Too bad, too, because most people who call themselves "Republican" these days are actually more closely aligned with Libertarians: smaller government/free-er economy; more personal liberty and responsibility, civil rights and privacy.
Unfortunately,. the other two parties have successfully spun the "f***ing nuts" characterization.
Ah, yes; I remember fondly going to the Episode 1 premier, walking right past all the freaks that had camped out for a week, whipping out my debit card, buying two tickets from the kiosk, then going inside to great seats while the Freak Patrol were all still standing in line...yes, as if it were yesterday, I remember smelling them as they all came filtering in, looking around for the best seats, which of course I already had; dead-center in the screen (stadium-style theatre).
People don't demand those features; that's not the way it works anymore. Nowadays companies just slap on a little ill-conceived bling-bling and then market it so everyone thnks they need it.
Maybe you should try buying motherboards that work. Or reading a mother board manual occasionally. Or try a simple Google search on how to install XP from floppy; you've got the wrong command-line. Or download the installation floppy images from Microsoft.
Looks to me like you can't be bothered to do a little simple research.
Please let me know where you work so I can avoid that place like the plague. When's the last time you worked on a computer??? I had a problem ONCE in the last 4 years getting a supermicro mobo to boot off the CD; turned out to be a problematic CD drive. I don't know of any PC's that don't boot off the CD. Compaqs and Dells to name just 2 have done it since the early '90s. Heck, I got a cheap-ass Foxconn board for $50 and it boots off of CD AND USB. Even a cheap-ass, 10-year-old ALR 486 that I still have around will boot off the freakin' CD.
So, to reiterate:
You don't know how to install XP from floppy so you assume it can't be done.
You can't get mobos to boot from CD so you assume they don't have the capability.
Ever hear of a little thing called "boot order?" I figure you're probably not aware of this, but most motherboards have what is called the BIOS in which you can change motherboard settings like boot order, drive geometry, IRQ assignments, etc.
In our company, we delete e-mail for legal reasons. Seems the CIO sent a not-too-nice e-mail once upon a time and got into some legal trouble when his entire e-mail box was subpoena'ed (sp?)
Nowadays, any e-mail over 30 days old is deleted automatically. And we all have 10MB mailboxes. Our marketing director can't get image files of upcoming campaigns in e-mail, nor can he receive media files of upcoming radio/tv commercials. But I still get my daily dosage of male enhancement spam.
By the way (warning; off-topic antecdote), I got one the other day that claimed to increase the size of the "male penis." I told them to get back to me when they had a product that did the same for the female penis.
Yes, thank you for insisting that we follow the conventions of a language that's been dead for over a thousand years. You know why the Latin-speakers never split infinitives? Because they COULDN'T! In Latin (and in fact the other Romance languages that came out of it) the infinitive is a single-word form; i.e., "cedo." In English, the infinitive is almost always two words; i.e., "to go."
The only reason we have that rule now is a bunch of Romaphiles decided that Rome was the pinnacle of civilization and thus should be emulated wherever possible.
That reminds me of a joke I heard once:
An Okie was in Boston for a conference. In between sessions, he began to feel nature's call. He searched and searched but was unable to locate the main drain. So he flagged down a passing suit and asked,
"Excuse me, sir; but could you tell me where the bathroom's at?"
To which the suit smirkingly replied, "Suh, you are in Bahston now; heah we do not end a sentence with a preposition. Now, did you have something you wished to ask?"
"Yeah; can you tell me where the bathroom's at, asshole?"
Incidentally, the Oxford English Dictionary (or maybe the Oxford Dictionary of American Usage) now says the split infinitives are ok. Maybe it's time to hang up the swastika.
I still think that a judge would not look favorably on a defendent that could have taken simple steps to try to make a suit "go away".
Who cares? The mother was the only defendant named in the suit and she's dead. What steps was the defendant supposed to take, a certified letter stating her intention to die before the suit was filed? Whether the judge looks upon her favorably as the defendant or not is completely irrelevent.
She's dead.
Yes, the plaintif has to go through due process, and would have found out that the defendent was deceased when attempting service. But, having done so, might be motivated to sue the estate upon seeing a non-cooperative defendent. (If they didn't tell us she was dead, what else are they hiding?
Yeah, dead people are SOO uncooperative. And who's this "they" you keep referring to? Again, there was only one defendant in the case. You don't inherit lawsuits.
Re:+5: Anti-Bush Tirade
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 2, Informative
OK; listen, you people: there never was a surplus! It was a "projected surplus" using faulty math, seriously flawed economic assumptions, nonexistent revenues, blatantly unethical accounting procedures, and the sanguine premise that the economy will perform flawlessly far into the future, without recessions, significant stock market slumps, or other major disruptions. It was all smoke and mirrors. Clinton's economic package, touted as evidence of his foresight and economic acumen, was supposed to keep such a tight rein on annual deficits that the federal debt would not exceed $4.7 trillion at the end of fiscal 1998. But by March of '98 the debt already stood at $5.5 trillion, with most of the fiscal year still remaining, and was rocketing up at the mind-boggling rate of $628 million each and every day. And by the Administration's own estimates, the arrears were supposed to rise to $5.7 trillion by the end of fiscal 1999, and to $6.3 trillion by 2003.
The President also lauded 1997's budget agreement for helping to stimulate the economy. But as James Glassman points out, "We would be far better off if it hadn't happened," since "Congress and the President agreed to boost spending by $70 billion, or 4.4 percent, in a year in which inflation is rising 1.7 percent."
Syndicated columnist Dale McFeatters recently reminded his readers that Bill Clinton was a "sword-point convert to the cause of deficit reduction." Before the GOP gained control of Congress in 1995, "the idea of a balanced budget was espoused only by a small group of Republicans and so-called Blue Dog Democrats, genially regarded by their colleagues as cranks. Red ink was seen as a way of life, whether through Democratic spending or Republican tax-cutting."
But in the wake of the Republican revolution, a balanced budget "seemed attainable, and Clinton was dragged, kicking and screaming, toward that goal, submitting budgets that promised a balanced budget in 12 years, then ten, then seven and, finally, in the 1997 budget agreement, five years, by 2002." He then submitted a budget that would supposedly balance the books by 1999, with a surplus, despite its call for more than $113 billion in new spending.
"How does he do it with a straight face?" McFeatters asked rhetorically. "Simple. He's Bill Clinton."
The "surplus" charade raises some troubling questions. During fiscal 1999, for example, Mr. Clinton forecasted a budget surplus of $9.5 billion, meaning that $9.5 billion of the gargantuan national debt (the total owed by the federal government) should be eliminated -- right? Wrong! According to Mr. Clinton's own fiscal 1999 budget document touting the $9.5 billion surplus, the national debt would increase from $5,544 billion to $5,738 billion during the fiscal year. How can the national debt increase by $194 billion when the federal government spends $9.5 billion less than it takes in?
It gets worse. Beginning with the fiscal 1999 surplus, Mr. Clinton forecasted an unbroken series of annual surpluses totaling $219 billion through the year 2003. Yet, during this new era of budget surpluses, the national debt would increase from $5,544 billion to $6,336 billion, for an additional $792 billion in red ink. The overall discrepancy between the claimed surpluses and the projected increase in the national debt during 1999-2003 is $1,011 billion, not exactly pocket change even for Washington spendaholics. (Keep in mind too that these projections come from Mr. Clinton's own budget and are based on rosy economic projections, meaning that the increase in the national debt, and therefore the overall discrepancy, could be much greater.) Again, how can this be with the federal government enjoying a string of budget surpluses?
The answer seems to lie in gimmickry that allows federal trust fund surpluses to be counted as revenue in the budget. Federal law requires that such surpluses be invested in federal securities, at which time they become debt that the government (Treasury) owes itself (trust fund). As a component of
I'd rather that someone did not make a game about killing me. But on the other hand, I'm still alive, unlike the former president. This game, while vile at its heart, makes no threats implied or otherwise against anyone. The person in question is already dead, in the real-life scenario that the "game" is based on. So your question is based on a faulty premise.
Should I stop playing Battlefield 1942 because my grandfather died at Market Garden? Especially since I can choose to be the Germans? Or can I play all the other battles, just not that one? In fact, a lot of soldiers died in all the battles; maybe we should pull it completely from the shelves, in case some German or Japanese geek wants to relive their side's victories.
Again, don't get me wrong; the game is in extremely poor taste and I have no intention of purchasing it. It is primarily for the Serial Killer Trading Card set who, unfortunately, keep these bottom-feeders and their ilk in business. But your argument is unrelated to the game in question and is thus off topic.
Once you bring even a hint of romance in between two main characters it is all over. I thought Farscape was just silly. I couldn't watch the toadstool guy (gal?) without snickering, and the guy with the head made of tongues was pretty hard to take seriously as well. And the British chick didn't seem nearly as tough as she was supposed to be (actually, none of them did, although they were all supposed to be extremely tough). Seems like the dang ship was always on the verge of death too. Most of the stuff over there on Sci-Fi is formulaic and cornball (I liked The Invisible Man; even though it was also formulaic and cornball, at least it knew it was formulaic and cornball).
Take Atlantis. It's like SG1 as produced on Bizarro World. There's nothing new here. They don't even attempt to mix up the formula that much. They've got the same characters with the same personalities and other attributes, just shuffled around a little. You've got your O'Neil character; the wiseacre that bucks authority but is not as funny or genuine. You've got the Daniel guy; a geeky scientist dude that talks fast but is more abrasive and stupid. And your Corin Nemic; the young, inexperienced but gung-ho sidekick. I feel confident that we will have a Teal'c analog before too long (if we haven't already; I have to catch the series via bitorrent and am consequently a bit behind).
It's like they made a bunch of color-coded cards of things like: job on the team, role in the show, personality, gender, etc and just tossed them in the air. Now Corin Nemic's tendency to do stupid things due to thoughtlessness can be found in the Daniel character. General Hammond is now female but pretty much unchanged otherwise. Etcetera.
Yet another reason to turn off the tv occasionally and get a bit of sun on my pasty white geek skin.
And Osama and Arafat both wanted Kerry; what does that tell you? If a terrorist favors one candidate, it means that that candidate's policies are more favorable to terrorists than they are to US citizens (your logic).
The blue states need to acquire a soul. There's more at stake here than your minumum wage job in AOL's customer retention center.
Not always true. The twinkling is caused by density variations our atmosphere; if there is a high enough temerature differential between the surface air temperature and air aloft, and the air is turbulent, even the planets will twinkle (particularly Mars).
Now Jupiter and Venus are both large enough that they almost never twinkle, but with a telescope you can still observe their edges shimmering when conditions are as described above.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, they have that already. They call it a "PC."
Unfortunately,. the other two parties have successfully spun the "f***ing nuts" characterization.
I don't know if you've heard, but this particular outcry is from the left.
Those were the days...
Then: demand > engineering > product
Now: product > marketing > demand
Looks to me like you can't be bothered to do a little simple research.
So, to reiterate:
You don't know how to install XP from floppy so you assume it can't be done.
You can't get mobos to boot from CD so you assume they don't have the capability.
Ever hear of a little thing called "boot order?" I figure you're probably not aware of this, but most motherboards have what is called the BIOS in which you can change motherboard settings like boot order, drive geometry, IRQ assignments, etc.
Lamer. Go take an A+ course or something.
Nowadays, any e-mail over 30 days old is deleted automatically. And we all have 10MB mailboxes. Our marketing director can't get image files of upcoming campaigns in e-mail, nor can he receive media files of upcoming radio/tv commercials. But I still get my daily dosage of male enhancement spam.
By the way (warning; off-topic antecdote), I got one the other day that claimed to increase the size of the "male penis." I told them to get back to me when they had a product that did the same for the female penis.
"For the words of the profits were written on the studio walls, concert halls. And echoes with the sounds of salesmen."
The only reason we have that rule now is a bunch of Romaphiles decided that Rome was the pinnacle of civilization and thus should be emulated wherever possible.
That reminds me of a joke I heard once:
An Okie was in Boston for a conference. In between sessions, he began to feel nature's call. He searched and searched but was unable to locate the main drain. So he flagged down a passing suit and asked,
"Excuse me, sir; but could you tell me where the bathroom's at?"
To which the suit smirkingly replied, "Suh, you are in Bahston now; heah we do not end a sentence with a preposition. Now, did you have something you wished to ask?"
"Yeah; can you tell me where the bathroom's at, asshole?"
Incidentally, the Oxford English Dictionary (or maybe the Oxford Dictionary of American Usage) now says the split infinitives are ok. Maybe it's time to hang up the swastika.
Who cares? The mother was the only defendant named in the suit and she's dead. What steps was the defendant supposed to take, a certified letter stating her intention to die before the suit was filed? Whether the judge looks upon her favorably as the defendant or not is completely irrelevent. She's dead.
Yes, the plaintif has to go through due process, and would have found out that the defendent was deceased when attempting service. But, having done so, might be motivated to sue the estate upon seeing a non-cooperative defendent. (If they didn't tell us she was dead, what else are they hiding?
Yeah, dead people are SOO uncooperative. And who's this "they" you keep referring to? Again, there was only one defendant in the case. You don't inherit lawsuits.
The President also lauded 1997's budget agreement for helping to stimulate the economy. But as James Glassman points out, "We would be far better off if it hadn't happened," since "Congress and the President agreed to boost spending by $70 billion, or 4.4 percent, in a year in which inflation is rising 1.7 percent."
Syndicated columnist Dale McFeatters recently reminded his readers that Bill Clinton was a "sword-point convert to the cause of deficit reduction." Before the GOP gained control of Congress in 1995, "the idea of a balanced budget was espoused only by a small group of Republicans and so-called Blue Dog Democrats, genially regarded by their colleagues as cranks. Red ink was seen as a way of life, whether through Democratic spending or Republican tax-cutting."
But in the wake of the Republican revolution, a balanced budget "seemed attainable, and Clinton was dragged, kicking and screaming, toward that goal, submitting budgets that promised a balanced budget in 12 years, then ten, then seven and, finally, in the 1997 budget agreement, five years, by 2002." He then submitted a budget that would supposedly balance the books by 1999, with a surplus, despite its call for more than $113 billion in new spending.
"How does he do it with a straight face?" McFeatters asked rhetorically. "Simple. He's Bill Clinton."
The "surplus" charade raises some troubling questions. During fiscal 1999, for example, Mr. Clinton forecasted a budget surplus of $9.5 billion, meaning that $9.5 billion of the gargantuan national debt (the total owed by the federal government) should be eliminated -- right? Wrong! According to Mr. Clinton's own fiscal 1999 budget document touting the $9.5 billion surplus, the national debt would increase from $5,544 billion to $5,738 billion during the fiscal year. How can the national debt increase by $194 billion when the federal government spends $9.5 billion less than it takes in?
It gets worse. Beginning with the fiscal 1999 surplus, Mr. Clinton forecasted an unbroken series of annual surpluses totaling $219 billion through the year 2003. Yet, during this new era of budget surpluses, the national debt would increase from $5,544 billion to $6,336 billion, for an additional $792 billion in red ink. The overall discrepancy between the claimed surpluses and the projected increase in the national debt during 1999-2003 is $1,011 billion, not exactly pocket change even for Washington spendaholics. (Keep in mind too that these projections come from Mr. Clinton's own budget and are based on rosy economic projections, meaning that the increase in the national debt, and therefore the overall discrepancy, could be much greater.) Again, how can this be with the federal government enjoying a string of budget surpluses?
The answer seems to lie in gimmickry that allows federal trust fund surpluses to be counted as revenue in the budget. Federal law requires that such surpluses be invested in federal securities, at which time they become debt that the government (Treasury) owes itself (trust fund). As a component of
air temperature/humidity, all of which affect air density and hence drag
density of bone/tissues being hit (which can vary from person to person and even bone to bone)
angle of incidence with the bone/tissues in question
spin/balance of the projectile
barrel warping due to the heat of the previous shots
the amount of recoil absorbed by the shooter
etc.
Should I stop playing Battlefield 1942 because my grandfather died at Market Garden? Especially since I can choose to be the Germans? Or can I play all the other battles, just not that one? In fact, a lot of soldiers died in all the battles; maybe we should pull it completely from the shelves, in case some German or Japanese geek wants to relive their side's victories.
Again, don't get me wrong; the game is in extremely poor taste and I have no intention of purchasing it. It is primarily for the Serial Killer Trading Card set who, unfortunately, keep these bottom-feeders and their ilk in business. But your argument is unrelated to the game in question and is thus off topic.
Take Atlantis. It's like SG1 as produced on Bizarro World. There's nothing new here. They don't even attempt to mix up the formula that much. They've got the same characters with the same personalities and other attributes, just shuffled around a little. You've got your O'Neil character; the wiseacre that bucks authority but is not as funny or genuine. You've got the Daniel guy; a geeky scientist dude that talks fast but is more abrasive and stupid. And your Corin Nemic; the young, inexperienced but gung-ho sidekick. I feel confident that we will have a Teal'c analog before too long (if we haven't already; I have to catch the series via bitorrent and am consequently a bit behind).
It's like they made a bunch of color-coded cards of things like: job on the team, role in the show, personality, gender, etc and just tossed them in the air. Now Corin Nemic's tendency to do stupid things due to thoughtlessness can be found in the Daniel character. General Hammond is now female but pretty much unchanged otherwise. Etcetera.
Yet another reason to turn off the tv occasionally and get a bit of sun on my pasty white geek skin.
The blue states need to acquire a soul. There's more at stake here than your minumum wage job in AOL's customer retention center.
Now Jupiter and Venus are both large enough that they almost never twinkle, but with a telescope you can still observe their edges shimmering when conditions are as described above.
At least, I HOPE it's a girl...