Oh, and who gives a damn about UID numbers? The proportion of idiots with 4-digit UIDs is the same as the proportion in those with 5-didgit and six-digit UIDs. Just ask anyone who disagrees with me.
Sure, it's easy to believe Genesis 1:1. Similarly, it's easy to believe that all existence is an illusion (Buddhist), that all existence is part of a chain of never-ending self-destorying-and-recreating universes (Hindu), that we're all a simulation running in a computer somewhere and that our belief in free will is a computer-induced delusion, or any of a dozen other theories.
But none of those theories are relevant to the question of the origin of life. Even if God or whatever specifically decreed each step on the transformation of inert matter into human beings, the scientific study of what happened at each stage is still relevant -- at the very least, as a method of studying the way in which God's mind works.
The USA, on the other hand, is the centre of the universe, the new Middle Kingdom, and treaties with other, inferior, nations are the *first* thing to be broken if The Land of The Free is getting squeezed. Or even if they aren't and just don't feel like it (Kyoto, landmines, NMD...).
Bullshit. A treaty can't be broken if it never came into force, and a vote of the EU is not sufficient to bind the U.S. to a treaty, no matter how good the EU might think it is. To be able to choose whether or not one wants to join a treaty is a basic right of being a soverign state, not an arrogant privilege demanded by the U.S.
Kyoto was preemptively voted down 98-0 by the U.S. Senate. The U.S. announced in advance that it had no interest in the landmine treaty, because unlike, say, France, the U.S. has defense committments on a land border with the 4th largest army on Earth on the other side. The chemical weapons convention's inspection provisions would actually violate the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, and thus inherently cannot be adopted by the U.S. And the ABM treaty was bilateral between the U.S. and the now-nonexistant USSR, which repeatedly violated the the treaty anyway, and which we left though an explicit, in-treaty wihdrawal clause.
If MS is such a monopoly there must be some competitor it is crushing.
Exactly WRONG. If MS is a monopoly, then by strict definition it doesn't have competitors. That's what "monopoly" means.
Now, having a monopoly, per se, is not illegal. Leveraging a monopoly in one market to seize control of another market is. At which point I simply say "Stacker", and the case is made; Microsoft used a monopoly on DOS (a monopoly so complete that MS was at the time paid by most computer manufacturers for every PC shipped, not every PC shipped with DOS) to drive Stac (now Previo) out of the PC disk compression buisness and gain a monopoly on PC disk compression.
Actually, the simplest solution is to prohibit MS from producing any software for any non-Microsoft OS.
That kills.NET. That makes every Mac an Office-and-Internet-Explorer-free zone, forcing Apple to embrace things like Mozilla and OpenOffice, widening the real anti-Microsoft front. It puts a major metal spike in any Microsoft efforts to embrace-and-extend in multiplatform environments. It makes MS's existence completely dependent on its ability to maintain OS monopoly power, while the rest of the settlement restricts MS's leverage with OEMs to keep competing OSes off their machines.
In short, it guarantees that whenever the next "era" shift happens, MS won't be able to make the jump, making it the next IBM.
CivIII is what I would have expected from a contemporary of SMAC, not a successor. CivIII has a (mostly) superior diplomacy and resources model, better aircraft rules, and cool culture rules.
But SMAC's saveable-and-loadable queues, detailed social/government model, unit automation, unit customization, and a few other things are significantly superior to CivIII.
Well, according to the Chronology, the Romulan Wars are due in 2156 -- almost exactly five TV seasons after Enterprise started its mission. How's that for convenient timing?
Hmm. Then how in hell did I ever get to a Karma of 98? Or are you telling me that the/. groupthink has the following opinions (all expressed in posts that got net positive moderation):
1) The antitrust actions against Microsoft were gross abuses of government power.
2) RMS is fundamentally mistaken on the nature of property. The case for intellectual property is in fact stronger than the case for physical property, since IP is entirely the product of the creator's labor, while physical property includes preexistent matter to which no one can claim a natural right.
3) Money doesn't corrupt governments; governments corrupt money. "Unchecked corporate power" isn't a problem on its own. The problem is that whenever a government allows itself to move beyond lassiez-faire, it creates an incentive for the entrenched corporate powers to pay for regualtions and laws that protect them and squash competitors.
Installing a peaceful, fair government in Afghanistan: priceless.
Yeah, just look how well it worked with Saudi Arabia. Nobody could possibly disagree with that! (Hint for the clueless: this is one of bin Laden's primary complaints about the U.S.)
Number of Saudi Arabian governments installed by the United States, or, in fact, by anybody other than the House of Saud: 0.
Your number of "hints for the clueless": 1
Your own arrogantly displayed ignorance: priceless.
History for your edification (I like taking away priceless things):
In 1902 Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud, emir of the Wahabi, seized the mud fortresses of Riyadh in Nejd, without U.S. involvment. He forced the abdication of Hashemite king Husein bin Ali in favor of his son Ali bin Husein in 1924, without U.S. involvment. He declared himself king of Hejaz in 1926 and renamed the realm Saudi Arabia, again without U.S. involvment. The British recognized the independent Saudi Arabia in 1927, again without U.S. involvment. And the monarchy and royal family founded by Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud is still in charge today.
Yes, the U.S. has aided the Saudi government in staying in power. But even bin Laden didn't object to the Saudi government ruling Arabia until it decided to allow infidels to defend it from Iraq; bin Laden had even offered to lead his own mujahdeen to defend Arabia and the House of Saud against Iraq before he discovered U.S. forces were going to defend the kingdom.
Nothing in the Constitution specifies the form of a declaration of war. And it's hard to see how a Congressional resolution giving blanket authorization to the President to use an unrestricted level of force for an unrestricted period of time against identified enemies can be construed as anything else but a declaration of war.
(Yes, they were identified by their acts, not by name. It still counts as identification -- the resolution would not cover sending bombers into Argentina, for example.)
Oh, goddess. Look, get the Illuminatus Trilogy, then get the Principia Discordia. (The reason I pointed you to the Steve Jackson Games edition of the Principia is because they were the company hit by the infamous Secret Service raid -- you've heard of that at least, right?). You probably need a copy of the Jargon File, too. Read alt.religion.kibo a few days, and then move on to the Internet Oracle.
Then come back here when you're properly versed in esoteric geek subculture memes. 'Kay?
Yes, but the Grand Alliance agreed on more-or-less the current standard in October '93, and initial versions of the spec were developed before that. So it is possible that SGI deployed support for the current format as early as '93.
Um, actually HDTV was first demonstrated in 1981 at a SMTPE conference using hardware from Japan's NHK. Here's a link The History of HDTV [bgsu.edu]
It's best to check facts before you spew.
You know that last line you wrote? Remember it.
The "HDTV" signal in the 1981 demo on the page you reference was not the same "format currently called HDTV". The NHK "HDTV" signal you reference was an analog format. The Japanese government and a consortium of Europeans governments spent millions of dollars to develop competing analog HDTV standards throughout the '80s.
Look at the 1991 December entry in the site you references -- that's when the first digital HDTV format was demoed. Less than ten years ago. Now look at the 1993 February entry, where the NHK withdraws its analog format from consideration as the HDTV standard, meaning that the NHK 1981 format is not the format used for modern HDTV. Finally, look at the 1993 October entry -- the point where the "format currently called HDTV" is endorsed by a consortium.
And it isn't like the MB manufacturer would have any reason to blame AMD instead of itself. After all, every company in the industry takes responsibility when its product is at fault, instead of trying to pass the buck to someone else. Tom was perfectly justified in taking the MB manufacturer at its word.
Which one of the "other perfectly good solutions" you mention (qt, gtk, XUL, Kylix, Swing) . . . is available on all the platforms that Python runs on?
First, I admit that XUL isn't exactly ideal for the kind of work he wants to do.
But, as far as platform availability, XUL already works under seven different GUIs (Win32, BeOS, MacOS, WPS [OS/2], X, Photon, and NanoGUI) and at least nineteen operating systems (Windows 9x/Me, Windows NT/2000/XP, MacOS, MacOS X, Linux, AIX, BeOS, Irix, OpenVMS, OS/2, HPUX, BSD/OS, Solaris, Tru64 Unix, FreeBSD, NetBSD, DG/UX, and QNX).
Okay, admittedly the DG/UX binaries are rather old, and the Photon/QNX ones might be (I can't find any data on whether recent milestones are available for it). But everything else on my list has a Mozilla 0.9.4 or 0.9.5 version.
The deliberate redefinition of the term "intellectual" to mean "someone who parrots the beliefs of the socialist avant-garde of 1920s Europe" is one of the great achievements of Newspeak.
Let's see, who is George W. Bush's hand-picked National Security Advisor? Dr. Condoleezza Rice (PhD in political science), senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, former provost of Stanford, tenured political-science professor at Stanford, Council of Foreign Relations member, a National Endowment for the Humanities trustee, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, etc.
Funny, I always thought that reference resources (encyclopedia, dictionaries, thesauri, API documentation, etc) were intended to be unbiased representations of actual fact.
How did you ever come to that conclusion? If you can't find bias in, say, any edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you aren't looking. I personally have four dictionaries within reach -- none define a very common four-letter Anglo-Saxon word for female genitalia.
Disturbing? If you're disturbed by reality, there are professionals you can see about it. The pharmaceutical companies have achieved wonders.
Telegram. When you care enough to pay $9.95 to send a 1000-character-maximum message.
Re:Clever move, but late
on
Palm OS Spinoff
·
· Score: 3, Informative
These are the same industry analysts that thought "Wireless Web" and "3G" would be big, because they brought "content" and "multimedia" to cell phones.
Nobody beyond a handful of wannabe-geeks who want to say "look what my handheld can do!" give a damn about multimedia on a handheld. "Ooh, I can look at 3"x2" color Powerpoint slides, and listen to supercompressed MP3s over tinny speakers!"
Construx (a plastic girder-and-connector systme). Unfortunately, they stopped making them in 1997. Building with Construx was like building a (steel/wood) frame structured building, instead of building with bricks.
Of course, we developed ad-hoc interfaces for Lego-Construx combined works; but we really preferred the Construx around my house.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and who gives a damn about UID numbers? The proportion of idiots with 4-digit UIDs is the same as the proportion in those with 5-didgit and six-digit UIDs. Just ask anyone who disagrees with me.
Okay. Click on the link in the article , repeated here for your convenience. You will see a heading "Releases". Look at the next sentence.
Okay, let me slam you around with a very short quote:
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
Again,
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
See the first line on the release page? It says:
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
If you want a not-testing-purposes-only browser, go use Netscape 6.2. Binary versions of Mozilla are are available for testing purposes only.
But none of those theories are relevant to the question of the origin of life. Even if God or whatever specifically decreed each step on the transformation of inert matter into human beings, the scientific study of what happened at each stage is still relevant -- at the very least, as a method of studying the way in which God's mind works.
Bullshit. A treaty can't be broken if it never came into force, and a vote of the EU is not sufficient to bind the U.S. to a treaty, no matter how good the EU might think it is. To be able to choose whether or not one wants to join a treaty is a basic right of being a soverign state, not an arrogant privilege demanded by the U.S.
Kyoto was preemptively voted down 98-0 by the U.S. Senate. The U.S. announced in advance that it had no interest in the landmine treaty, because unlike, say, France, the U.S. has defense committments on a land border with the 4th largest army on Earth on the other side. The chemical weapons convention's inspection provisions would actually violate the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, and thus inherently cannot be adopted by the U.S. And the ABM treaty was bilateral between the U.S. and the now-nonexistant USSR, which repeatedly violated the the treaty anyway, and which we left though an explicit, in-treaty wihdrawal clause.
If MS is such a monopoly there must be some competitor it is crushing.
Exactly WRONG. If MS is a monopoly, then by strict definition it doesn't have competitors. That's what "monopoly" means.
Now, having a monopoly, per se, is not illegal. Leveraging a monopoly in one market to seize control of another market is. At which point I simply say "Stacker", and the case is made; Microsoft used a monopoly on DOS (a monopoly so complete that MS was at the time paid by most computer manufacturers for every PC shipped, not every PC shipped with DOS) to drive Stac (now Previo) out of the PC disk compression buisness and gain a monopoly on PC disk compression.
That kills
In short, it guarantees that whenever the next "era" shift happens, MS won't be able to make the jump, making it the next IBM.
CivIII is what I would have expected from a contemporary of SMAC, not a successor. CivIII has a (mostly) superior diplomacy and resources model, better aircraft rules, and cool culture rules.
But SMAC's saveable-and-loadable queues, detailed social/government model, unit automation, unit customization, and a few other things are significantly superior to CivIII.
Perhaps it would be better to express it as "wrong" and "right within these specified parameters to this number of significant figures".
Well, according to the Chronology, the Romulan Wars are due in 2156 -- almost exactly five TV seasons after Enterprise started its mission. How's that for convenient timing?
Hmm. Then how in hell did I ever get to a Karma of 98? Or are you telling me that the /. groupthink has the following opinions (all expressed in posts that got net positive moderation):
1) The antitrust actions against Microsoft were gross abuses of government power.
2) RMS is fundamentally mistaken on the nature of property. The case for intellectual property is in fact stronger than the case for physical property, since IP is entirely the product of the creator's labor, while physical property includes preexistent matter to which no one can claim a natural right.
3) Money doesn't corrupt governments; governments corrupt money. "Unchecked corporate power" isn't a problem on its own. The problem is that whenever a government allows itself to move beyond lassiez-faire, it creates an incentive for the entrenched corporate powers to pay for regualtions and laws that protect them and squash competitors.
Sure, but be sure the doctors got all my transplantable organs out first. And pay my family $0.15 a pound, please.
Installing a peaceful, fair government in Afghanistan: priceless.
Yeah, just look how well it worked with Saudi Arabia. Nobody could possibly disagree with that! (Hint for the clueless: this is one of bin Laden's primary complaints about the U.S.)
Number of Saudi Arabian governments installed by the United States, or, in fact, by anybody other than the House of Saud: 0.
Your number of "hints for the clueless": 1
Your own arrogantly displayed ignorance: priceless.
History for your edification (I like taking away priceless things):
In 1902 Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud, emir of the Wahabi, seized the mud fortresses of Riyadh in Nejd, without U.S. involvment. He forced the abdication of Hashemite king Husein bin Ali in favor of his son Ali bin Husein in 1924, without U.S. involvment. He declared himself king of Hejaz in 1926 and renamed the realm Saudi Arabia, again without U.S. involvment. The British recognized the independent Saudi Arabia in 1927, again without U.S. involvment. And the monarchy and royal family founded by Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud is still in charge today.
Yes, the U.S. has aided the Saudi government in staying in power. But even bin Laden didn't object to the Saudi government ruling Arabia until it decided to allow infidels to defend it from Iraq; bin Laden had even offered to lead his own mujahdeen to defend Arabia and the House of Saud against Iraq before he discovered U.S. forces were going to defend the kingdom.
Nothing in the Constitution specifies the form of a declaration of war. And it's hard to see how a Congressional resolution giving blanket authorization to the President to use an unrestricted level of force for an unrestricted period of time against identified enemies can be construed as anything else but a declaration of war.
(Yes, they were identified by their acts, not by name. It still counts as identification -- the resolution would not cover sending bombers into Argentina, for example.)
FNORD
Sounds like someones been playing DeusEx..
Oh, goddess. Look, get the Illuminatus Trilogy, then get the Principia Discordia . (The reason I pointed you to the Steve Jackson Games edition of the Principia is because they were the company hit by the infamous Secret Service raid -- you've heard of that at least, right?). You probably need a copy of the Jargon File, too. Read alt.religion.kibo a few days, and then move on to the Internet Oracle.
Then come back here when you're properly versed in esoteric geek subculture memes. 'Kay?
Yes, but the Grand Alliance agreed on more-or-less the current standard in October '93, and initial versions of the spec were developed before that. So it is possible that SGI deployed support for the current format as early as '93.
Um, actually HDTV was first demonstrated in 1981 at a SMTPE conference using hardware from Japan's NHK. Here's a link The History of HDTV [bgsu.edu]
It's best to check facts before you spew.
You know that last line you wrote? Remember it.
The "HDTV" signal in the 1981 demo on the page you reference was not the same "format currently called HDTV". The NHK "HDTV" signal you reference was an analog format. The Japanese government and a consortium of Europeans governments spent millions of dollars to develop competing analog HDTV standards throughout the '80s.
Look at the 1991 December entry in the site you references -- that's when the first digital HDTV format was demoed. Less than ten years ago. Now look at the 1993 February entry, where the NHK withdraws its analog format from consideration as the HDTV standard, meaning that the NHK 1981 format is not the format used for modern HDTV. Finally, look at the 1993 October entry -- the point where the "format currently called HDTV" is endorsed by a consortium.
Now, do you remember that last line? Good.
And it isn't like the MB manufacturer would have any reason to blame AMD instead of itself. After all, every company in the industry takes responsibility when its product is at fault, instead of trying to pass the buck to someone else. Tom was perfectly justified in taking the MB manufacturer at its word.
Which one of the "other perfectly good solutions" you mention (qt, gtk, XUL, Kylix, Swing) . . . is available on all the platforms that Python runs on?
First, I admit that XUL isn't exactly ideal for the kind of work he wants to do.
But, as far as platform availability, XUL already works under seven different GUIs (Win32, BeOS, MacOS, WPS [OS/2], X, Photon, and NanoGUI) and at least nineteen operating systems (Windows 9x/Me, Windows NT/2000/XP, MacOS, MacOS X, Linux, AIX, BeOS, Irix, OpenVMS, OS/2, HPUX, BSD/OS, Solaris, Tru64 Unix, FreeBSD, NetBSD, DG/UX, and QNX).
Okay, admittedly the DG/UX binaries are rather old, and the Photon/QNX ones might be (I can't find any data on whether recent milestones are available for it). But everything else on my list has a Mozilla 0.9.4 or 0.9.5 version.
The deliberate redefinition of the term "intellectual" to mean "someone who parrots the beliefs of the socialist avant-garde of 1920s Europe" is one of the great achievements of Newspeak.
Let's see, who is George W. Bush's hand-picked National Security Advisor? Dr. Condoleezza Rice (PhD in political science), senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, former provost of Stanford, tenured political-science professor at Stanford, Council of Foreign Relations member, a National Endowment for the Humanities trustee, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, etc.
Funny, I always thought that reference resources (encyclopedia, dictionaries, thesauri, API documentation, etc) were intended to be unbiased representations of actual fact.
How did you ever come to that conclusion? If you can't find bias in, say, any edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you aren't looking. I personally have four dictionaries within reach -- none define a very common four-letter Anglo-Saxon word for female genitalia.
Disturbing? If you're disturbed by reality, there are professionals you can see about it. The pharmaceutical companies have achieved wonders.
Itanium can run un-modified x86
Yes. Amazingly, though, it runs x86 slower than a software-emulation package on competitors' RISC chips.
Telegram. When you care enough to pay $9.95 to send a 1000-character-maximum message.
These are the same industry analysts that thought "Wireless Web" and "3G" would be big, because they brought "content" and "multimedia" to cell phones.
Nobody beyond a handful of wannabe-geeks who want to say "look what my handheld can do!" give a damn about multimedia on a handheld. "Ooh, I can look at 3"x2" color Powerpoint slides, and listen to supercompressed MP3s over tinny speakers!"
Is there any other toy that comes even close?
Construx (a plastic girder-and-connector systme). Unfortunately, they stopped making them in 1997. Building with Construx was like building a (steel/wood) frame structured building, instead of building with bricks.
Of course, we developed ad-hoc interfaces for Lego-Construx combined works; but we really preferred the Construx around my house.