs to be challenged. They are attempting to stifle there only real competition--internet radio.
The only sure way to stop them is to stop feeding them. Stop buying CDs. Stop going to concerts. Stop buying t-shirts. Every time you buy this stuff, you are feeding their hunger and greed for more. Don't be surprised if there's a new digital format forced down your throat that requires a per listening fee. Stop feeding the RIAA and there scumbag children. If you want music go to independent music.
I was attempting to put a realistic picture of the stupid corpse count by CNN, ABC, the Democrats, et. al.. Numbers wise this has been clean. While death is not something to be taken lightly, no war or battle has been perfect. I would hate to think what people would have done in WW2 if we had a daily body count of the dead soldiers. D-Day would have been interesting to watch the news by these people (if they had covered it). There was a political cartoon not to long ago that sums up my opinion of these groups (especially the Democrats who have invest so much in America losing) which basically pictured the Democrats raising a white flag while saying, "hurry up before we win the war."
I didn't actually argue that AC should be forbidden. It has it uses--like when one could face extreme criticism (or worse), but I did say that it can be abused.
You just proved the point that people say stuff they wouldn't when they use AC. How is AC any better? Your still being fake (hiding behind AC and not saying something that could be associated with you), and I doubt it just an American thing. Get over your American envy.
That still doesn't excuse the hackers. Whether it's just for fun or not, they still may be breaking the law (IANAL). The lack of any clue by the reporters and research teams doesn't change the actions of the hackers. What they did in the two cases mentioned was a form of cyber bullying. What was their reasoning for doing this to these people, "I don't like that you are doing {fill in the here}! So I going to hack your site an ruin you", or whatever their reasoning. Whether, or not, the victims are stupid, or just clueless, is irrelevant, they still are victims. AC can be abused just as much as it is useful. There is something to having the guts to say you disagree with someone and have a polite discourse with them about it. Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't mean it's right to go an trash their website. That's just childish, and possibly criminal (IANAL).
In the end, I think AC is abused more than it is helpful. As another poster pointed out, people tend to do more extreme things when they can be an AC. Take that away, and they act nice and respectable. It's like the a school kid who is nice to you when your there, but mean, disrespectful, vindictive, and goes out of their way to cause trouble for you when you're not around.
That's the wrong part of Acts. Keep reading. I will give you a hint. It involves Paul.
First, you spelled my name wrong. I never said he was above the law. I have many issues with Bush myself! I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy involved in Slashdot's postings. What the Clinton administration person did was a criminal act, and he didn't even get punished for it. It's nature is similar to what people a whining about now. The issue the Democrats are pursuing is not even a real issue. Bush has the right to fire people--especially when they are not following Bush's policies/agenda. Congress has no say over this. It's not in their powers. Clinton fired all of the attorneys just to get rid of the two that were investigating him. I am sure they are not the only ones to do this too. I am still waiting for the Democrats to lower gas prices like they promised in the election, and I am waiting for them to show fiscal responsibility too.
Sure. Complain about some missing emails. Do you keep all you emails? How many email accounts do you have? I didn't notice any complaints when a former Clinton Administration official admitted to stealing & destroying official records from the national archive to destroy. I don't hear any complaints about what they are hiding, and I also don't see any slashdot articles on it.
Why use GTK? GTK still limits you to GTKs look and feel--even on other platforms. I am not sure if it is available, but why not leverage another open source cross-platform framework that's been around since 1992. I am talking about wxWidgets. It is already cross-platform, and it has been bound to other languages like ruby & python. wx.NET started this, but has stalled. You could even use SWIG 1.3.18, or newer, to make the library available to C#.
I have always taken the nutshell books more as a reference than a learning tool. I use the C++ one for a reference from time to time. If you want a book to learn with, don't buy a nutshell book. If you want a book for reference, check out the nutshell books.