it doesn't count unless it's ratified by the Senate - so the US isn't a signatory.
Your proof isn't towards your conclusion. No, it doesn't count at all unless it's ratified by the Senate, but yes, the US is technically a signatory since it signed.
(and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004)
Yeah, way to be apolitical about it, michael. Are you trying to reduce the Slashdot effect by driving off Bush supporters? Pretty much every story (except "FreeBSD 6 released") has a comment either attacking Bush (5, Insightful) or making fun of Bush (5, Funny).
Clinton didn't sign it either, for the same reason.
Al Gore signed it, so technically, the US is a signatory to the treaty. It was wisely never sent to the Senate for ratification; it wouldn't have possibly passed.
HUNTER'S HELPER: The lazy backwoods redneck no longer need soil his clothing or even leave the house! Simply be remotely controlling his JethroBot, he can blast away offensive and dangerous deer, squirrels, and "possums" with the flick of a switch! Sure to be a top seller at Wal-Mart stores nationwide.
Have you read Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, first short story, or played Knights of the Old Republic, desert on Tatooine? Both use to mechanical hunting-bots as aids to hunters.
Hm...si j'apporte mon Xbox avec la version française de ce jeux, pensez-vous que ma prof de français nous permettra à le jouer Mardi? On pourra traduire ce que Maître-Chef dit...
Vaut-il modder mon Xbox pour y jouer -- est-ce que le dialogue est interessant à étudier (pour moi)?
Hm. Vocab test on Halo words. We already did "phacochère" for Lion King vocab, and we're running low on word lists, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
(If you're a native speaker, I apologize in advance. This is from my high-school French classes.)
J'avais joué is acceptable: I had been playing / I had played. J'avais appris, on the other hand, is meaningwise incorrect; it'd mean "I had learned", so only your second correction is necessary.
I've never seen a game this hyped or this heavily protected.
Game, yes. But this Halo 2 protection rivals that of Harry Potter 5, this summer. Store-owners in my area were fired for selling the book early, if I remember right.
What good is this to anyone who wants to keep data beyond half a decade?
Nothing. Buy a disk made for longevity if you want that. This is for temporary large data, for people who want their disks to be disposable after half a decade.
Re:Hmm... I've seen this somewhere before...
on
Give Your Brain A Boost
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yeah, I first realized it was a dupe when the article link appeared in the black visited-links color.
Once the map is in place in an OSS program, an online submission and approval system should be able to get proper speed limits and one-way routings in by the next release. I'll be glad to go through the streets I see and mark speed limits if it means I'll get similar info on other parts of the country I may visit.
I don't think we need DeLorme to port their software. All I'd need is their database in usable form if you're a licensee of the Windows version. Free software for route planning exists (or can exist easily, as you state), but the map is the problem.
Oh, and USGS or some other source should have a map database. The base map, less DeLorme's updates, is common to all mapping software, and IIRC it's a government organization that produces it, ergo it's public domain.
It is not religion if you're trying to prove it. It is science. Frankly, proving the existence of Someone who asks you to have faith in Him seems contradictory, since you're not doing as He asked (you're proving instead of believing); besides, He probably wouldn't ask for faith if His existence were provable.
there is a reason to show that creationists are wrong: they are wrong.
A prime example of "begging the question" if I ever saw one. How about you show that we are wrong before you say we are as a defense? There is no way you can say we are wrong, just as there is no way we can say you are wrong. We can validly say we believe your understanding is narrowminded or incorrect, and you can validly say you believe ours is simpleminded or inappropriate. I doubt there's a way for you to put in absolute fact there.
I don't feel comfortable in allowing national policy to be set
Perfectly fine. Neither do I. Don't vote for rabid Bible-thumpers then. Even I realize that the government leaders have to act as agents of the state, not agents of their religion, no matter how much I may agree with their religion. And I believe that a lot of them realize that, too. To do otherwise is as wrong as using the office for personal gain.
nature exists solely for the exploitation of humans and should be used up before the imminent second coming
I'm going to assume you mean Christianity here. This is not a Christian belief. Heard the parable of the talents? Use what is given you; don't use it up. I see no reference to "exploiting" nature in the Bible. Besides, your assertion of the "imminent" second coming is fallacious. The Bible's description states that the date of the coming is unknown; there's no way we can time ourselves to "use up" the Earth by then. Besides, can you not agree that there is moral benefit in always thinking that someone with authority might come along and ask for an accounting of your actions? This is more or less what the threat of impeachment does for political offices.
Indeed. For it is entirely possible that there is a God who created the universe in a manner that He would've been unneccessary (through Occam's Razor), but He was there anyway. Any sort of logic can only say that this explanation is unneccessary or valid, not that it is true or false.
For all we know, 50 years ago humans might've simultaneously transformed into giant kittens with immense powers to transform themselves back while wiping their memories of the incident. Would there be any way to prove or disprove that? Then why do you think you can prove or disprove God? That's the point of having "faith": your beliefs can't be proven.
I argue that voting for a third party when you believe in a major party is actually throwing your vote away. I cannot bring myself to support any of the five you've listed. Of course I don't truly believe in the major party candidates - that's because the only candidate I'd truly believe in would be myself. And I know I'd change my position on the issues at some point.
Why does Slashdot assume that third-party candidates would be better? The way I read them, Michael Badnarik's policies seem more dangerous than Bush's, and much as I dislike Bush, he's still my favorite candidate from all parties.
A lot of the third parties are basing their campaign on "Bush and Kerry are both bad." Agreed, but you're no better.
From badnarik.org:
As your president, I'll veto deficit spending. Period. I expect this to be an easy thing to do, since I'll be slashing the size of the federal government at the same time--so much so that taxes will be slashed as well.
A second solution is to put the American economy back on real money, backed by gold and silver, and to take away the ability of the Federal Reserve to create "money" out of thin air, debasing the value of the "money" in your wallet.
Badnarik wants to cut government prgrams so much that not only will we cancel all our budget deficit, but we'll also reduce income taxes. In addition, he'll be completely remaking the American economy, blissfully ignoring the importance of a stable American economy to the world and the danger of trying to back everything on specie without causing massive inflation.
He also wants to remove requirements on childhood vaccinations and encourage joing custody, citing "parent's rights". As a child, I'd like to point out that the role of a parent is to parent a child, not to pick at rights. For my interest, the law better encourage vaccinations and decide custody based on something more relevant than the interstate commerce clause. If a government cannot protect its nation's next generation, it has no purpose.
He also waffles on his stance on the War in Iraq. He denounces it, but says "we cannot change history" and wants to bring troops back only "as possible". This is no better than the major candidate's positions. In any case, an Iraq in the control of American peacekeeping forces and Halliburton is much safer to me personally than an Iraq after a mass withdrawal of US troops.
And as far as deployment of troops, he wants to move them into America's borders. Sorry, but the American-Canadian border is by treaty undefended, and in practical terms, stationing troops on the borders -- to protect from "terrorists" carrying suitcase nukes (LOL, have we seen any?) -- is pointless, futile, and ludicrous.
In my opinion, Bush is a far lesser evil than Badnarik. Third-party does not mean I-have-to-be-crazy. (Remember, this is the guy who tried to get positive publicity by getting himself arrested. He's right, but nobody will realize it.) If America could find a good political leader, I'd support him. Until then, I support Bush.
Actually, this is the best method of copyright protection; I think an appropriate name would be the "reverse dongle" approach. The value for you is in the hardware device, which follows traditional economic rules. The software is only for enabling the device - it does nothing else, and nothing else does so. Thus, the software can be licensed freely.
A company who can master this should never have a problem with software piracy. If someone makes a clone of the hardware, that's either a patent infringement (not copyright), and more traceable, or it's legitimate competition. We can only trade software easily because it's trivial to copy. Copiers of the hardware must at least break even.
Slashdot Mirror
it doesn't count unless it's ratified by the Senate - so the US isn't a signatory.
Your proof isn't towards your conclusion. No, it doesn't count at all unless it's ratified by the Senate, but yes, the US is technically a signatory since it signed.
(and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004)
Yeah, way to be apolitical about it, michael. Are you trying to reduce the Slashdot effect by driving off Bush supporters? Pretty much every story (except "FreeBSD 6 released") has a comment either attacking Bush (5, Insightful) or making fun of Bush (5, Funny).
Clinton didn't sign it either, for the same reason.
Al Gore signed it, so technically, the US is a signatory to the treaty. It was wisely never sent to the Senate for ratification; it wouldn't have possibly passed.
That's why we have regulatory agencies. But of course this evil FCC is evilly regulating this so-called "spectrum", so government regulation is bad.
Use the government to your advantage, people.
Why couldn't he just have gone Stealth and then crept out?
HUNTER'S HELPER: The lazy backwoods redneck no longer need soil his clothing or even leave the house! Simply be remotely controlling his JethroBot, he can blast away offensive and dangerous deer, squirrels, and "possums" with the flick of a switch! Sure to be a top seller at Wal-Mart stores nationwide.
Have you read Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, first short story, or played Knights of the Old Republic, desert on Tatooine? Both use to mechanical hunting-bots as aids to hunters.
How? They speak English with heavy slang and an American accent.
That's why they're so worried about American traitors.
God Bless America.
Kerry's prayer?
A covenant without a sword is but words among men.
A Covenant without a Sword is a lot easier to kill.
Hm...si j'apporte mon Xbox avec la version française de ce jeux, pensez-vous que ma prof de français nous permettra à le jouer Mardi? On pourra traduire ce que Maître-Chef dit...
Vaut-il modder mon Xbox pour y jouer -- est-ce que le dialogue est interessant à étudier (pour moi)?
Hm. Vocab test on Halo words. We already did "phacochère" for Lion King vocab, and we're running low on word lists, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
(If you're a native speaker, I apologize in advance. This is from my high-school French classes.)
J'avais joué is acceptable: I had been playing / I had played. J'avais appris, on the other hand, is meaningwise incorrect; it'd mean "I had learned", so only your second correction is necessary.
I've never seen a game this hyped or this heavily protected.
Game, yes. But this Halo 2 protection rivals that of Harry Potter 5, this summer. Store-owners in my area were fired for selling the book early, if I remember right.
Make that 59,459,766. You're counted with them if you memorize vote counts or keep them handy.
What good is this to anyone who wants to keep data beyond half a decade?
Nothing. Buy a disk made for longevity if you want that. This is for temporary large data, for people who want their disks to be disposable after half a decade.
Yeah, I first realized it was a dupe when the article link appeared in the black visited-links color.
Once the map is in place in an OSS program, an online submission and approval system should be able to get proper speed limits and one-way routings in by the next release. I'll be glad to go through the streets I see and mark speed limits if it means I'll get similar info on other parts of the country I may visit.
trolling for hits
Then give 'em what they want. Hit the reload buttons, fellow Slashdotters!
I don't think we need DeLorme to port their software. All I'd need is their database in usable form if you're a licensee of the Windows version. Free software for route planning exists (or can exist easily, as you state), but the map is the problem.
Oh, and USGS or some other source should have a map database. The base map, less DeLorme's updates, is common to all mapping software, and IIRC it's a government organization that produces it, ergo it's public domain.
They do not misunderstand it: they define it.
It is not religion if you're trying to prove it. It is science. Frankly, proving the existence of Someone who asks you to have faith in Him seems contradictory, since you're not doing as He asked (you're proving instead of believing); besides, He probably wouldn't ask for faith if His existence were provable.
there is a reason to show that creationists are wrong: they are wrong.
A prime example of "begging the question" if I ever saw one. How about you show that we are wrong before you say we are as a defense? There is no way you can say we are wrong, just as there is no way we can say you are wrong. We can validly say we believe your understanding is narrowminded or incorrect, and you can validly say you believe ours is simpleminded or inappropriate. I doubt there's a way for you to put in absolute fact there.
I don't feel comfortable in allowing national policy to be set
Perfectly fine. Neither do I. Don't vote for rabid Bible-thumpers then. Even I realize that the government leaders have to act as agents of the state, not agents of their religion, no matter how much I may agree with their religion. And I believe that a lot of them realize that, too. To do otherwise is as wrong as using the office for personal gain.
nature exists solely for the exploitation of humans and should be used up before the imminent second coming
I'm going to assume you mean Christianity here. This is not a Christian belief. Heard the parable of the talents? Use what is given you; don't use it up. I see no reference to "exploiting" nature in the Bible. Besides, your assertion of the "imminent" second coming is fallacious. The Bible's description states that the date of the coming is unknown; there's no way we can time ourselves to "use up" the Earth by then. Besides, can you not agree that there is moral benefit in always thinking that someone with authority might come along and ask for an accounting of your actions? This is more or less what the threat of impeachment does for political offices.
Indeed. For it is entirely possible that there is a God who created the universe in a manner that He would've been unneccessary (through Occam's Razor), but He was there anyway. Any sort of logic can only say that this explanation is unneccessary or valid, not that it is true or false.
For all we know, 50 years ago humans might've simultaneously transformed into giant kittens with immense powers to transform themselves back while wiping their memories of the incident. Would there be any way to prove or disprove that? Then why do you think you can prove or disprove God? That's the point of having "faith": your beliefs can't be proven.
"Republican". *ducks*
That's quite a bit of evolution there. I thought they were elephants....
I think he's being funny. Why would he come to Slashdot and link "integrity / in the face of adversity" to SCO / Groklaw?
I argue that voting for a third party when you believe in a major party is actually throwing your vote away. I cannot bring myself to support any of the five you've listed. Of course I don't truly believe in the major party candidates - that's because the only candidate I'd truly believe in would be myself. And I know I'd change my position on the issues at some point.
A lot of the third parties are basing their campaign on "Bush and Kerry are both bad." Agreed, but you're no better.
From badnarik.org:
Badnarik wants to cut government prgrams so much that not only will we cancel all our budget deficit, but we'll also reduce income taxes. In addition, he'll be completely remaking the American economy, blissfully ignoring the importance of a stable American economy to the world and the danger of trying to back everything on specie without causing massive inflation.
He also wants to remove requirements on childhood vaccinations and encourage joing custody, citing "parent's rights". As a child, I'd like to point out that the role of a parent is to parent a child, not to pick at rights. For my interest, the law better encourage vaccinations and decide custody based on something more relevant than the interstate commerce clause. If a government cannot protect its nation's next generation, it has no purpose.
He also waffles on his stance on the War in Iraq. He denounces it, but says "we cannot change history" and wants to bring troops back only "as possible". This is no better than the major candidate's positions. In any case, an Iraq in the control of American peacekeeping forces and Halliburton is much safer to me personally than an Iraq after a mass withdrawal of US troops.
And as far as deployment of troops, he wants to move them into America's borders. Sorry, but the American-Canadian border is by treaty undefended, and in practical terms, stationing troops on the borders -- to protect from "terrorists" carrying suitcase nukes (LOL, have we seen any?) -- is pointless, futile, and ludicrous.
In my opinion, Bush is a far lesser evil than Badnarik. Third-party does not mean I-have-to-be-crazy. (Remember, this is the guy who tried to get positive publicity by getting himself arrested. He's right, but nobody will realize it.) If America could find a good political leader, I'd support him. Until then, I support Bush.
Actually, this is the best method of copyright protection; I think an appropriate name would be the "reverse dongle" approach. The value for you is in the hardware device, which follows traditional economic rules. The software is only for enabling the device - it does nothing else, and nothing else does so. Thus, the software can be licensed freely.
A company who can master this should never have a problem with software piracy. If someone makes a clone of the hardware, that's either a patent infringement (not copyright), and more traceable, or it's legitimate competition. We can only trade software easily because it's trivial to copy. Copiers of the hardware must at least break even.