It was a connect-the-dots pattern. I'm no artist; I just followed it. I think most of it was with a little saw tool, but some of it may have been dremelled.
You're basically saying that the U.S. should be able to invade any country suspected of harboring terrorists, and nobody else should have a say in it.
Yes, that's basically it.
As to your belief that police don't owe anything to the policed, that's just what a police state would want you to think.
Exactly. That's why we shouldn't be the world's policeman. We're just another kid on the playground and, hold your breath: there is no teacher.
If the U.S. acts like a playground bully, to continue the analogy, then the other kids will eventually gang up and put a stop to it. I'm not advocating we act like a bully.
If instead we look around the playground for people ready to throw rocks our way, why would the other kids care if we pummel the rock-throwers and take away the rocks?
You are either an unfortunate sucker, a subtle humorist, or a pointless troll.
The Internet was not invented by any one person, and it happened without Senator Gore's participation.
Here's a timeline. The script can be slow for some reason (probably related to a recent IP change), so be patient.
The Internet started in 1969, when Gore was a senior at Harvard. He wasn't involved in the ARPANet project. By the time he got to Congress in 1977, it already had over 100 hosts at dozens of sites, and was already showing exponential growth.
Gore supported the technology when he got to Congress, especially in the Senate in the early 90's. Claiming he invented it is just a lie. Claiming he funded its invention is also a lie. Claiming to fund its growth is semantically null; nothing could have stopped it. He was just grandstanding, and doing it so badly it became a joke.
Nations that foster terrorism are a threat to the U.S. We can quibble about WMD or an Al Qaida link, but Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. They aren't any more.
>you can't be "world police" and then [not] give a shit...
Who said we were 'world police'? We're trying to destroy terrorism. That happens to be in the interest of all non-terrorist nations, but it we're not doing it as a police action.
But even if we were acting as "world police", as the policers we certainly wouldn't owe the policed an explanation. That's a higher level of authority (trying to settle disputes that don't affect us). We're not exercising that level of power, though, as we did in the stupid messes in Somalia and Bosnia.
I don't favor anyone being world police, including the U.S. I do favor the U.S. protecting itself, and I don't think anyone else should get a say in how we do it.
We're not a democracy. The world is certainly not a democracy, and I dread the day when it becomes one. You want to see despotism? Let's put national sovereignty up to a popular vote and welcome our new Asian overlords.
Repeat after me, too: "The President is not in the Judicial Branch. The President is not in the Judicial Branch."
Civics lesson (continued from the Eighth Grade): Once a bill is voted on and passed by both Houses of Congress, the President either signs it into law or he vetoes it. He can either explicitly veto it, or he can simply ignore it (called a "pocket veto").
Once he signs it, there is little else (as in nada, zip, nuthin') he or a successor can do on his own but enforce it.
He can ask Congress to alter the law, which follows the above process.
He can have his Department of Justice bring suit in the courts to have the law struck down, but then the DOJ is just another party in a lawsuit. The judge can decide the case either for or against the DOJ's side, and even if the judge sides with the DOJ it doesn't mean the law will be struck down (i.e., the case can just be decided on its merits or some other way that doesn't affect the law).
Oh, I agree. The stakes are high. But we will be much more prepared this time.
Expect the capitalist-copyright-nazi side to try to spin it as a battle about porn. Expect the otherwise unlikely alliance of Drudge, Slashdot, the EFF, and Google to push for more freedom for information.
..oh, I just can't do it.
My wife and I use Verizon. It costs too much. We can call each other for "free" -- as long as we pay $100/month, combined.
The coverage is ok.
but I told you so. Well, not exactly. But this hacks off one of the abuses of the DMCA: using its protections for stuff that ought to be covered under a patent (if your work is so original as to merit a patent).
The DMCA was "Copyright fix in the Internet Age, version 1". I expect Version 2 will be coming around shortly. There is a lot of pressure for action:
The patent system is broken, so people are trying to use copyright law in its place
The RIAA, MPAA, et al want piracy made a capital felony (it seems)
The blogs are taking over the role of news source from the mainscam media
Courts are getting smarter
Open Source principles are at work in business, as the dotcom bubble has given way to the network age
Politicians see the power of free information, especially in the way it affects their ability to campaign
In short, we're all more sophisticated and just more used to the impact of technology than when the DMCA was made law in the late 90's. We'll probably be just as short-sighted next time around, but at least this batch of problems will be addressed. I hope.
While I could weasel and say "topped a 50 share" includes a 76, I guess I really should get my facts straight next time (or hire a more rounded staff:-).
They use the results of a number of polls. Since these polls are more or less independent of each other, it's mathematically acceptable to aggregate them (provided you do the simple stuff like weighting the polls according to sample size, etc.).
You say that the polls themselves are all biased in the same direction, reflecting the viewpoint of likely voters who answer their landline. While I can't invalidate that completely, the fact that multiple polls find similar results tends to weaken the idea. The question is open whether people who don't answer their landline lean toward one side enough to change the results. Also, polls of kids, who usually tend to track their parents' viewpoints, agree with the telephone polls.
It's possible that your friends think the same way you do, so to you it feels like everybody hates the President, when in fact most people like him.
Whoa, wait. I never said Mozilla was what it should be; I said they should keep the principles in mind. They don't have to add features to generate sales.
Do I like popup protection, and skins, and the ability to selectively wax cookies, and so on?
Yep.
I just think they should take Linus' attitude, that adding a feature should not have a negative impact on overall performance.
TV ratings for Game 7 of the Sox-Yanks series topped a 50 share in Boston. Games usually don't get more than a 20 share, even for a playoff series. The point of that is that there are lots of people who are suddenly Red Sox fans.
Shrug. I never liked Kerry anyway.
Anybody can make a mistake. Kerry never said he watched the games, did he? His people should get the facts straight... and maybe he should hire more well-rounded staff:-).
I think you hit it on the head. I'd guess that for most people, a browser and office suite is all they use. If people see they can use some other browser, and some other office suite, it's not far from there to using some other operating system.
Sort of like hoof and mouth disease for their cash cow.
The desire to want to match features is an artifact of the hidden source monolithic development model. If you have a product you're trying to sell, you want to maximize how attractive it looks to the purchaser.
FOSS developers, on the other hand, generally want to use the program they're writing (and don't want its performance to suffer). Also, they're open to the possibility that their niche has a boundary past which they shouldn't grow. There is generally less financial pressure to add new features than there is general pressure to keep the program working.
The thing that keeps Linux competitive is that Linus won't accept (*) a new kernel feature patch that decreases performance. As a result, Linux benefits from new hardware but continues to work on the older stuff (or at least, you can make it work).
I think as long as the Mozilla people keep these principles in mind, they'll keep doing great work. ---- (* except for emergency security fixes, or in a development kernel where the current state of a new patch is too slow, but the technology looks like it will eventually be faster.)
I can't defend against any random person punching me. So does that mean the only sensible altenative is for me to go around chopping peoples arms off?
Nations are not people. The rules that apply do individuals do not necessarily apply to nations.
Even without the above, your analogy is flawed. You can't defend against the actions of a crazed individual punching you at random (or for something you've done to them). What you can do is find and attack anyone who is organizing and funding bands of you-punchers.
No one says we should attack random nations on the supposition that they might be sponsoring terrorism. The Taliban and Saddam's Iraq were state sponsors of terror. They aren't any more.
The war on terrorism is a lot like the fight against organized crime. If we treat each individual criminal act committed by a ring of criminals as a separate act, we will never defeat the ring. They will just recruit more members. We have to break up the ring, to discourage the idea of building rings of criminals.
It is futile to defend against terrorism by punishing individual acts of terror.
Slashdot Mirror
African or European?
World's Fastest Computer Runs Linux
UK Government Recognizes Independence of American Colonies
Windows Considered Harmful
Stewart Recommends Telling Truth To Investigators
Experts Warn Not To Cross Street Without Looking
- film at 11
It was a connect-the-dots pattern. I'm no artist; I just followed it. I think most of it was with a little saw tool, but some of it may have been dremelled.
It really looked like that. I was amazed.
Here is an example of what they can look like.
I'm for him, but that was still a clever post.
Yes, that's basically it.
Exactly. That's why we shouldn't be the world's policeman. We're just another kid on the playground and, hold your breath: there is no teacher.
If the U.S. acts like a playground bully, to continue the analogy, then the other kids will eventually gang up and put a stop to it. I'm not advocating we act like a bully.
If instead we look around the playground for people ready to throw rocks our way, why would the other kids care if we pummel the rock-throwers and take away the rocks?
You are either an unfortunate sucker, a subtle humorist, or a pointless troll.
The Internet was not invented by any one person, and it happened without Senator Gore's participation.
Here's a timeline. The script can be slow for some reason (probably related to a recent IP change), so be patient.
The Internet started in 1969, when Gore was a senior at Harvard. He wasn't involved in the ARPANet project. By the time he got to Congress in 1977, it already had over 100 hosts at dozens of sites, and was already showing exponential growth.
Gore supported the technology when he got to Congress, especially in the Senate in the early 90's. Claiming he invented it is just a lie. Claiming he funded its invention is also a lie. Claiming to fund its growth is semantically null; nothing could have stopped it. He was just grandstanding, and doing it so badly it became a joke.
>explain Iraq to me then?
Sure.
Nations that foster terrorism are a threat to the U.S. We can quibble about WMD or an Al Qaida link, but Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. They aren't any more.
End of threat.
Oh, I get it. I thought it was the usual "U.S. - like it or leave it" statement.
Mea culpa.
>you can't be "world police" and then [not] give a shit...
Who said we were 'world police'? We're trying to destroy terrorism. That happens to be in the interest of all non-terrorist nations, but it we're not doing it as a police action.
But even if we were acting as "world police", as the policers we certainly wouldn't owe the policed an explanation. That's a higher level of authority (trying to settle disputes that don't affect us). We're not exercising that level of power, though, as we did in the stupid messes in Somalia and Bosnia.
I don't favor anyone being world police, including the U.S. I do favor the U.S. protecting itself, and I don't think anyone else should get a say in how we do it.
We're not a democracy. The world is certainly not a democracy, and I dread the day when it becomes one. You want to see despotism? Let's put national sovereignty up to a popular vote and welcome our new Asian overlords.
I think you meant 'emigrate', not 'immigrate'.
Repeat after me, too: "The President is not in the Judicial Branch. The President is not in the Judicial Branch."
Civics lesson (continued from the Eighth Grade): Once a bill is voted on and passed by both Houses of Congress, the President either signs it into law or he vetoes it. He can either explicitly veto it, or he can simply ignore it (called a "pocket veto").
Once he signs it, there is little else (as in nada, zip, nuthin') he or a successor can do on his own but enforce it.
He can ask Congress to alter the law, which follows the above process.
He can have his Department of Justice bring suit in the courts to have the law struck down, but then the DOJ is just another party in a lawsuit. The judge can decide the case either for or against the DOJ's side, and even if the judge sides with the DOJ it doesn't mean the law will be struck down (i.e., the case can just be decided on its merits or some other way that doesn't affect the law).
>be very afraid of DMCA 2.0
Oh, I agree. The stakes are high. But we will be much more prepared this time.
Expect the capitalist-copyright-nazi side to try to spin it as a battle about porn. Expect the otherwise unlikely alliance of Drudge, Slashdot, the EFF, and Google to push for more freedom for information.
..oh, I just can't do it. My wife and I use Verizon. It costs too much. We can call each other for "free" -- as long as we pay $100/month, combined. The coverage is ok.
Columbia is a cluster of 20 Altix 512-processor machines.
>Challenger
Oh, yeah. Oops. I actually watched that from Japan when I was in the service. Not happy.
Computer superclusters don't even have O-rings.
They don't carry schoolteachers.
They don't fly in the air.
This runs Linux, not Windows. It won't crash.
The DMCA was "Copyright fix in the Internet Age, version 1". I expect Version 2 will be coming around shortly. There is a lot of pressure for action:
-
The patent system is broken, so people are trying to use copyright law in its place
-
The RIAA, MPAA, et al want piracy made a capital felony (it seems)
-
The blogs are taking over the role of news source from the mainscam media
-
Courts are getting smarter
-
Open Source principles are at work in business, as the dotcom bubble has given way to the network age
-
Politicians see the power of free information, especially in the way it affects their ability to campaign
In short, we're all more sophisticated and just more used to the impact of technology than when the DMCA was made law in the late 90's. We'll probably be just as short-sighted next time around, but at least this batch of problems will be addressed. I hope.While I could weasel and say "topped a 50 share" includes a 76, I guess I really should get my facts straight next time (or hire a more rounded staff :-).
They use the results of a number of polls. Since these polls are more or less independent of each other, it's mathematically acceptable to aggregate them (provided you do the simple stuff like weighting the polls according to sample size, etc.).
You say that the polls themselves are all biased in the same direction, reflecting the viewpoint of likely voters who answer their landline. While I can't invalidate that completely, the fact that multiple polls find similar results tends to weaken the idea. The question is open whether people who don't answer their landline lean toward one side enough to change the results. Also, polls of kids, who usually tend to track their parents' viewpoints, agree with the telephone polls.
It's possible that your friends think the same way you do, so to you it feels like everybody hates the President, when in fact most people like him.
(replying to siblings)
Whoa, wait. I never said Mozilla was what it should be; I said they should keep the principles in mind. They don't have to add features to generate sales.
Do I like popup protection, and skins, and the ability to selectively wax cookies, and so on?
Yep.
I just think they should take Linus' attitude, that adding a feature should not have a negative impact on overall performance.
TV ratings for Game 7 of the Sox-Yanks series topped a 50 share in Boston. Games usually don't get more than a 20 share, even for a playoff series. The point of that is that there are lots of people who are suddenly Red Sox fans.
... and maybe he should hire more well-rounded staff :-).
Shrug. I never liked Kerry anyway.
Anybody can make a mistake. Kerry never said he watched the games, did he? His people should get the facts straight
I think you hit it on the head. I'd guess that for most people, a browser and office suite is all they use. If people see they can use some other browser, and some other office suite, it's not far from there to using some other operating system.
Sort of like hoof and mouth disease for their cash cow.
The desire to want to match features is an artifact of the hidden source monolithic development model. If you have a product you're trying to sell, you want to maximize how attractive it looks to the purchaser.
FOSS developers, on the other hand, generally want to use the program they're writing (and don't want its performance to suffer). Also, they're open to the possibility that their niche has a boundary past which they shouldn't grow. There is generally less financial pressure to add new features than there is general pressure to keep the program working.
The thing that keeps Linux competitive is that Linus won't accept (*) a new kernel feature patch that decreases performance. As a result, Linux benefits from new hardware but continues to work on the older stuff (or at least, you can make it work).
I think as long as the Mozilla people keep these principles in mind, they'll keep doing great work.
----
(* except for emergency security fixes, or in a development kernel where the current state of a new patch is too slow, but the technology looks like it will eventually be faster.)
No one says we should attack random nations on the supposition that they might be sponsoring terrorism. The Taliban and Saddam's Iraq were state sponsors of terror. They aren't any more.
The war on terrorism is a lot like the fight against organized crime. If we treat each individual criminal act committed by a ring of criminals as a separate act, we will never defeat the ring. They will just recruit more members. We have to break up the ring, to discourage the idea of building rings of criminals.
It is futile to defend against terrorism by punishing individual acts of terror.