I worked for a retailer (350 stores). They don't prosecute small claims like this. Our internal numbers showed a $40,000 price tag for each prosecution. You'd have to steal something really big or get tackled by the security guy.
1. I'm a old enough to remember both Democrats and Reagan quite well" - What does this mean? You were 4 when Reagan was president. I suspect that you're just now in college and haven't been paying attention until recently. No doubt much of your opinion is based on leftist college profs and very little life experience.
2. "you just LEPT to the conclusion I'm both liberal and Democrat" - Inaccurate, I accused you of being a liberal not a liberal and a Democrat. You don't handle the truth accurately.
3. "the Republican's have complete control of government now and are massively dangerous and are massively abusing their power." - What, by prosecuting a war against our enemies. This is just alarmist agitprop. Again, you don't know history (or you are deliberatly blind to it.) They are only dangerous to those who are enemies of the US.
4. "Democrats don't campaign on fiscal responsibility and conservatism" - Yes, democrats don't claim to be conservative, but your former claim is absoulutely laughable. Democrats always claim to be fiscally responsible and this is usually their justification for tax increases. Again, this comment betrays your experience level.
5. "Reagan and Bush presided over the staggering deficits that dwarf anything the Democrats manages" - Wrong again. Reagan, through tax cuts DOUBLED treasury revenues beginining in 1982. You admitted that tax cuts are great for bringing the economy out of recession. This is why I called you a simpleton. Tax cuts and deficits are not mutually exclusive. Increased economic growth equals more economic activity equals more taxable transactions equals increased tax revenues. If you want to get rid of the deficit, cut taxes and spending.
6. "First off chances by the time Congress and the Republican's in congress get done all the spending cuts will have disappeared and the red ink will still be there" - This is speculative and ignores the fact that the budget submitted by Bush cuts 150 programs. Your speculation flies in the face of reality.
7. "I want them to gut the Federal government and slash both spending and taxes" - I completely agree with this statement. We have common ground.
8. "the ROUTINELY cut taxes for their same rich friends" - Wrong. CBO figures consistently show that 80% of all taxes are paid by the top 20% wage earners.
9. "working people get chump change" - From the tax code, this may be true. But the wage earner gets a job from a wealthy person. When was the last time you were hired by a poor person?
Bottom line is you're not paying attention. Republicans haven't been in the kind of power you think they have for decades. They only regained the house in 1994 (that's 9 years) Given that the current administration inheirited a flagging economy and was immediately thrown into war they're doing a great job. And regardless of whether they are rewarding their rich friends or not, TAXES ARE BAD FOR EVERYONE.
There is sooo much "carp" in your diatribe it's pathetic. You admit that lowering taxation is great for pulling the economy out of recession but "It is bad because its leading to huge deficits". You sir are a liberal simpleton. SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM NOT TAXATION!!! By definition a deficit is SPENDING MORE THAN YOU TAKE IN. But given that you probably a 20 something and can't remember anything past the last 10 years you FAIL to acknowledge 40 years of DEMOCRAT spending. Now you and your ilk will squeal like stuck pigs when Bush suggests that we cut spending... Oh wait... your already sqealing.
and I can't resist saying that the first thing I thought of after reading this article is telling someone that the pizza tasted like cardboard... really...
He's way to old to really be a programmer these days, anyhow.
In addition to the incorrect choice of the word "to" instead of "too", this statement reeks of stupidity. How does age diminish a purely intellectual exercise? It's not like heavy lifting is involved. Surely you didn't mean what this statement implies.
They have to be very special women. FYI you can now give someone a "monica". In time I'm sure they'll abbreviate it and then you'll just get "monicaed".
Uh... Your closing line is good fodder for general windows bashing, but what you suggest is based on either ignorance or overzealousness. Sometimes you need to install over the existing installation to correct/modify it. One day you'll run into an installer that does this and you'll pull your hair out trying to figure out where that little tiny "chalk-mark" is that the installer left somewhere that the uninstaller didn't "erase".
I can't stand these lead arguments. Mt. St. Helens released more lead into the air than a thousand years worth of traffic and people didn't start dying off in droves. I'm not saying lead isn't bad, merely that there is more lead from other (naturally occuring) sources other than us. Every time a volcano "burps" it outdoes us. Don't use the lead argument.
Re:the first one makes it difficult
on
A Taste of Qt 4
·
· Score: 1
This makes the solution obvious. Form a development organization dedicated to bringing open software to Windows. Purchase a commercial QT license (after taking donations from supporters) and provide CVS upload and compilation services. CPU architecture is virtually never a consideration during compilation of a windows app. Binary distribution is (using the LCD of current Intel architectures) normal. Noone wonders if the app was compiled with their CPU in mind.
If you hold that human memory is purely an electro-chemical process, why shouldn't this then apply to people as well. Admittedly it's a lossy process but they don't disqualify as evidence poorly recorded or degraded audio/video tapes.
I'd love to have one of these on my car. I've been looking for a way to retaliate against those folks who think their trunk is for the woofer. I'd love to see the look on their faces after their windows get blown out;)
Slashdot Mirror
I worked for a retailer (350 stores). They don't prosecute small claims like this. Our internal numbers showed a $40,000 price tag for each prosecution. You'd have to steal something really big or get tackled by the security guy.
2. "you just LEPT to the conclusion I'm both liberal and Democrat" - Inaccurate, I accused you of being a liberal not a liberal and a Democrat. You don't handle the truth accurately.
3. "the Republican's have complete control of government now and are massively dangerous and are massively abusing their power." - What, by prosecuting a war against our enemies. This is just alarmist agitprop. Again, you don't know history (or you are deliberatly blind to it.) They are only dangerous to those who are enemies of the US.
4. "Democrats don't campaign on fiscal responsibility and conservatism" - Yes, democrats don't claim to be conservative, but your former claim is absoulutely laughable. Democrats always claim to be fiscally responsible and this is usually their justification for tax increases. Again, this comment betrays your experience level.
5. "Reagan and Bush presided over the staggering deficits that dwarf anything the Democrats manages" - Wrong again. Reagan, through tax cuts DOUBLED treasury revenues beginining in 1982. You admitted that tax cuts are great for bringing the economy out of recession. This is why I called you a simpleton. Tax cuts and deficits are not mutually exclusive. Increased economic growth equals more economic activity equals more taxable transactions equals increased tax revenues. If you want to get rid of the deficit, cut taxes and spending.
6. "First off chances by the time Congress and the Republican's in congress get done all the spending cuts will have disappeared and the red ink will still be there" - This is speculative and ignores the fact that the budget submitted by Bush cuts 150 programs. Your speculation flies in the face of reality.
7. "I want them to gut the Federal government and slash both spending and taxes" - I completely agree with this statement. We have common ground.
8. "the ROUTINELY cut taxes for their same rich friends" - Wrong. CBO figures consistently show that 80% of all taxes are paid by the top 20% wage earners.
9. "working people get chump change" - From the tax code, this may be true. But the wage earner gets a job from a wealthy person. When was the last time you were hired by a poor person?
Bottom line is you're not paying attention. Republicans haven't been in the kind of power you think they have for decades. They only regained the house in 1994 (that's 9 years) Given that the current administration inheirited a flagging economy and was immediately thrown into war they're doing a great job. And regardless of whether they are rewarding their rich friends or not, TAXES ARE BAD FOR EVERYONE.
There is sooo much "carp" in your diatribe it's pathetic. You admit that lowering taxation is great for pulling the economy out of recession but "It is bad because its leading to huge deficits". You sir are a liberal simpleton. SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM NOT TAXATION!!! By definition a deficit is SPENDING MORE THAN YOU TAKE IN. But given that you probably a 20 something and can't remember anything past the last 10 years you FAIL to acknowledge 40 years of DEMOCRAT spending. Now you and your ilk will squeal like stuck pigs when Bush suggests that we cut spending... Oh wait ... your already sqealing.
Try a paper shredder instead
and I can't resist saying that the first thing I thought of after reading this article is telling someone that the pizza tasted like cardboard ... really ...
In addition to the incorrect choice of the word "to" instead of "too", this statement reeks of stupidity. How does age diminish a purely intellectual exercise? It's not like heavy lifting is involved. Surely you didn't mean what this statement implies.
They have to be very special women. FYI you can now give someone a "monica". In time I'm sure they'll abbreviate it and then you'll just get "monicaed".
Uh ... Your closing line is good fodder for general windows bashing, but what you suggest is based on either ignorance or overzealousness. Sometimes you need to install over the existing installation to correct/modify it. One day you'll run into an installer that does this and you'll pull your hair out trying to figure out where that little tiny "chalk-mark" is that the installer left somewhere that the uninstaller didn't "erase".
I can't stand these lead arguments. Mt. St. Helens released more lead into the air than a thousand years worth of traffic and people didn't start dying off in droves. I'm not saying lead isn't bad, merely that there is more lead from other (naturally occuring) sources other than us. Every time a volcano "burps" it outdoes us. Don't use the lead argument.
This makes the solution obvious. Form a development organization dedicated to bringing open software to Windows. Purchase a commercial QT license (after taking donations from supporters) and provide CVS upload and compilation services. CPU architecture is virtually never a consideration during compilation of a windows app. Binary distribution is (using the LCD of current Intel architectures) normal. Noone wonders if the app was compiled with their CPU in mind.
If you hold that human memory is purely an electro-chemical process, why shouldn't this then apply to people as well. Admittedly it's a lossy process but they don't disqualify as evidence poorly recorded or degraded audio/video tapes.
The really technical women actually become men
I'd love to have one of these on my car. I've been looking for a way to retaliate against those folks who think their trunk is for the woofer. I'd love to see the look on their faces after their windows get blown out ;)