"I have yet to see such a compiler (Can anyone name one?)"
After many years of asking old guys and/or teachers and colleagues, I have come to the conclusion that no such thing exists. But it *could* exist, if nothing in the spec requires it to work. But isn't the boolean null pointer compare expressly allowed by ANSI C?
But there's this:
1.14: Seriously, have any actual machines really used nonzero null pointers, or different representations for pointers to different types?
The Prime 50 series used segment 07777, offset 0 for the null pointer, at least for PL/I. Later models used segment 0, offset 0 for null pointers in C, necessitating new instructions such as TCNP (Test C Null Pointer), evidently as a sop to all the extant poorly-written C code which made incorrect assumptions. Older, word-addressed Prime machines were also notorious for requiring larger byte pointers (char *'s) than word pointers (int *'s).
The Eclipse MV series from Data General has three architecturally supported pointer formats (word, byte, and bit pointers), two of which are used by C compilers: byte pointers for char * and void *, and word pointers for everything else.
Some Honeywell-Bull mainframes use the bit pattern 06000 for (internal) null pointers.
The CDC Cyber 180 Series has 48-bit pointers consisting of a ring, segment, and offset. Most users (in ring 11) have null pointers of 0xB00000000000.
The Symbolics Lisp Machine, a tagged architecture, does not even have conventional numeric pointers; it uses the pair (basically a nonexistent handle) as a C null pointer.
Depending on the "memory model" in use, 80*86 processors (PC's) may use 16 bit data pointers and 32 bit function pointers, or vice versa.
The old HP 3000 series computers use a different addressing scheme for byte addresses than for word addresses; void and char pointers therefore have a different representation than an int (structure, etc.) pointer to the same address would have.
"don't tell ME little increases in efficiency aren't worthwhile!"
A 40% increase in processing speed is not a "little increase" and there's not usually the sort of low-hanging fruit opportunities to make that much difference these days.
"I had to deal with a large project that was written entirely with this assembly-like syntax."
I'm sure if I saw that I'd want to change every single array operator like that to a reference syntax. I'd also have strong words with the person who did it -- "I know you learned that you could do this in school, but just because you know how to abuse the syntax doesn't mean you should do it in production work."
There have been compilers that don't do the right thing when turning a NULL pointer type into a boolean expression, but if there's anyone using one of those now, they have a long, long list of weird compatability things that they are forced to do anyway.
But from a conceptual point of view, I have a problem with that line that evaluates a pointer as a boolean expression. For one thing, I'd bet the submitter a box of Krispy Kremes that he's using gcc, which does exactly the same thing with the comparison operator as with the boolean eval.
>Actually I prefer to write (and read) the former >and I do find it clearer, mostly because it is >idiomatic in C et al.
Agreed, but it is a very bad habit that carries into strongly typed languages. You're asking an object to give you a boolean representation of its state, again, a conceptual no-no if the object happens to be a null ref, even if it does tend to work, and even if you like the way it looks.
What if my main reason is for the framebuffer console? Nothing I have found so far can replace it.
I *know* I can get the same resolution, font, keymap, etc. with some terminal under windows or X for that matter, but I *cannot* get the precise behavior of the linux framebuffer console with anything I know of, and it's the combination of screen(1), terminfo, and whatever this close-to-the-metal framebuffer console is made of that I like so much.
There are a number of reasons I run linux, but the behavior of the virtual console, in particular with the framebuffer device at a wide width, are what I like the most, and what I cannot have in windows, at least not that I've found.
"Close" doesn't count -- I need to be able to sit at the console, and not be able to tell whether I'm running on a linux fbconsole or something else.
1280x1024-77 160 wide, 64 high, perfect for me. Others may have different preferences, but this is a requirement for me.
"So, eBay is price gouging an -auction- whose parameters [set increments] are defined well before the customer participates?"
If it's written in the rules that incrementing your limit also increments your bid, I don't see how this has merit as a legal case for damages. Just one more reason to decide what you will pay for an item, bid that amount, and be done with it win or lose.
I have never really gotten any benefit from the last minute bidding war. Someone who does that against me was willing to pay more than me in the first place. I'm not going to get emotional or get an adrenaline rush and suddenly decide it's worth more than my original bid.
But, I'm a big fan of buy-it-now and I really like to use merchants who do their stores on ebay.
Many times. I find it to be in very clear language. It is written in quite brief, crystal clear language. If it is somehow invalid, then ANY license that asserts copyright would have to be invalid.
"I had trouble understanding it all, but English is not my primary language..."
The was we rationalized this in '77 was to decide that Lucas wasn't a moron, and that Solo was bragging about a shortest path achievement. Of course nowadays I can simply accept that Lucas was a moron and the writing was sloppy.
If you really want a contrived cover story to explain why the Falcon did the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs, here's one:
http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/jocasta/ as kjc20020221.html
I find it easy to believe the dialogue was worked out on the day of shooting with a list of buzzwords and nobody on the set with the slightest background in science.
Tivo made a certain kind of impact, the kind where their name has become a verb for recording TV. That does not guarantee long term success of course.
Today we xerox on a Canon. It's probably a bit previous-generation, but every refrigerator was a Frigidaire, even when Frigidaire's market share had dwindled. In lots of places, every soft drink is a "coke". I've heard different convenience stores being referred to as "the 7-Eleven". And so on.
Tivo might have lasted just long enough to spawn this effect. "I missed the show but I Tivo'd it."
"So you guys want internet from the folks who brought you the shining example of efficiency that is the DMV?"
Where I live, the DMV is a real pleasure. They have a computerized customer ticket system that works very well, and before you get your ticket, you are triaged, so that a person who has all his paperwork in order and just needs some simple service won't have to wait in line behind some junk dealer who needs to clear titles on 200 salvage cars. Everything is very streamlined, the employees appear to really enjoy their jobs and the DMV experience is all very reasonable and pleasant.
Or as few as three, if you don't count launch accidents where the vehicle did not reach orbit, and don't count re-entry accidents where the vehicle is no longer in space at the time of the astronauts' death. And are we sure abut Soyuz-11?
Not trying to be morbid or disrespectful at all, but it seems that space has been relatively safe, it's the stuff that happens near Earth and in the atmosphere that's dangerous.
I bought an MSDN license one year and the activation code that Microsoft sent me was already used. After paying for MSDN Universal, I had a lengthy (months-long) dialogue with them trying to get my subscription activated. Some time after I gave up being nice, and started being extremely harsh with the people at MSDN support, I was able to activate my account -- even then, I was treated as if I had done something wrong. I might have had a good legal case if they hand't provided me with the registration code, and it came a hair away from me deciding to sue.
Well, the artists do not automatically surrender their copyright to their creative work to the public domain, in particular. But, if the sculpture is in a public place, then you have the right to photograph it. If that right is abridged, then it can be argued that it is *not* a public place, and therefore, not a public park, and if it is not that, then it is private property where some private party may make the rules that visitors must follow -- and if it is not public property then Constitutional protections do not carry the same direct weight they would if it were.
Now, if the People had the situation misreprented to them, that is, if it has been asserted that this is Public Property, then the rights of the people are being abridged. And if they choose to do so, they may petition for this greivance to be heard. It's up to them.
"I sure hope IBM sues SCO for Libel, slander, and defamation of character."
If Judge Kimball would go a bit further, he could already hold SCO liable, on behalf of the People, for damages to IBM's reputation, in addition to requesting that the attorneys for SCO be disbarred and their witnesses charged with perjury.
They have made false representations regarding evidence, under oath, in a Federal court, intentionally to the detriment of the reputation of a party to their lawsuit.
SCO have rights, IBM have rights, and the People have rights, and all those rights must be meticulously preserved, especially the right to due process of law. You know SCO have no case. I know SCO have no case. IBM know it. Judge Kimball knows it. But if he rules with prejudice, the case will have simple grounds for appeal, because rights to due process of law will have been abridged. IBM do not want this, and neither does Judge Kimball. Do you want the current case to run its course and be the last word on the subject, or do you want it to drag on for years and years in appeals because Judge Kimball was careless?
"If these scientist have real solid evidence that science was altered then they need to provide the names of the studies and the people involved so we can through some people in jail."
Maybe they caved in to the pressure, and then found out they'd committed a crime, and now are looking for a way out.
See, SCO made a lot of noise about how their evidence that was provided to Judge Kimball under seal, was a slam dunk. They tried to bluff the public, Judge Kimball didn't appreciate this and has stated that SCO has no such dunk, slam or otherwise, and he didn't even use diplomatic words to say it.
So, IBM already has what they need to seek damages against SCO for misrepresenting and fabricating facts, and making false statements that did damage to IBM's reputation. SCO tried to do more damage to IBM than they are worth.
Judge Kimball is being careful, in order to avoid making a procedural error that would allow this case to be appealed. He's hinting that he would, if he could, judge against SCO right now, but since the law requires it, he will sit through the rest of the trial and follow the procedures. I think SCO has pushed him past the end of his patience, and esentially lied about the evidence they gave him. He obligation to remain impartial only goes so far. He must give the case a fair hearing, following the rules of evidence and civil procedure that apply to his jurisdiction, and ensuring that the due process rights of each party are not abridged.
You're being impatient. This judge is trying to make sure there won't be any grounds for appeal. After he has ordered discovery, it would be improper for him to call it off without following proper process. So he has tabled these motions until discovery is complete. But I don't see how you can interpret Kimball's blunt statement that SCO presents no competent evidence, either what's been made public, or the stuff that was sealed.
In fact IBM may have grounds to seek compensation from SCO based on damage to IBM's reputation, because SCO made public statements asserting that the evidence that was under seal would support their case against IBM. We now know that to be false.
SCO still has a chance to present evidence. Because the discovery period isn't closed, SCO gets a little more rope.
But you seem to think that by not granting IBM's motions, it has cost IBM. The judge is merely taking careful, calculated steps to be certain that his decision will stand. No doubt, he started out in this trial as an impartial arbiter of justice, but no judge will remain impartial when he has been lied to by a party to a trial. No there won't be any perjury charges coming, and no, Boies won't be disbarred, but SCO has made outrageous public claims about the strength of their evidence. They really shouldn't bluff like that when the judge sees their cards.
And today he has told them, and us, exactly that.
This case might stand or fall on the evidence required by IBM's tenth counterclaim. It's the put-up-or-shut-up claim. SCO, lay out every line of code on which you have a claim, now, or forever hold your peace.
That hasn't been dismissed, and it won't be. Read the memorandum: The judge is not procedurally empowered to rule on the matter at this time, because the filing of the claim is premature. A procedural error of any consequence at all could easily send this case right back to square one. Kimball wants to have the last word on it, and he's making sure he gets it.
"If the US really wanted the world to be free of nukes, they should start by setting an example for the rest of the world"
And if the world wanted the US to be free of nukes, the pressure that could be exerted is enormous.
Last time I checked:
1. No existing alliances have been severed between any country and the US 2. Almost every country in the world that is not already forbidden by treaty, is happy to engage in trade with the US. 3. Americans are free to travel to, from, and within nearly every country in the world. 4. No threat of military force has been placed on the US as a consequence for keeping nuclear weapons.
Basically, it looks like everybody is satisfied with the US having nukes. Why should the US do something that nobody is demanding?
Bush didn't get in the way, but Saddam was hard at work on his rise to power since at least 1955, and might very well have reached his aspirations without any help from Bush. I don't know how much of a hand you think Bush gave him in 1979. As I remember it, Bush Sr. was between jobs when Hussein became president of Iraq. Sr. was too busy failing to get the GOP nomination for president to be too worried about Hussein, and bear in mind this was before the Iraq/Iran war had even begun.
It may be comforting to you to believe that Hussein rose to power with a boost from the US, but I find that unsatisfying, since he seems to have had quite a successful run on his own resources.
Some lighthouses are relatively spacious, and if you can take the works out of the lamphouse, you have a great deck, with a 360 degree view. Lighthouses also tend to be pretty far away from other developed property, especially when they are out on a basalt point, and they *ALL* are oceanfront property.
All this adds up to a high dollar piece of real estate, especially with the historic value of the property. They go for that sort of thing in New England and the Oregon Coast, and I know there are also plenty of Germans who feel the same.
These lighthouses haven't had terribly great value in their original purpose for years, but they are inherently valuable nonetheless.
P4's don't overheat, they just slow down past 80. My 3GhZ P4 stays at 74 with the zalman fan at 1600RPM. It's not silent, but it's almost quiet enough for my music room. My P4 notebook is quiet enough, just wish I could run PCI audio hardware on it.
A co-worker of mine has a Zalman Reserator, including the VGA cooler, and a silent power supply and an external soundproof drive enclosure. It's the only truly silent PC I've seen, not counting some 533MhZ Via C3 systems which aren't very useful.
"How do you get funding for man-made climate change from a congress that doesn't believe in man-made climate change?"
No, what you get is an act of Congress that forbids this crazy plan. The left hand of Congress then has to justify it, which ends the right hand's argument that there is no such possibility. Genius activism. It messes up Congress either way.
Slashdot Mirror
After many years of asking old guys and/or teachers and colleagues, I have come to the conclusion that no such thing exists. But it *could* exist, if nothing in the spec requires it to work. But isn't the boolean null pointer compare expressly allowed by ANSI C?
But there's this:
1.14: Seriously, have any actual machines really used nonzero null pointers, or different representations for pointers to different types?
The Prime 50 series used segment 07777, offset 0 for the null pointer, at least for PL/I. Later models used segment 0, offset 0 for null pointers in C, necessitating new instructions such as TCNP (Test C Null Pointer), evidently as a sop to all the extant poorly-written C code which made incorrect assumptions. Older, word-addressed Prime machines were also notorious for requiring larger byte pointers (char *'s) than word pointers (int *'s). The Eclipse MV series from Data General has three architecturally supported pointer formats (word, byte, and bit pointers), two of which are used by C compilers: byte pointers for char * and void *, and word pointers for everything else. Some Honeywell-Bull mainframes use the bit pattern 06000 for (internal) null pointers. The CDC Cyber 180 Series has 48-bit pointers consisting of a ring, segment, and offset. Most users (in ring 11) have null pointers of 0xB00000000000. The Symbolics Lisp Machine, a tagged architecture, does not even have conventional numeric pointers; it uses the pair (basically a nonexistent handle) as a C null pointer. Depending on the "memory model" in use, 80*86 processors (PC's) may use 16 bit data pointers and 32 bit function pointers, or vice versa. The old HP 3000 series computers use a different addressing scheme for byte addresses than for word addresses; void and char pointers therefore have a different representation than an int (structure, etc.) pointer to the same address would have.
"don't tell ME little increases in efficiency aren't worthwhile!"
A 40% increase in processing speed is not a "little increase" and there's not usually the sort of low-hanging fruit opportunities to make that much difference these days.
"I had to deal with a large project that was written entirely with this assembly-like syntax."
I'm sure if I saw that I'd want to change every single array operator like that to a reference syntax. I'd also have strong words with the person who did it -- "I know you learned that you could do this in school, but just because you know how to abuse the syntax doesn't mean you should do it in production work."
There have been compilers that don't do the right thing when turning a NULL pointer type into a boolean expression, but if there's anyone using one of those now, they have a long, long list of weird compatability things that they are forced to do anyway.
But from a conceptual point of view, I have a problem with that line that evaluates a pointer as a boolean expression. For one thing, I'd bet the submitter a box of Krispy Kremes that he's using gcc, which does exactly the same thing with the comparison operator as with the boolean eval.
>Actually I prefer to write (and read) the former
>and I do find it clearer, mostly because it is
>idiomatic in C et al.
Agreed, but it is a very bad habit that carries into strongly typed languages. You're asking an object to give you a boolean representation of its state, again, a conceptual no-no if the object happens to be a null ref, even if it does tend to work, and even if you like the way it looks.
> but the main reasons for running Linux
What if my main reason is for the framebuffer console? Nothing I have found so far can replace it.
I *know* I can get the same resolution, font, keymap, etc. with some terminal under windows or X for that matter, but I *cannot* get the precise behavior of the linux framebuffer console with anything I know of, and it's the combination of screen(1), terminfo, and whatever this close-to-the-metal framebuffer console is made of that I like so much.
There are a number of reasons I run linux, but the behavior of the virtual console, in particular with the framebuffer device at a wide width, are what I like the most, and what I cannot have in windows, at least not that I've found.
"Close" doesn't count -- I need to be able to sit at the console, and not be able to tell whether I'm running on a linux fbconsole or something else.
1280x1024-77 160 wide, 64 high, perfect for me.
Others may have different preferences, but this is a requirement for me.
"So, eBay is price gouging an -auction- whose parameters [set increments] are defined well before the customer participates?"
If it's written in the rules that incrementing your limit also increments your bid, I don't see how this has merit as a legal case for damages. Just one more reason to decide what you will pay for an item, bid that amount, and be done with it win or lose.
I have never really gotten any benefit from the last minute bidding war. Someone who does that against me was willing to pay more than me in the first place. I'm not going to get emotional or get an adrenaline rush and suddenly decide it's worth more than my original bid.
But, I'm a big fan of buy-it-now and I really like to use merchants who do their stores on ebay.
"How many of you have read the GNU GPL?"
Many times. I find it to be in very clear language. It is written in quite brief, crystal clear language. If it is somehow invalid, then ANY license that asserts copyright would have to be invalid.
"I had trouble understanding it all, but English is not my primary language..."
You don't read one of these languages?
Albanian, Brazilian Portuguese, Bulgarian, Catalan, Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Traditional), Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Farsi, Finnish, French, Galician, Georgian, German, Greek, Hebrew, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Lituanian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish (also Spanish Mexican), Thai, Turkish, Ukranian, Welsh
The was we rationalized this in '77 was to decide that Lucas wasn't a moron, and that Solo was bragging about a shortest path achievement. Of course nowadays I can simply accept that Lucas was a moron and the writing was sloppy.
/ as kjc20020221.html
If you really want a contrived cover story to explain why the Falcon did the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs, here's one:
http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/jocasta
I find it easy to believe the dialogue was worked out on the day of shooting with a list of buzzwords and nobody on the set with the slightest background in science.
Tivo made a certain kind of impact, the kind where their name has become a verb for recording TV. That does not guarantee long term success of course.
Today we xerox on a Canon. It's probably a bit previous-generation, but every refrigerator was a Frigidaire, even when Frigidaire's market share had dwindled. In lots of places, every soft drink is a "coke". I've heard different convenience stores being referred to as "the 7-Eleven". And so on.
Tivo might have lasted just long enough to spawn this effect. "I missed the show but I Tivo'd it."
"So you guys want internet from the folks who brought you the shining example of efficiency that is the DMV?"
Where I live, the DMV is a real pleasure. They have a computerized customer ticket system that works very well, and before you get your ticket, you are triaged, so that a person who has all his paperwork in order and just needs some simple service won't have to wait in line behind some junk dealer who needs to clear titles on 200 salvage cars. Everything is very streamlined, the employees appear to really enjoy their jobs and the DMV experience is all very reasonable and pleasant.
So, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
>5 in binary is 101
2^5-1 = 31
31 in binary is 11111
>you might count as many as 22.
Or as few as three, if you don't count launch accidents where the vehicle did not reach orbit, and don't count re-entry accidents where the vehicle is no longer in space at the time of the astronauts' death. And are we sure abut Soyuz-11?
Not trying to be morbid or disrespectful at all, but it seems that space has been relatively safe, it's the stuff that happens near Earth and in the atmosphere that's dangerous.
I bought an MSDN license one year and the activation code that Microsoft sent me was already used. After paying for MSDN Universal, I had a lengthy (months-long) dialogue with them trying to get my subscription activated. Some time after I gave up being nice, and started being extremely harsh with the people at MSDN support, I was able to activate my account -- even then, I was treated as if I had done something wrong. I might have had a good legal case if they hand't provided me with the registration code, and it came a hair away from me deciding to sue.
> If it's outside, it's public domain. Period.
Well, the artists do not automatically surrender their copyright to their creative work to the public domain, in particular. But, if the sculpture is in a public place, then you have the right to photograph it. If that right is abridged, then it can be argued that it is *not* a public place, and therefore, not a public park, and if it is not that, then it is private property where some private party may make the rules that visitors must follow -- and if it is not public property then Constitutional protections do not carry the same direct weight they would if it were.
Now, if the People had the situation misreprented to them, that is, if it has been asserted that this is Public Property, then the rights of the people are being abridged. And if they choose to do so, they may petition for this greivance to be heard. It's up to them.
"I sure hope IBM sues SCO for Libel, slander, and defamation of character."
If Judge Kimball would go a bit further, he could already hold SCO liable, on behalf of the People, for damages to IBM's reputation, in addition to requesting that the attorneys for SCO be disbarred and their witnesses charged with perjury.
They have made false representations regarding evidence, under oath, in a Federal court, intentionally to the detriment of the reputation of a party to their lawsuit.
"So why the hell is this case STILL dragging on?"
SCO have rights, IBM have rights, and the People have rights, and all those rights must be meticulously preserved, especially the right to due process of law. You know SCO have no case. I know SCO have no case. IBM know it. Judge Kimball knows it. But if he rules with prejudice, the case will have simple grounds for appeal, because rights to due process of law will have been abridged. IBM do not want this, and neither does Judge Kimball. Do you want the current case to run its course and be the last word on the subject, or do you want it to drag on for years and years in appeals because Judge Kimball was careless?
"If these scientist have real solid evidence that science was altered then they need to provide the names of the studies and the people involved so we can through some people in jail."
Maybe they caved in to the pressure, and then found out they'd committed a crime, and now are looking for a way out.
>Seems like IBM might still end up owning SCO...
They might already have it in the can.
See, SCO made a lot of noise about how their evidence that was provided to Judge Kimball under seal, was a slam dunk. They tried to bluff the public, Judge Kimball didn't appreciate this and has stated that SCO has no such dunk, slam or otherwise, and he didn't even use diplomatic words to say it.
So, IBM already has what they need to seek damages against SCO for misrepresenting and fabricating facts, and making false statements that did damage to IBM's reputation. SCO tried to do more damage to IBM than they are worth.
Judge Kimball is being careful, in order to avoid making a procedural error that would allow this case to be appealed. He's hinting that he would, if he could, judge against SCO right now, but since the law requires it, he will sit through the rest of the trial and follow the procedures. I think SCO has pushed him past the end of his patience, and esentially lied about the evidence they gave him. He obligation to remain impartial only goes so far. He must give the case a fair hearing, following the rules of evidence and civil procedure that apply to his jurisdiction, and ensuring that the due process rights of each party are not abridged.
>IBM lost their summary judgement.
You're being impatient. This judge is trying to make sure there won't be any grounds for appeal. After he has ordered discovery, it would be improper for him to call it off without following proper process. So he has tabled these motions until discovery is complete. But I don't see how you can interpret Kimball's blunt statement that SCO presents no competent evidence, either what's been made public, or the stuff that was sealed.
In fact IBM may have grounds to seek compensation from SCO based on damage to IBM's reputation, because SCO made public statements asserting that the evidence that was under seal would support their case against IBM. We now know that to be false.
SCO still has a chance to present evidence. Because the discovery period isn't closed, SCO gets a little more rope.
But you seem to think that by not granting IBM's motions, it has cost IBM. The judge is merely taking careful, calculated steps to be certain that his decision will stand. No doubt, he started out in this trial as an impartial arbiter of justice, but no judge will remain impartial when he has been lied to by a party to a trial. No there won't be any perjury charges coming, and no, Boies won't be disbarred, but SCO has made outrageous public claims about the strength of their evidence. They really shouldn't bluff like that when the judge sees their cards.
And today he has told them, and us, exactly that.
This case might stand or fall on the evidence required by IBM's tenth counterclaim. It's the put-up-or-shut-up claim. SCO, lay out every line of code on which you have a claim, now, or forever hold your peace.
That hasn't been dismissed, and it won't be. Read the memorandum: The judge is not procedurally empowered to rule on the matter at this time, because the filing of the claim is premature. A procedural error of any consequence at all could easily send this case right back to square one. Kimball wants to have the last word on it, and he's making sure he gets it.
It won't be pretty for SCO.
"You might want to take a few minutes and open a couple history books"
I've done that, and what surprises me is the long life expectancy of contemporary politicians.
"If the US really wanted the world to be free of nukes, they should start by setting an example for the rest of the world"
And if the world wanted the US to be free of nukes, the pressure that could be exerted is enormous.
Last time I checked:
1. No existing alliances have been severed between any country and the US
2. Almost every country in the world that is not already forbidden by treaty, is happy to engage in trade with the US.
3. Americans are free to travel to, from, and within nearly every country in the world.
4. No threat of military force has been placed on the US as a consequence for keeping nuclear weapons.
Basically, it looks like everybody is satisfied with the US having nukes. Why should the US do something that nobody is demanding?
> And Bush (sr.) put him(Saddam) in power.
Bush didn't get in the way, but Saddam was hard at work on his rise to power since at least 1955, and might very well have reached his aspirations without any help from Bush. I don't know how much of a hand you think Bush gave him in 1979. As I remember it, Bush Sr. was between jobs when Hussein became president of Iraq. Sr. was too busy failing to get the GOP nomination for president to be too worried about Hussein, and bear in mind this was before the Iraq/Iran war had even begun.
It may be comforting to you to believe that Hussein rose to power with a boost from the US, but I find that unsatisfying, since he seems to have had quite a successful run on his own resources.
Some lighthouses are relatively spacious, and if you can take the works out of the lamphouse, you have a great deck, with a 360 degree view. Lighthouses also tend to be pretty far away from other developed property, especially when they are out on a basalt point, and they *ALL* are oceanfront property.
All this adds up to a high dollar piece of real estate, especially with the historic value of the property. They go for that sort of thing in New England and the Oregon Coast, and I know there are also plenty of Germans who feel the same.
These lighthouses haven't had terribly great value in their original purpose for years, but they are inherently valuable nonetheless.
P4's don't overheat, they just slow down past 80. My 3GhZ P4 stays at 74 with the zalman fan at 1600RPM. It's not silent, but it's almost quiet enough for my music room. My P4 notebook is quiet enough, just wish I could run PCI audio hardware on it.
A co-worker of mine has a Zalman Reserator, including the VGA cooler, and a silent power supply and an external soundproof drive enclosure. It's the only truly silent PC I've seen, not counting some 533MhZ Via C3 systems which aren't very useful.
"How do you get funding for man-made climate change from a congress that doesn't believe in man-made climate change?"
No, what you get is an act of Congress that forbids this crazy plan. The left hand of Congress then has to justify it, which ends the right hand's argument that there is no such possibility. Genius activism. It messes up Congress either way.