If you are somewhere in between, download Open Office, use it, and if you decide you aren't happy with it, buy MS Office. If you still aren't happy, I can't help you. You'll probably never be happy.
Or maybe — just maybe — office applications aren't what determine your own personal level of happiness.;)
The Ayatollah goatfucker decided that he'd gotten as much propaganda mileage as he could, and that keeping the hostages was reaching a point of diminished returns. He timed the release to embarrass Carter as much as possible.
And the whole Iran-Contra thing — just a coincidence? (I suppose you think that Oliver North was a patriotic hero, too, right?)
This may come as a great shock to you, but "fox news" isn't a magic phrase that negates anything you choose not to believe.
No, it's not. But when I see Fox News saying one thing (interestingly enough, these things don't tend to make it to their web-site, but are reserved for their "news" show), and dozens of other sources (including other conservative but honest sources) saying something else, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who's probably wrong, and why.
The sad fact is, Jimmah's a Jew-hating redneck. Pity, because he was doing so well at pretending to be a civilized human being for many years.
Wow, combining the phrase "Jew-hating" and "redneck" in the same sentence, followed by complaining about someone else not being civilized. Nope, that's not funny at all. Not at all.
read and learn
Now that was actually interesting. Obviously the publisher is stating its bias up front ("Promoting American interests"), but I can respect honest bias — as opposed to a station that pretends to be fair and balanced. It's an interesting review, and I feel an honest one. It's entirely possible that Carter is wrong in his attitude towards Israel. To conflate that with hating Jews, however, is either ignorant or deliberately misleading. To believe that he has these views just because the Saudis are providing money to the Carter Center is (a) indicative of having not read the source you yourself provided, and (b) reversing causality, if anything.
He was also arguably the only scientifically literate president since Thomas Jefferson, which is extremely sad.
And yet, even he couldn't pronounce nuclear correctly — despite the fact that he had a degree in nuclear engineering from my alma mater, Georgia Tech. (Is this a bad time to shout "To Hell With Georgia!", or is there ever a bad time to shout that?)
So you think that Reagan was able to secure the release of the hostages based purely off his stupendous foreign-relation skills within minutes of being sworn in? MacGuyver and Norris have got nothing on him!
As far as "sold out to the Saudis to spew anti-Israeli propaganda in his dotage" I reject this entirely. Israeli is not without blame in difficulties in the Middle East and much of Jimmy Carter's criticism are valid. They may be uncomfortable. They may be unpopular. The Arabs may have a larger role in exacerbating the conflict. This does not make his comments false.
Yeah, I avoided this comment completely, because, well, check out the actual article that these posts are a response to.;) Seriously, I find that it usually does not do much good to show them why their talking points are wrong. They don't want to listen, and they will not.
I am not a Christian and I deplore much of the ideologies espoused by Christians in the US today. However, Jimmy Carter has been and remains an example against this.
I'm not a Christian, either — I'm an atheist — but I think it's important to separate Christians from "prominent Christian leaders". The latter have shown themselves to be primarily corrupt. I do believe, however, that most Christians are good, decent people. Carter was rare in that he was a prominent leader and a Christian, but was still a good, decent person. Actually, that Christian part is totally superfluous. Regardless of religion, most leaders are corrupt. It just so happens that in our country it's hard to become a leader without at least pretending to be a Christian.
Carter was a hard-core incompetent, who sold out to the Saudis to spew anti-israeli propaganda in his dotage. Swinging hammers for photo-ops doesn't make up for his dismal handling of Iran's attack on US sovereign territory.
When you say "sold out" are you being literal or figurative? If literal, do you have any evidence that they gave him any money? If figurative, how is it any different from the many ways that Reagan sold out? I had a friend from Nicaragua who told me a lot about what Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal cost him and his friends. I very deliberately stayed away from policies, because it's easy to misconstrue them.
As "incompetent" as you think he was, do you deny that Carter was the most wholesome president in the last 40 years (never divorced, no adultery, no Contra-gate-like scandals that I'm aware of) — or is your hatred of him too strong to admit that?
Are you suggesting that Carter didn't? I know that a lot of conservatives hated his policies, rightly or wrongly, but his character is the best of any president in my lifetime. Seeing as how I was born in 1970, during the first Nixon administration, that's sort of damning with faint praise, of course. I think the funniest compliment/insult I've ever heard about Carter is that he makes such a great former President that he should have skipped straight to that job.
I don't want to mention the site's name, but a company I used to work for had a web-site geared towards children that for many years went without advertising. After it had built up quite a large audience, my boss decided to allow an advertising agency to place a single banner advertisement on the top of the pages. The agency had assured him that the ads would be tasteful (i.e., not flashing, etc.) and child-appropriate. After a week or so of this revenue, the agency slipped up somehow and allowed an inappropriate advertisement through its filter (and a parent complained about it). After verifying that this mistake was made, he got rid of the agency and went ad-free again (i.e., the site continued to lose money). I just checked, and there is still no banner ads on most pages. The only banner ad I saw was on a single page and was for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. There is a button, however, that allows parents to make donations. I have no idea if this covers the cost of the site.
The point is that, evidently, it's still risky to contract out banner ads to 3rd party companies.
The Mersenne Twister is a pseudo-random number generator. For many uses, this is preferable to a true random number generator as it is easily repeatable. (One can also repeat the results of a true random number generator by storing the output, but depending on how many random numbers you're generating, this might be space intensive.)
That said, although this might be "true" randomness, what kind of randomness it is? Uniform over a range? Gaussian? Weibull? Most likely, none of the above if it can be used for fingerprinting systems. (No, I did not RTFA.)
If government came to a stand still so much the better, then nothing would get done.
Exactly. That was one of the best things to come out of the Clinton/Gingrich spat. We saw exactly how "debilitating" it would be without government. Not that I'd want to go too long without it, but I wouldn't complain about a repeat of that particular scenario.
I'll admit, your comment intrigued me enough to go to the source. You have an interesting definition of "almost". I'd suggest a new dictionary. I think the word you're looking for is "doesn't".;)
(I'm not saying that authority can't be an important tool to protect freedoms, but if that is what he is trying to say, he is more like Bush than I thought.)
Cheney is potentially worse than Giuliani, but he had two huge limitations: 1) he's not good at managing those who disagree with him and 2) he had to work through an idiot.
You're clearly an optimist. Would it be cruel for me to point out that it's not January 20, 2009 yet?
Unlike Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, many Unitarians do not claim to be Christian. As I understand the church, you can be Christian and a Unitarian, you can be Pagan and a Unitarian, etc. Last year there was some complaining about the Unitarian Church putting fliers in kid's backpacks regarding a Yule time Pagan celebration. The beauty of it was that Falwell's efforts the previous spring (to force the school to allow religious literature so that they could advertise vacation Bible school) made it all possible.
I don't speak legalese, but that doesn't appear to apply. No individual states are mentioned, only some "Administrator" (cue ominous music). If this is the source for the fine, then it seems that fine is being instituted due to a government initiative (e.g., from the Bush administration) and not (directly) this section of the Clean Air Act. I am more inclined to think that this problem doesn't exist at all, seeing as how many slashdotters besides myself have reported being able to buy PZEV vehicles in states where they're supposedly not sold.
Also, you don't give enough credit to the "children/teenagers", who, if they're intelligent in the first place, will more than likely see through "crazy belief systems".
And who will be able to figure out how to bypass the restrictive system itself.
Or, that might just be a result of our incestuous news cycle. The fact that all stories (taking what you're saying at face value) have no more information than this one, I'm leaning towards "incestuous news cycle".
Under terms of the Clean Air Act--in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off--anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500
The clean air act is mighty large, but I don't see this in there. I tried various searches on Google including site:http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/, but no hits on "27,500", "27500", or even "fines". Seems that by "civil" they mean "invented".
I'm really having difficulty finding the issue about why its illegal to sell elsewhere.
That's probably because it's not illegal and the author is just confused. His sources appear to be quite lacking, so I see no way to verify his information. Seeing as his claim makes no sense, I'm going to believe he's wrong until I see evidence to the contrary. (Yes, I realize that government regulations don't have to make sense.)
Slashdot Mirror
So you think that Reagan was able to secure the release of the hostages based purely off his stupendous foreign-relation skills within minutes of being sworn in? MacGuyver and Norris have got nothing on him!
When you say "sold out" are you being literal or figurative? If literal, do you have any evidence that they gave him any money? If figurative, how is it any different from the many ways that Reagan sold out? I had a friend from Nicaragua who told me a lot about what Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal cost him and his friends. I very deliberately stayed away from policies, because it's easy to misconstrue them.
As "incompetent" as you think he was, do you deny that Carter was the most wholesome president in the last 40 years (never divorced, no adultery, no Contra-gate-like scandals that I'm aware of) — or is your hatred of him too strong to admit that?Are you suggesting that Carter didn't? I know that a lot of conservatives hated his policies, rightly or wrongly, but his character is the best of any president in my lifetime. Seeing as how I was born in 1970, during the first Nixon administration, that's sort of damning with faint praise, of course. I think the funniest compliment/insult I've ever heard about Carter is that he makes such a great former President that he should have skipped straight to that job.
He'll probably just think you can't spell "sweeten" and wonder what you're talking about.
I don't want to mention the site's name, but a company I used to work for had a web-site geared towards children that for many years went without advertising. After it had built up quite a large audience, my boss decided to allow an advertising agency to place a single banner advertisement on the top of the pages. The agency had assured him that the ads would be tasteful (i.e., not flashing, etc.) and child-appropriate. After a week or so of this revenue, the agency slipped up somehow and allowed an inappropriate advertisement through its filter (and a parent complained about it). After verifying that this mistake was made, he got rid of the agency and went ad-free again (i.e., the site continued to lose money). I just checked, and there is still no banner ads on most pages. The only banner ad I saw was on a single page and was for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. There is a button, however, that allows parents to make donations. I have no idea if this covers the cost of the site.
The point is that, evidently, it's still risky to contract out banner ads to 3rd party companies.
Wow, that actually makes sense. I'll bet you cheated and RTFA, didn't you?
The Mersenne Twister is a pseudo-random number generator. For many uses, this is preferable to a true random number generator as it is easily repeatable. (One can also repeat the results of a true random number generator by storing the output, but depending on how many random numbers you're generating, this might be space intensive.)
That said, although this might be "true" randomness, what kind of randomness it is? Uniform over a range? Gaussian? Weibull? Most likely, none of the above if it can be used for fingerprinting systems. (No, I did not RTFA.)
I'll admit, your comment intrigued me enough to go to the source. You have an interesting definition of "almost". I'd suggest a new dictionary. I think the word you're looking for is "doesn't". ;)
(I'm not saying that authority can't be an important tool to protect freedoms, but if that is what he is trying to say, he is more like Bush than I thought.)
9/11 changed everything
Do you really think that Giuliani would be worse than Bush/Cheney?
Have you looked carefully at your code to see what happens if you're not drunk? Personally, I'd like to see an exit(0); in that else section.
Unlike Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, many Unitarians do not claim to be Christian. As I understand the church, you can be Christian and a Unitarian, you can be Pagan and a Unitarian, etc. Last year there was some complaining about the Unitarian Church putting fliers in kid's backpacks regarding a Yule time Pagan celebration. The beauty of it was that Falwell's efforts the previous spring (to force the school to allow religious literature so that they could advertise vacation Bible school) made it all possible.
I don't speak legalese, but that doesn't appear to apply. No individual states are mentioned, only some "Administrator" (cue ominous music). If this is the source for the fine, then it seems that fine is being instituted due to a government initiative (e.g., from the Bush administration) and not (directly) this section of the Clean Air Act. I am more inclined to think that this problem doesn't exist at all, seeing as how many slashdotters besides myself have reported being able to buy PZEV vehicles in states where they're supposedly not sold.
Or, that might just be a result of our incestuous news cycle. The fact that all stories (taking what you're saying at face value) have no more information than this one, I'm leaning towards "incestuous news cycle".