New Zealand was part of the coalition for a while.
And as for not participating and being friendly, in WWII Denmark let the Nazis roll into their country and didn't suffer any casualities. They also had the priveledge to supply the Nazis with materials so they could attack other countries.
The US has considerable international influence and interests. When you're that big, it's hard not to make enemies. Also, we have so many mistakes under our belts we can't just act nice now - people have hated us for a long time and are not willing to forgive and forget.
America let shiites down in 1991, it was a sad story.
I'm not arguing that a lot of horrible things happened to people after what seemed like the premature end of the first gulf war. But I wonder...
Knowing what we all know now, how people hate to be occupied, even if it's just to set up a government for them to run, doesn't it seem like pulling out when the US was logical? With the Iraqi military in pieces, no fly zones over the kurds and shiites, didn't they have their best opportunity to have their own revolution?
So many people think we acted inappropriately, and unfortunately it didn't work out, not taking Saddam Hussein, but I think there may have been some wisdom in that decision.
As a thinking human (who happens to be American), when I say the government fails to do more to prevent terrorism, I don't think it's a failure of total knowledge of individual actions (the terrorists). Rather, it is a failure to understand cultures and indeed, to grossly misrepresent them.
I understand your perspective, but America has done a lot of things, and stands for a lot of things that get people very, very upset. People who believe strongly enough to sacrifice themselves for their God, their people and their ideals. Understanding this will only mean knowing some terrorists cannot be bargained with.
Some people are quite reasonable and peace loving, and would like the US to do things we don't want to do. If we don't do those things, this might inspire a hatred in them toward us and a devotion to what they hold dear that would encourage them to hurt us. Knowing this is valuable, but won't necessarily allow diplomatic means of preventing attacks.
There is no global government. The closest thing to it made resolutions against Iraq that they violated daily for years. Defending brutal dictators who violate your own ideas on surveillance and repression speaks of a lack of willingness to defend others.
Do big corporations benefit directly from the Iraq war? Probably. Does that mean their sponsorship of terrorism (e.g. rewarding Palestinian families of suicide bombers), violation of UN resolutions (e.g. firing on UN sponsored planes in the no fly zones), and horrible treatment of people (e.g. for saying what they want, worshipping who they want and disagreeing with the government) should be ignored because fighting them would benefit some company?
Doing this [integrating VirtualPC into Windows] would make VMWare essential useless.
No. You could still use VMWare to run Windows on Linux, or other x86 OSes on Linux.
Also, is the belief that Windows will integrate VirtualPC basically as is into their OS? I doubt that. I can picture them making it into a compatibility layer that allows muliple OSes to run on some level, but I doubt it would intentionally be noticeable, and they may try to control it to the point that everything still looks like it's an XP or whatever app.
I tend to agree. Also, it just seems poor form for Apple, which is benefiting so much from open source and the good will of their loyal customers who are willing to think different, to be so opposed to customers getting more value from what they've purchased.
From what I've heard the devices are a loss leader that are supposed to push sales of music. That may be, but you're naive if you expect people to line up and do as they're told. And if you claim you're the company for people who don't line up, you're being disingenuous to do so.
Do you think a brand name makes a difference, though, even if multiple companies are selling the same product? Not the GM example exactly, but what if GM sold generic cars to be brand labeled, and Nike could make their own SUV (the Swish), Ralph Lauren could have their own GMC truck (the Rancher), etc. Do you think a different brand could help you get better service, and insist on parts and service being available when others wouldn't?
Wow, I can picture the PDA/MP3 thing. But Laptop and camera? Do you really see one device meeting all these needs? That seems awfully ambitious. Perhaps I'm thinking of a different use of these devices than you, though.
We started down this slippery slope long ago when lawyers decided a corporation was an "entity" much like a human being, only without a natural lifespan, a brain, or a moral sense.
And these "entities" can belong to multiple jurisdictions, largely disappear when things go wrong, and can't be executed or imprisoned in any real sense.
I have a daughter and a wife who has a masters in developmental psychology, so I've heard and seen a lot on this.
Babies talk from an early age. Its starts out as babbling. Deaf babies babble with their hands. Babies learn our language as they need to, including mimicing our sighs, tone, sign language, etc.
Babies like to explore and play and stick things in their mouths. Mine likes to go to her Mom and use the remote controls. She crawled the first time when I told her she could put whatever she wanted on TV if she could get the remote. She endured the difficulties of walking to get back and forth between her mother and me more easily.
I took a look at your journal entry on Flash. I have to say, I think devnull17 had a more convincing argument.
You're right about some issues - knee jerk reactions to Flash, and site developers could do things better, etc. But also, it's just a lot easier to do really horrible things in Flash (bloat, all one page, no copying of text, etc).
And while you can make good content in Flash (just as good TV shows have been known to exist) it's way easier to make things that take 12 seconds to download on fast connections, require upgrading your stupid plugins every 6 months, and then you're victim to pure marketing junk.
Um, how exactly do you link into menu option 3, scroll down, select item 2, which redirects you to some other area of the site? Not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here, but howabout with Javascript:
document.getElementById("menuoption3").value="it em 2"; to change the value of the menuoption3 form element to item2.
Put an onChange action in the form element calling a function that if the value is item 2, change the page.
Using existing languages and standards within your product reduces development costs (of the application), gets users (of the programs) up and running fast, and makes companies seem like they play nice.
This issue is more about source files, players, and output formats. The argument is that Macromedia doesn't want to make the best editor for a standard file format - they want to make a ubiquitous file format that they own, and crush others.
From what little I know of him, most of what he did seemed more like social engineering than anything else. Perhaps his lack of frenetic typing at black keyboards hooked up to 6 lcd monitors with rotating 3D objects is why we haven't seen a movie about him yet.
tomsrtbt is really meant for recovery, or to boot in to get an install going or something. I don't think you'd want to live in that environment. I think the dude is looking for something maybe like this that would boot up stuff on another media.
And tomsrtbt isn't buried too deeply. I think you could probably find it with just about any search engine, not to defame Google.
http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/espforparents/esp fo rparents2004-06.cfm ""Particular sets of brain circuits involved in the development of addictions are the same ones that are rapidly undergoing change during adolescence," according to Chambers. He went on to describe a "less mature neurological system of inhibition, which leads to impulsive actions and risky behaviors."
The Yale study addressed addiction to substances, but other addictions, such as to pornography, are also related to those areas of the brain. The operation of the brain is primarily chemical and electrical. Feelings of pleasure, for example, are expressed chemically by the brain. Thus, non-substance addictions elicit chemical responses and do have the potential to alter the chemical balance of the brain."
2) Are Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh members of the press? (hint: the answer is technically no - they're pundits and do not report news) You're not implying that there are lots of right wing pundits and few left wing ones, are you?
Most of the folks on NPR don't consider themselves part of the press. I suppose some of them are pundits. Al Franken, Genene Garofalo, Bill Maher and numerous other pundits are on the left.
"The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech." No... no... that's an objective fact-based introduction to the article.
Only in America do people actually expect he media to be objective. In France, for example, people know which newspaper is the right wing, the fascist, etc.
Additionally, I find it difficult to be objective about children and pornography, and if free speech is to be protected, protect the rights of those, even in the media, who disagree with you.
Just logging in a packet sniffer can slow things down. I can only imagine what real time graphical analysis of that traffic would do. Maybe you'd see, graphically, your network traffic nose dive.
Important thing to remember is what possible means in this context. Could a non-fossil fuel car be made? At any price, sure. At a price to compete with oil? Maybe not. So the answer is probably no.
This is like when companies say there's no one in America to fill a job so they have to go abroad and get someone or have the job there. Obviously that's false, unless what they really mean is there's no one who will do it at the price they're willing to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand was part of the coalition for a while.
And as for not participating and being friendly, in WWII Denmark let the Nazis roll into their country and didn't suffer any casualities. They also had the priveledge to supply the Nazis with materials so they could attack other countries.
The US has considerable international influence and interests. When you're that big, it's hard not to make enemies. Also, we have so many mistakes under our belts we can't just act nice now - people have hated us for a long time and are not willing to forgive and forget.
America let shiites down in 1991, it was a sad story.
I'm not arguing that a lot of horrible things happened to people after what seemed like the premature end of the first gulf war. But I wonder...
Knowing what we all know now, how people hate to be occupied, even if it's just to set up a government for them to run, doesn't it seem like pulling out when the US was logical? With the Iraqi military in pieces, no fly zones over the kurds and shiites, didn't they have their best opportunity to have their own revolution?
So many people think we acted inappropriately, and unfortunately it didn't work out, not taking Saddam Hussein, but I think there may have been some wisdom in that decision.
As a thinking human (who happens to be American), when I say the government fails to do more to prevent terrorism, I don't think it's a failure of total knowledge of individual actions (the terrorists). Rather, it is a failure to understand cultures and indeed, to grossly misrepresent them.
I understand your perspective, but America has done a lot of things, and stands for a lot of things that get people very, very upset. People who believe strongly enough to sacrifice themselves for their God, their people and their ideals. Understanding this will only mean knowing some terrorists cannot be bargained with.
Some people are quite reasonable and peace loving, and would like the US to do things we don't want to do. If we don't do those things, this might inspire a hatred in them toward us and a devotion to what they hold dear that would encourage them to hurt us. Knowing this is valuable, but won't necessarily allow diplomatic means of preventing attacks.
There is no global government. The closest thing to it made resolutions against Iraq that they violated daily for years. Defending brutal dictators who violate your own ideas on surveillance and repression speaks of a lack of willingness to defend others.
Do big corporations benefit directly from the Iraq war? Probably. Does that mean their sponsorship of terrorism (e.g. rewarding Palestinian families of suicide bombers), violation of UN resolutions (e.g. firing on UN sponsored planes in the no fly zones), and horrible treatment of people (e.g. for saying what they want, worshipping who they want and disagreeing with the government) should be ignored because fighting them would benefit some company?
Doing this [integrating VirtualPC into Windows] would make VMWare essential useless.
No. You could still use VMWare to run Windows on Linux, or other x86 OSes on Linux.
Also, is the belief that Windows will integrate VirtualPC basically as is into their OS? I doubt that. I can picture them making it into a compatibility layer that allows muliple OSes to run on some level, but I doubt it would intentionally be noticeable, and they may try to control it to the point that everything still looks like it's an XP or whatever app.
I tend to agree. Also, it just seems poor form for Apple, which is benefiting so much from open source and the good will of their loyal customers who are willing to think different, to be so opposed to customers getting more value from what they've purchased.
From what I've heard the devices are a loss leader that are supposed to push sales of music. That may be, but you're naive if you expect people to line up and do as they're told. And if you claim you're the company for people who don't line up, you're being disingenuous to do so.
Do you think a brand name makes a difference, though, even if multiple companies are selling the same product? Not the GM example exactly, but what if GM sold generic cars to be brand labeled, and Nike could make their own SUV (the Swish), Ralph Lauren could have their own GMC truck (the Rancher), etc. Do you think a different brand could help you get better service, and insist on parts and service being available when others wouldn't?
Wow, I can picture the PDA/MP3 thing. But Laptop and camera? Do you really see one device meeting all these needs? That seems awfully ambitious. Perhaps I'm thinking of a different use of these devices than you, though.
We started down this slippery slope long ago when lawyers decided a corporation was an "entity" much like a human being, only without a natural lifespan, a brain, or a moral sense.
And these "entities" can belong to multiple jurisdictions, largely disappear when things go wrong, and can't be executed or imprisoned in any real sense.
I have a daughter and a wife who has a masters in developmental psychology, so I've heard and seen a lot on this.
Babies talk from an early age. Its starts out as babbling. Deaf babies babble with their hands. Babies learn our language as they need to, including mimicing our sighs, tone, sign language, etc.
Babies like to explore and play and stick things in their mouths. Mine likes to go to her Mom and use the remote controls. She crawled the first time when I told her she could put whatever she wanted on TV if she could get the remote. She endured the difficulties of walking to get back and forth between her mother and me more easily.
I took a look at your journal entry on Flash. I have to say, I think devnull17 had a more convincing argument.
You're right about some issues - knee jerk reactions to Flash, and site developers could do things better, etc. But also, it's just a lot easier to do really horrible things in Flash (bloat, all one page, no copying of text, etc).
And while you can make good content in Flash (just as good TV shows have been known to exist) it's way easier to make things that take 12 seconds to download on fast connections, require upgrading your stupid plugins every 6 months, and then you're victim to pure marketing junk.
Um, how exactly do you link into menu option 3, scroll down, select item 2, which redirects you to some other area of the site?
t em 2";
Not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here, but howabout with Javascript:
document.getElementById("menuoption3").value="i
to change the value of the menuoption3 form element to item2.
Put an onChange action in the form element calling a function that if the value is item 2, change the page.
Using existing languages and standards within your product reduces development costs (of the application), gets users (of the programs) up and running fast, and makes companies seem like they play nice.
This issue is more about source files, players, and output formats. The argument is that Macromedia doesn't want to make the best editor for a standard file format - they want to make a ubiquitous file format that they own, and crush others.
And if they can do it, why can't we... how long till GCC compiles php code?
The GCC has competitors, too. Price is not the only issue. And I've seen mention here of other PHP compilers.
From what little I know of him, most of what he did seemed more like social engineering than anything else. Perhaps his lack of frenetic typing at black keyboards hooked up to 6 lcd monitors with rotating 3D objects is why we haven't seen a movie about him yet.
Are you familiar with snort2pf?
What do you think of it? How does it compare with what you've done?
And how about the Snort DDOS rules?
tomsrtbt is really meant for recovery, or to boot in to get an install going or something. I don't think you'd want to live in that environment. I think the dude is looking for something maybe like this that would boot up stuff on another media.
And tomsrtbt isn't buried too deeply. I think you could probably find it with just about any search engine, not to defame Google.
This site has a description of how reality and fantasy can become blurred: http://www.protectkids.com/effects/patternofaddict ion.htm.
Is porn addiction dangerous?
p fo rparents2004-06.cfm
http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/espforparents/es
""Particular sets of brain circuits involved in the development of addictions are the same ones that are rapidly undergoing change during adolescence," according to Chambers. He went on to describe a "less mature neurological system of inhibition, which leads to impulsive actions and risky behaviors."
The Yale study addressed addiction to substances, but other addictions, such as to pornography, are also related to those areas of the brain. The operation of the brain is primarily chemical and electrical. Feelings of pleasure, for example, are expressed chemically by the brain. Thus, non-substance addictions elicit chemical responses and do have the potential to alter the chemical balance of the brain."
2) Are Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh members of the press? (hint: the answer is technically no - they're pundits and do not report news)
You're not implying that there are lots of right wing pundits and few left wing ones, are you?
Most of the folks on NPR don't consider themselves part of the press. I suppose some of them are pundits. Al Franken, Genene Garofalo, Bill Maher and numerous other pundits are on the left.
If a kid starts looking at porn, then no big deal.
Wow... that's really crazy. Porn is addictive and seriously alters how adults view life and other people. For children, it's even worse.
"The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech." No... no... that's an objective fact-based introduction to the article.
Only in America do people actually expect he media to be objective. In France, for example, people know which newspaper is the right wing, the fascist, etc.
Additionally, I find it difficult to be objective about children and pornography, and if free speech is to be protected, protect the rights of those, even in the media, who disagree with you.
Just logging in a packet sniffer can slow things down. I can only imagine what real time graphical analysis of that traffic would do. Maybe you'd see, graphically, your network traffic nose dive.
I know this is painfully obvious, but it's not ehics, it's ethical hacking - which means hacking to test the security of a system with consent.
Important thing to remember is what possible means in this context. Could a non-fossil fuel car be made? At any price, sure. At a price to compete with oil? Maybe not. So the answer is probably no.
This is like when companies say there's no one in America to fill a job so they have to go abroad and get someone or have the job there. Obviously that's false, unless what they really mean is there's no one who will do it at the price they're willing to pay.
Perhaps a robotic snow blower would be more a more realistic goal.