If they support that criminal and have the gall to run, they have no moral compass.
Very few (if any) politicians still have a working model. It's a matter of picking the ones LEAST likely to do harm (and ideally the ones most likley to do good). It is my belief (and only that) that the republicans do less harm on average than the democrats.
...any congress critter who has not left the party has implicitly endorsed this inaction and should be fired. Any "Democrat" who has supported the "Republicans", aka Hillary, should be fired. It is as simple as that.
Not quite as simple as that. I wish. First, there have been no real calls from the democratic party as a whole to impeach. And why not? Because they know that it wont happen. Let's flip it arround. Why would any republican who doesn't support Bush not call for impeachment. Because they too know that it wouldn't happen.
Ok second: why wont they leave the party. Partly because the party is not defined as "people who support Bush". It's something closer to "people who have the same general viewpoint and are willing to work together most of the time." The rest of it is more to the tune of campain finance. Other party members hold the purse strings.
Besides, they have no real chance of being elected from any other party. (a very small chance, requiring a hugh charisma - This is a result of our broken election system, causing a two party system.)
Above all else, remember: congress critters are sheeple too.
I sent in my change of party form last year to leave the Repulicrat party and the change won't be effective until next year.
What? This is new to me. Please elaborate. I didn't think this was in party control at all. My impression was that you could simply reregister at the DMV and the change would happen in the county government. Where do you live? How could that happen?
[blockquote]While I'm interested in seeing the film, my wife and I just can't swallow the wretched ticket prices when, for cost of two admissions, we can OWN THE DVD. Not rent, own...[/blockquote] I hate to point it out, but the MPAA might disagree with you on that (the same way the RIAA does with CD purchases).
20 years from now, when DVD's are obsolete and players hard to find, they will become angry with Hollywood for preventing them from legally preserving their investment in movies. They're going to find that they will have to either re-buy their collections, some of which won't be available, or simply take a loss.
No they wont. They will simply, blindly mourn the market shift. This is underway with VHS right now. Do you see the market angry right now? No. I have heard a few friends lament over a movie or two, but that's penuts compared to the number of movies not produced for DVD. The only movies that I know had a strong market demand to release a DVD version were the Star Wars movies. Aside from blockbusters, there will be miniscule demand. Where there are individuals missing movies, most of them will be sad, and not angry. This may be a sad state of affairs, but it's true. I have seen it.
PLEASE try to understand that Bush is not and cannot run for re-election. I am sick and tired of the left spouting this off (no offence intended). What Bush does now should have NO bearing WHATSOEVER on any elections in November.
Back to reality, of course I know that what Bush and "his whitehouse" does will reflect heavily on the Republican party. But that doesn't mean that it should. Individuals should be held accountable for their own actions and choices. I'm tierd of people suggesting otherwise in politics.
I'll bite, but only to be facetious (not argumentative).
A program that runs on a given computer is running on a lba. A program that runs on any given computer is running on a tm. Why is that? We can tell exactly how much memory is available on any given machine. We can even find upper and lower bounds to all possible machines that it might run on today. But let's include all possible future computers. Computers of the future will hold more memory than any computers currently in existence. Every successive generation of computers is going to be able to handle additional states that earlier machines cannot. We will also assume for sake of argument, that the trend of growing memory density and availability will continue in the indefinite future.
But wait a minute, you could say: "We will never make a computer with infinite memory, therefore it will never run on a tm". Well, you'd be right, sort of. You'd never have an instance of the program running on _A_ Turing machine. But as time approaches infinity, your program would have the ability to run on any arbitrary size of memory. Just wait long enough, and the given memory size X will become available. Therefore, any possible state that the program could arrive at on a tm it could arrive at on at least one of the infinite lba's that will eventually become available. Granted, you may need to wait a very long time for any given memory size.
It's good to remember that computers are lba's, but this is one reason to imagine your program running on a tm (especially if it is designed to scale). This is also one of the reasons why I currently believe it impractical to find all bugs (I wont go so far as to say impossible, though I will relegate that to pure theory, and human checking)
Not exactly. and I'll tell you why. Your post is fine, but the parrent to your post is not. That post was in response to my post ON A VERY DIFFERENT TOPIC. He hadn't read my post carefully, and came off looking a little foolish. What you think his post said is just fine, but is in response to a different topic (and is therefore NOT "Exactly" right)
Nothing against you. Just a little peeved at people who don't pay attention.
Open your eyes first, and not your mouth. I wasn't responding to the current liquid threat. That threat had NOTHING to do with my post AT ALL. The parrent to my comment suggested ANOTHER, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT attack. Nothing I can think of short of x-ray'ing every passenger can solve that one. Nothing you suggested would have had any effect at all. Before you respond again, go back and verify what I am talking about. Two people cannot have a conversation unless both are on the same topic.
Please be careful about what you respond to. Context is everything sometimes.
Please use some common sense. The idea may or may not have occured to them yet, but that doesn't mean that you need to invite trouble. The terrorists may not be listening (or just might be), but you know the gov hasn't figured this one out yet (and aren't listening). I've got a very sensible way to smuggle weapons aboard (that they may, or may not have thought of) but you don't hear me spouting off the details on the web. And why not? because I'd like to make it as hard as possible for the @$^&#^%s. I'd rather not ever hear "they did [such and such]" and have to think to myself "dang, did they read my post? Do I hold any responsibility in that?"
Old jerks care less than young jerks. Young jerks will push the limits, but don't want to get in trouble. Old jerks already know what they can get away with. Additionally, they can get away with more, because they are old.
You wouldn't even need to find somebody with a seeing eye dog. There are whole organizations that ENJOY getting establishments fined for having a bathroom stall less than an inch too small (plus cost of renovation), or a counter a few inches too high. Whether the establisment has handicaped patrons or not is irelavent to them. You just need to find one of these groups and notify them. They might take a little convicing, but they will do all of the work for you on this front. This is probably the most heavy handed approach you can take (short of breaking the law).
Ok, lets follow that line of thought. Let's give everyone an auto-skip button. Advertizers that see no return for their investments will move to other forms of advertizing. There will be fewer ads in programs, because there will be fewer people interested in paying for them (this is assuming the networks keep demand and prices up by limiting supply; I'm not entirely sure they are that smart). There will be noticed a few companies that will still THRIVE on their tv adds. These are the companies that actually make good comercials. There are few commercials that I have any desire to see, but some I can enjoy.
Ponder this, why do people watch the super bowl? While answering that, think about the day after. How many people mention the game itself at all besides the final score. How many people mention the comercials (and sometimes describe them in detail)
Umm. Yeah. From TRON (http://sfy.ru/sfy.html?script=tron_1982):
LORA
(sighs)
Well, here goes nothing...
GIBBS
Interesting, interesting. You
hear what you said? "Here goes nothing."
LORA
Well, I meant -
GIBBS
Whereas actually, what we propose to
do is to turn something into nothing
and back again. So you might just as
well have said, "Here goes something
and here comes nothing."
One of the best sci-fi quotes of all time. (even if not well known) Anybody got one better? (I'm sure there is. Please step up to the plate and show us what you've got.)
There is a reason that Windows 2000 does not have a home edition. It is the same reason that Windows NT does not have a home version. Another "Home" operating system was available and current durring the same time frame. Namely, Windows ME (95 and 98 durring the NT reign).
Windows 2000 was never intended to be used as a home Opperating system. It just works a whole lot better than ME ever could. Consequently, you cannot upgrade from "Windows 2000 Pro" to "Windows XP Home". You can only upgrade from one "Pro" system to another.
Before anybody comes along and rants on me, Yes, I know the odds are that the profesionals know what they are doing. It still leaves room for speculation...
"If scientists were to smash two high energy protons together they could theoretically make such a micro-black hole. This particle decays quickly and emits over a dozen different kinds of particles such as electrons, neutrinos and photons which are easy to detect."
They hope they decay quickly. Bear in mind that all they have to work with right now is theory.
I could stand for some better access control, but your point about root login is without merit. I don't know of a single distro that gives users the impression that they can or should log in as root all the time (the way Microsoft does). In fact, some distrobutions like Ubuntu go to great leanths to prevent this. Yes, if everyone ran linux some individuals would log in and work as root. That group would be about the same size as the current group of windows users running without antivirus SPECIFICALLY because they don't think they need it (as opposed to the group that have expired antivirus, or don't know what antivirus programs are, etc). I say that it would be about the same because they would need to make a consious desision to avoid the safty measure for they're own convenience. (there are decent free AV progs if they don't want to fork out money, they just don't want to hassle to find them)
* Most people will use the default user account of any operating system that is in front of them. *
Most would probably forget all about the root account, and forget the password (or use the same password, also not a good practice, but at least then you would need a keylogger or some kind of trojan to get admin priveleges).
clear out your cookies and at the same time get a new IP address (reset your DSL router or whatever). Unless they have another tracking tool available, they will lose you in the crowd.
There ARE differences in the images, thought I refuse to believe that there are any sizable differences in the installed OS. A while back there were changes made to the windows activation process. OEM computers will not activate across the internet anymore. Now, Microsoft must be called by phone. I spoke to a customer service rep about this change. He might not have been the brightest bulb in the house, but he told me that the OEM disks could recognize something on the motherboard (chipset?) that identified the brand at start up. OEM computers do not need activation if the OEM disk is used. Likewise, an OEM disk from a major manufacturer cannot be used to install a retail CD key (or on a retail MB, most likely).
Shortly afterwards, MS started this whole "Windows Genuine Advantage" validation process at the begining of windows updates. If there was a noticeable difference between an OS installed from our disk (using the client's CD key), or client disk, I'm certain Microsoft would lock that system out.
Granted. Several things went into my post. First, I thought it funny that an MSRC rep slipped and suggested that IE was as good as synonomous with the internet. Second, I'm tired. That excalates irrational thought.
If he meant to say that customers would see the internet as broken, there should have been some designation of such in the article. It's the lack of italics that an intentional statment should have that makes it funny (don't know if the quote was verbal or written. Hardly matters; still funny while I'm still tired;) ).
True, true, but this slip refers to your first point. Apparently, MSCR's Stephen Toulouse thinks so as well (though he may have phrased it from a users point of view. If it was intentional, there should have been italics or something to mark such.).
"This is exactly why it can take a long time to ship an IE patch. We're dealing with about 440 different updates that have to be tested [for different versions]. We have to test thoroughly to make sure it doesn't introduce a new problem. We have to make sure it doesn't break the Internet."
Slashdot Mirror
Re-read the gp post.
It would have been amazing indeed if George Lucas had had that kind of money back when Isaac Newton held it.
Not quite as simple as that. I wish. First, there have been no real calls from the democratic party as a whole to impeach. And why not? Because they know that it wont happen. Let's flip it arround. Why would any republican who doesn't support Bush not call for impeachment. Because they too know that it wouldn't happen.
Ok second: why wont they leave the party. Partly because the party is not defined as "people who support Bush". It's something closer to "people who have the same general viewpoint and are willing to work together most of the time." The rest of it is more to the tune of campain finance. Other party members hold the purse strings.
Besides, they have no real chance of being elected from any other party. (a very small chance, requiring a hugh charisma - This is a result of our broken election system, causing a two party system.)
Above all else, remember: congress critters are sheeple too.
What? This is new to me. Please elaborate. I didn't think this was in party control at all. My impression was that you could simply reregister at the DMV and the change would happen in the county government. Where do you live? How could that happen?
[blockquote]While I'm interested in seeing the film, my wife and I just can't swallow the wretched ticket prices when, for cost of two admissions, we can OWN THE DVD. Not rent, own...[/blockquote]
I hate to point it out, but the MPAA might disagree with you on that (the same way the RIAA does with CD purchases).
No they wont. They will simply, blindly mourn the market shift. This is underway with VHS right now. Do you see the market angry right now? No. I have heard a few friends lament over a movie or two, but that's penuts compared to the number of movies not produced for DVD. The only movies that I know had a strong market demand to release a DVD version were the Star Wars movies. Aside from blockbusters, there will be miniscule demand. Where there are individuals missing movies, most of them will be sad, and not angry. This may be a sad state of affairs, but it's true. I have seen it.
PLEASE try to understand that Bush is not and cannot run for re-election. I am sick and tired of the left spouting this off (no offence intended). What Bush does now should have NO bearing WHATSOEVER on any elections in November.
Back to reality, of course I know that what Bush and "his whitehouse" does will reflect heavily on the Republican party. But that doesn't mean that it should. Individuals should be held accountable for their own actions and choices. I'm tierd of people suggesting otherwise in politics.
I'll bite, but only to be facetious (not argumentative).
A program that runs on a given computer is running on a lba. A program that runs on any given computer is running on a tm. Why is that? We can tell exactly how much memory is available on any given machine. We can even find upper and lower bounds to all possible machines that it might run on today. But let's include all possible future computers. Computers of the future will hold more memory than any computers currently in existence. Every successive generation of computers is going to be able to handle additional states that earlier machines cannot. We will also assume for sake of argument, that the trend of growing memory density and availability will continue in the indefinite future.
But wait a minute, you could say: "We will never make a computer with infinite memory, therefore it will never run on a tm". Well, you'd be right, sort of. You'd never have an instance of the program running on _A_ Turing machine. But as time approaches infinity, your program would have the ability to run on any arbitrary size of memory. Just wait long enough, and the given memory size X will become available. Therefore, any possible state that the program could arrive at on a tm it could arrive at on at least one of the infinite lba's that will eventually become available. Granted, you may need to wait a very long time for any given memory size.
It's good to remember that computers are lba's, but this is one reason to imagine your program running on a tm (especially if it is designed to scale). This is also one of the reasons why I currently believe it impractical to find all bugs (I wont go so far as to say impossible, though I will relegate that to pure theory, and human checking)
Not exactly. and I'll tell you why. Your post is fine, but the parrent to your post is not. That post was in response to my post ON A VERY DIFFERENT TOPIC. He hadn't read my post carefully, and came off looking a little foolish. What you think his post said is just fine, but is in response to a different topic (and is therefore NOT "Exactly" right)
Nothing against you. Just a little peeved at people who don't pay attention.
Open your eyes first, and not your mouth. I wasn't responding to the current liquid threat. That threat had NOTHING to do with my post AT ALL. The parrent to my comment suggested ANOTHER, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT attack. Nothing I can think of short of x-ray'ing every passenger can solve that one. Nothing you suggested would have had any effect at all. Before you respond again, go back and verify what I am talking about. Two people cannot have a conversation unless both are on the same topic.
Please be careful about what you respond to. Context is everything sometimes.
No offence intended.
Please use some common sense. The idea may or may not have occured to them yet, but that doesn't mean that you need to invite trouble. The terrorists may not be listening (or just might be), but you know the gov hasn't figured this one out yet (and aren't listening). I've got a very sensible way to smuggle weapons aboard (that they may, or may not have thought of) but you don't hear me spouting off the details on the web. And why not? because I'd like to make it as hard as possible for the @$^&#^%s. I'd rather not ever hear "they did [such and such]" and have to think to myself "dang, did they read my post? Do I hold any responsibility in that?"
"Thank God we don't get all the government we pay for!"
-- Found on the wall of my history class
It is if you want it to be! Why aren't you using windows? Would you be using IE if you had the ability on your OS? I thought not...
Old jerks care less than young jerks. Young jerks will push the limits, but don't want to get in trouble. Old jerks already know what they can get away with. Additionally, they can get away with more, because they are old.
You wouldn't even need to find somebody with a seeing eye dog. There are whole organizations that ENJOY getting establishments fined for having a bathroom stall less than an inch too small (plus cost of renovation), or a counter a few inches too high. Whether the establisment has handicaped patrons or not is irelavent to them. You just need to find one of these groups and notify them. They might take a little convicing, but they will do all of the work for you on this front. This is probably the most heavy handed approach you can take (short of breaking the law).
So that's where the problem lies? NASA doesn't read this?
Ok, lets follow that line of thought. Let's give everyone an auto-skip button. Advertizers that see no return for their investments will move to other forms of advertizing. There will be fewer ads in programs, because there will be fewer people interested in paying for them (this is assuming the networks keep demand and prices up by limiting supply; I'm not entirely sure they are that smart). There will be noticed a few companies that will still THRIVE on their tv adds. These are the companies that actually make good comercials. There are few commercials that I have any desire to see, but some I can enjoy.
Ponder this, why do people watch the super bowl? While answering that, think about the day after. How many people mention the game itself at all besides the final score. How many people mention the comercials (and sometimes describe them in detail)
Umm. Yeah. From TRON (http://sfy.ru/sfy.html?script=tron_1982):
...
LORA
(sighs)
Well, here goes nothing
GIBBS
Interesting, interesting. You
hear what you said? "Here goes nothing."
LORA
Well, I meant -
GIBBS
Whereas actually, what we propose to
do is to turn something into nothing
and back again. So you might just as
well have said, "Here goes something
and here comes nothing."
One of the best sci-fi quotes of all time. (even if not well known)
Anybody got one better? (I'm sure there is. Please step up to the plate and show us what you've got.)
There is a reason that Windows 2000 does not have a home edition. It is the same reason that Windows NT does not have a home version. Another "Home" operating system was available and current durring the same time frame. Namely, Windows ME (95 and 98 durring the NT reign).
Windows 2000 was never intended to be used as a home Opperating system. It just works a whole lot better than ME ever could. Consequently, you cannot upgrade from "Windows 2000 Pro" to "Windows XP Home". You can only upgrade from one "Pro" system to another.
Before anybody comes along and rants on me, Yes, I know the odds are that the profesionals know what they are doing. It still leaves room for speculation...
"If scientists were to smash two high energy protons together they could theoretically make such a micro-black hole. This particle decays quickly and emits over a dozen different kinds of particles such as electrons, neutrinos and photons which are easy to detect."
They hope they decay quickly.
Bear in mind that all they have to work with right now is theory.
Anyone else here read "Thrice upon a time" ?
I could stand for some better access control, but your point about root login is without merit. I don't know of a single distro that gives users the impression that they can or should log in as root all the time (the way Microsoft does). In fact, some distrobutions like Ubuntu go to great leanths to prevent this. Yes, if everyone ran linux some individuals would log in and work as root. That group would be about the same size as the current group of windows users running without antivirus SPECIFICALLY because they don't think they need it (as opposed to the group that have expired antivirus, or don't know what antivirus programs are, etc). I say that it would be about the same because they would need to make a consious desision to avoid the safty measure for they're own convenience. (there are decent free AV progs if they don't want to fork out money, they just don't want to hassle to find them)
* Most people will use the default user account of any operating system that is in front of them. *
Most would probably forget all about the root account, and forget the password (or use the same password, also not a good practice, but at least then you would need a keylogger or some kind of trojan to get admin priveleges).
clear out your cookies and at the same time get a new IP address (reset your DSL router or whatever). Unless they have another tracking tool available, they will lose you in the crowd.
There ARE differences in the images, thought I refuse to believe that there are any sizable differences in the installed OS. A while back there were changes made to the windows activation process. OEM computers will not activate across the internet anymore. Now, Microsoft must be called by phone. I spoke to a customer service rep about this change. He might not have been the brightest bulb in the house, but he told me that the OEM disks could recognize something on the motherboard (chipset?) that identified the brand at start up. OEM computers do not need activation if the OEM disk is used. Likewise, an OEM disk from a major manufacturer cannot be used to install a retail CD key (or on a retail MB, most likely).
Shortly afterwards, MS started this whole "Windows Genuine Advantage" validation process at the begining of windows updates. If there was a noticeable difference between an OS installed from our disk (using the client's CD key), or client disk, I'm certain Microsoft would lock that system out.
Granted. Several things went into my post. First, I thought it funny that an MSRC rep slipped and suggested that IE was as good as synonomous with the internet. Second, I'm tired. That excalates irrational thought.
;) ).
If he meant to say that customers would see the internet as broken, there should have been some designation of such in the article. It's the lack of italics that an intentional statment should have that makes it funny (don't know if the quote was verbal or written. Hardly matters; still funny while I'm still tired
True, true, but this slip refers to your first point. Apparently, MSCR's Stephen Toulouse thinks so as well (though he may have phrased it from a users point of view. If it was intentional, there should have been italics or something to mark such.).
"This is exactly why it can take a long time to ship an IE patch. We're dealing with about 440 different updates that have to be tested [for different versions]. We have to test thoroughly to make sure it doesn't introduce a new problem. We have to make sure it doesn't break the Internet."
? ? ? ? ? ?