News flash: 64-bit apps are, usually, slightly slower than 32-bit ones. Duh. Any developer who's been around 64-bit environments for more than a few weeks knows this. It's not like there's some subtle magic going on here; bigger pointers means more data to schlep around.
That is the sort of "obvious" conventional wisdom that the article is questioning. In fact, 64-bit architecture means a lot more than pointer size, and merely counting bits is no way to estimate performance.
There's another side to this coin. Many Iraqis sided with the US because they feared Saddam's power. With Saddam out of the picture (physically) we can expect to see a greater push from the rival tribes to end the US occupation.
The lower court tried to undo the actual results by counting ballots without votes as being votes for Gore.
What the lower court decided was that the Florida recount needed to be completed before the final decision was made. It had little to do with "actual results" and empty ballots. The supreme court overturned it. Although there is no evidence, there is reason to believe that both courts acted in a partisan manner. If the supreme court were more liberal, there is an excellent chance that Gore would be president.
"Freedom Fighter" refers to whether or not they are fighting to make a place more free or not.
I believe this is incorrect. The term "freedom fighter" commonly refers to someone fighting (violently) for freedom from someone else. It doesn't have anything to do with the amount of overall freedom they want.
In your example, Hamas members are called freedom fighters (believe it or not) because they want to free the Middle East from western domination. They would, no doubt, love to create a totalitarian state but only because they believe it to be a desirable form of government.
Terrorists are defined by their intentional use of terror, which is typically a valuable asset of freedom fighters.
So they are different, technically. But let's be honest now. Would it be politically advantageous for Bush to call the Iraqi insurgents freedom fighters? Even attacks on the US military are being called terrorist attacks. The two terms have come to mean effectively the same thing.
It was damn close, but not the closest presidential election we've ever had. To me, the most striking feature is that the contest was ultimately put to rest by the supreme court, overturning a lower court.
No, few of us agree with this, as Bush won the exact same way his predecessors did
Shame on you! Anyone in the US not living in a cave should know the peculiarities of the 2000 election. For another interesting election that you should know about, search for Hayes and Tilden.
There your case becomes even weaker.
Remember, it's not my case. An in-depth comparison of Bush to, say, Hitler is not a task for me.
And I said that I wouldn't indulge in speculation with regard to 9/11. There is material available arguing both sides; I encourage you to find it.
The left-wing media just does not know how to handle non-left wing successful news agencies, even if they are centrist like Fox.
One on the most interesting political rants today is the conspiracy of "left-wing media" and the "liberal press". CNN is a perfect example. For all of the fawning over Bush, refraining from asking tough questions to the administration, and tolerance of publicity stunts, CNN is still being called liberal by the right wing. Believe me, if CNN were liberal then they'd have long since been denouncing an ultra-conservative like Bush. Fox News, on the other hand, is rarely (if ever) critical of Bush. It's difficult to call it centrist, in my opinon.
Gandhi also won an election. So what is your point?
The Point, ladies and gentlemen, is that you can win an election and still be a dictator. Thus calling Bush a dictator does not depend on how he was elected. Look to his policies instead.
Still, I think we can all agree that the process by which Bush took office was far from the usual electoral procedure. Given the margins for error, and all of the suspected foul play surrounding presidential elections, it could easily have gone to Gore, and it almost did. Whether or not 9/11 would have been prevented is speculation that I will not indulge in!
Slashdot Mirror
News flash: 64-bit apps are, usually, slightly slower than 32-bit ones. Duh. Any developer who's been around 64-bit environments for more than a few weeks knows this. It's not like there's some subtle magic going on here; bigger pointers means more data to schlep around.
That is the sort of "obvious" conventional wisdom that the article is questioning. In fact, 64-bit architecture means a lot more than pointer size, and merely counting bits is no way to estimate performance.
There's another side to this coin. Many Iraqis sided with the US because they feared Saddam's power. With Saddam out of the picture (physically) we can expect to see a greater push from the rival tribes to end the US occupation.
The lower court tried to undo the actual results by counting ballots without votes as being votes for Gore.
What the lower court decided was that the Florida recount needed to be completed before the final decision was made. It had little to do with "actual results" and empty ballots. The supreme court overturned it. Although there is no evidence, there is reason to believe that both courts acted in a partisan manner. If the supreme court were more liberal, there is an excellent chance that Gore would be president.
"Freedom Fighter" refers to whether or not they are fighting to make a place more free or not.
I believe this is incorrect. The term "freedom fighter" commonly refers to someone fighting (violently) for freedom from someone else. It doesn't have anything to do with the amount of overall freedom they want.
In your example, Hamas members are called freedom fighters (believe it or not) because they want to free the Middle East from western domination. They would, no doubt, love to create a totalitarian state but only because they believe it to be a desirable form of government.
Terrorists are defined by their intentional use of terror, which is typically a valuable asset of freedom fighters.
So they are different, technically. But let's be honest now. Would it be politically advantageous for Bush to call the Iraqi insurgents freedom fighters? Even attacks on the US military are being called terrorist attacks. The two terms have come to mean effectively the same thing.
The most important fact: it was damn close.
It was damn close, but not the closest presidential election we've ever had. To me, the most striking feature is that the contest was ultimately put to rest by the supreme court, overturning a lower court.
No, few of us agree with this, as Bush won the exact same way his predecessors did
Shame on you! Anyone in the US not living in a cave should know the peculiarities of the 2000 election. For another interesting election that you should know about, search for Hayes and Tilden.
There your case becomes even weaker.
Remember, it's not my case. An in-depth comparison of Bush to, say, Hitler is not a task for me.
And I said that I wouldn't indulge in speculation with regard to 9/11. There is material available arguing both sides; I encourage you to find it.
No, since it was done for good: the weapons were to be used against invading Iranian soldiers to prevent them from taking over Iraq.
Then I have some bad news for you. Iraq has been taken over!
The left-wing media just does not know how to handle non-left wing successful news agencies, even if they are centrist like Fox.
One on the most interesting political rants today is the conspiracy of "left-wing media" and the "liberal press". CNN is a perfect example. For all of the fawning over Bush, refraining from asking tough questions to the administration, and tolerance of publicity stunts, CNN is still being called liberal by the right wing. Believe me, if CNN were liberal then they'd have long since been denouncing an ultra-conservative like Bush. Fox News, on the other hand, is rarely (if ever) critical of Bush. It's difficult to call it centrist, in my opinon.
Gandhi also won an election. So what is your point?
The Point, ladies and gentlemen, is that you can win an election and still be a dictator. Thus calling Bush a dictator does not depend on how he was elected. Look to his policies instead.
Still, I think we can all agree that the process by which Bush took office was far from the usual electoral procedure. Given the margins for error, and all of the suspected foul play surrounding presidential elections, it could easily have gone to Gore, and it almost did. Whether or not 9/11 would have been prevented is speculation that I will not indulge in!