And some Americans electrocute or gas their own citizens - so what?
The US is singularly unable to assert any "moral highground" arguments.
Really? You think that executing the absolute worst criminals in society means we can't "assert any moral highground" over people that behead reporters, lob rockets into neighborhoods from school grounds, fly planes full of civilians into buildings filled with civilians, hangs homosexuals and stones rape victims to death for the "crime" of adultery?
It's not just a 1984 idea - it dates all the way back to the ~1100 AD crusades. The only justification for those wars was because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas, and therefore they needed to die. No wonder they hate Europeans & Americans - they still desire revenge for the injustices done to Arabs long ago.
From Wikipedia's page on the Crusades:
The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was defeated, which led to the loss of all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) save the coastlands.
So, Muslims attacked the Byzantine empire and the Byzantine emperor asks for and receives help from Europe. So, it's Europe's fault for not telling the Byzantine emperor Alexios I to simply give up and die in place?
More:
While the Reconquista was the most prominent example of European reactions against Muslim conquests, it is not the only such example. The Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard had conquered Calabria in 1057 and was holding what had traditionally been Byzantine territory against the Muslims of Sicily. The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca, freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids. Much earlier, the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies. This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine Emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands starting with Jerusalem.
Someone is wrong here. You say the Crusades were "because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas" and Wikipedia states that it was because of Muslim aggression into the Byzantine empire. Hmmm. I wonder who's wrong?
".....remove the heads from thy enemies....." - Qor'an
"....turn the other cheek...." - The Holy Bible
And Christians are the bad guys.
And as for your sig... you think that those that hold a different view from you should be "BANNED"? Kinda goes against the whole "free exchange of ideas" thing doesn't it? How many tyrannical dictators gained power by people who felt the same way you do about people they disagreed with?
Exactly, As long as theres PC gamers, there will be PCs.
PC are not dead.... not for a long time.
Yes, PC's are not going anywhere within the next 5 years. But as for games, phones play games as well. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but hottest processor coming out for phones is an nvidia designed, quad-core processor running at 1 GHz with integrated 3d acceleration and it is NOT hampered by the i386 instruction set we've been slave to for the past 20 years. Games will not be a problem. And the beauty of it is that you will be able to take the game with you, wherever you go and stay online the entire time. These things will play games at least as good as a PC (eventually) with the ability to stick it in your pocket and take it on the road.
What happens after 5 years? The hardware and software will be "good enough" to replace PC's in both games and productivity. The portability will allow them to take over even if not as powerful as PC's and still take over. Of course, in the workplace, servers will still be "PC's", but all the clients will be plugging their phones into docking stations to connect their phones to the keyboard, mouse and monitor so they can get real work done.
Giving the average user control, is like giving them a plane and believing that since they have an autopilot they can land safely.
Apple's walled garden has limited this kind of behavior so far despite having 10's of million of more phones sold.
Well, if you are an "average user", and I presume you are, then I guess you need someone holding your hand in a walled garden.
Personally, I'm NOT an average user. To use your airplane analogy, I'm a pilot who wants the auto-pilot turned off! I demand the ability to do whatever I wish to MY phone and I am fully aware that I am responsible for the consequences. Look, I don't mind a walled garden. All the stuff I install comes from the Android Market exclusively. But within my walled garden, I want to choose the plants that are in there. I want to choose the color of the wall and decide what bricks it's made of. I want to decide if my garden is organic or so full of pesticides that the birds die from flying over it. So, with a simple rooting of my phone, I have my walled garden and the ability to remove/disable all the crapware I don't want on my phone. I'm now fully able to put any GUI I wish on MY phone. I chose the one that came with it, but dammit I MADE THAT CHOICE, not some turtleneck wearing, Hollywood social elite who thinks he knows what I want better than I do.
"You're a consumer, aren't you? Do you like people who think they are smarter than you telling you what to do... because they are smarter?"
If my doctor tells me to do something I'll do it. Because he's smarter and more educated in medicine than I am.
Really? When my doctor prescribes me a medication, I take it home and research it to learn all i can about it. That doctor may know more about medicine than I do, but before I take a drug, I want to know more about THAT medicine than my doctor. Then I'll bounce it off my wife who teaches pharmacy at a college level.
I will happily admit that my doctor is much smarter than I am but he's still human. He makes mistakes just like every other human. More than once I've gone back to the doctor to question my treatment based on my research or what I learned from my wife. Sometimes it's price as another, cheaper drug may do the same job. Sometimes it's side effects as another drug may offer the same benefits without a particular side effect. And sometimes it's a reaction with another drug that I'm taking that either my doctor did not know about or simply missed. Most of the time, the doctor will agree with us and change my treatment. Sometimes he comes back with "I knew that, but here is why I went that way..." and we agree with him. At first, I don't think he liked to be second guessed, but after he learned that we knew what we were talking about, he quit taking offense to it.
You should never blindly trust someone just because you think they are smarter than you. You take their advice and educate yourself before acting. Sometimes, you'll learn that brilliant people are wrong. I'm way too busy paying for my own mistakes to pay for someone who should know better.
This is preposterous. If they want people to use less power (and hence reduce greenhouse gases), they should make polluting power more expensive via taxes or mandates. This gives me an incentive to use CFL's where I can, but use normal bulbs where I need to.
Or get rid of all the red tape that is preventing nuclear power from being an option.
In the first case try an LED, or spend more on better CFLs. In the second, do that same.
Or a better solution would be just to tax the old style bulbs to discourage their use.
So you have government tax the things YOU don't like. Why would you want to tax incandescent light bulbs? Is it because they use too much energy? So says the guy that is using a computer than easily uses five times the energy of the most inefficient light bulbs a consumer can legally buy.
Tell you what; You turn off your computer that is powered by at least a 500 watt power supply and I might replace my 60 watt incandescent light bulb with a mercury polluting 40 watt CFL. You know, because I can tell you are concerned about how much energy I use because you are wasting so much energy letting me know what an asshole I am for wasting those 20 watts with my light bulbs.
They will still be happy you aren't using a heater for light. In California especially since you probably running the AC.
The small amount of mercury is nothing to bitch about if you eat tuna.
Seriously? Do you have any idea how that mercury got into the tuna? Here's a hint: Tuna do not naturally produce mercury. Tuna has a high level of mercury because they are a large fish that eats many smaller fish. See, the smaller fish don't have enough mercury to be a problem. Tuna wouldn't either, but because they eat so many small fish, the mercury builds up in their system to dangerous levels. Kinda like the same way that DDT killed birds. See, DDT sprayed or dusted onto a bird is not a problem. But like mercury, DDT doesn't readily leave your system. So after eating so many DDT infested insects, it would eventually kill the birds too.
Anyway, where does the mercury come from? You guessed it; pollution! It used to be industry and coal that produced most of it. Now, a lot of it comes from these CFL bulbs you are pushing, all while you tell me I can't bitch because I eat food that IS POISONED BY YOUR BULBS!!!
Consumers are in general morons who will buy the cheapest fucking thing they can find.... Again this is the idiot consumer trying the cheapest short term option at the cost of the longterm. No wonder most Americans are broke.
Do you eat meat? Have you ever stopped to consider the greenhouse gasses that are released due to meat production. All so you can eat flesh? You are quick to call others stupid, yet you have no problem destroying our planet just so you can feel like some sort of macho hunter for butchering that bucket of chicken.
Do you eat vegetables? Do you have any idea how many carbon absorbing trees had to be cut down to create the farms that grew your veggies? Do you even care about the carbon emitting machinery that is used to not just grow your veggies, but to get them to the market? Did you ever consider the poison that gets released into the fucking ground and our fucking drinking water just so you don't see some baby insect bite mark that might make your apple not pretty?
Seriously, do you give a flying fuck about anything but yourself or are you too stupid to realize the committing suicide by your food choices?
See, no matter what you do, someone can make you out to be a fucking idiot. Don't be so quick to judge the intelligence of others because, and trust me on this one, you do not possess the qualifications.
You're a consumer, aren't you? Do you like people who think they are smarter than you telling you what to do... because they are smarter? Probably not. So here's some free advice:
DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE and don't support those that do, dumbass.
Is this a setting, now? Because when I tried it, you had to hack up a bunch of images as well as change some files somewhere. Wasn't really fun.
No you don't. Click here for instructions with pretty pictures.
Or, just followed the instructions I so thoughtfully copied and pasted
Press Alt+F2 to bring up the Run Application dialog box, enter “gconf-editor” in the text field, and click on Run.
The Configuration Editor should pop up.
The key that we want to edit is in apps/metacity/general.
Click on the + button next to the “apps” folder, then beside “metacity” in the list of folders expanded for apps, and then click on the “general” folder.
The button layout can be changed by changing the “button_layout” key. Double-click button_layout to edit it.
Change the text in the Value text field to:
menu:maximize,minimize,close
Click OK and the change will occur immediately, changing the location of the window buttons in the Configuration Editor.
Note that this ordering of the window buttons is slightly different than the typical order; in previous versions of Ubuntu and in Windows, the minimize button is to the left of the maximize button.
You can change the button_layout string to reflect that ordering, but using the default Ubuntu 10.04 theme, it looks a bit strange.
If you plan to change the theme, or even just the graphics used for the window buttons, then this ordering may be more natural to you.
You have a Constitutional right to petition your government. You do NOT have the Constitutional right to petition the grieving families at a soldier's funeral.
Sorry, but even free speech is not absolute.
However, even though I'm straight, I would certainly pitch in a few bucks to fly some gay men to WBC for a nice love-in on the steps of the church. I say that as both a Christian Baptist and a veteran.
The GOP is a monstrosity. As Brad Delong says, they "lie about everything all the time." More than that, though, every single Republican initiative exacerbates inequality, smashes our dignity, and adds to the sum of human misery. There are no exceptions. There are no moderates left in the Republican party. What remains is an organization dedicated to aristocracy, superstition, and the snuffing out of curiosity. This party is a scourge, and to see its members elected against and against forces one to doubt the fundamental goodness of human nature.
Please allow me to summarize your post:
All who see things differently than I do are evil.
As it is, big R's have a problem on their hands because the small-r's and teabaggers seem to think everything will just roll along fine if they gut funding (for everything but the bloated defense industry and tax cuts, of course.) The big R's know what damage this will cause, but they can't even really say so publicly without losing their next primary. They also know the Dems will have no incentive to get on board since voting for these types of cuts is a vote loser for people elected from Democratic strongholds. So unless the big R's can convince the teabaggers that we really don't need to shoot the economy in the head right now by cutting social and research spending, they are going to have a total fail on their hands in the form of a government shutdown.
If something absolutely necessary is cut, then it should be up to the states to provide, per the 10th Amendment. Don't like the cuts? Pester your state legislators to make up for them. In the mean time, stop taking MY money to fund projects I care nothing about.
Like making sure "Obama is a one term President!" Yeh, gotta get priorities set right, cause thats what the people want! Conflict and inaction to make sure someone else is elected, not any actual work on any real issues... ugh, makes me sick
"Conservatives are against providing subsidies to one sector while penalizing another in other to give an advantage to methods that are not the most efficient."
Glad to have conservatives on board with killing fossil fuel's annual $15-35 billion subsidy. I'm sure Boehner will include that in the House budget to help reduce the deficit and to make the energy market freer.
Yes, but at the same time, the government needs to get out of the way when it comes to energy production. For example, declaring the polar bear and endangered species, when by every definition it's not, is the kind of crap that has to stop.
What we need to do, same as with Israel and Palestine and many others, is dump shitloads of weapons on them, let them duke it out fairly and then, when they finally have enough of killing each other, we could sit down and help them build something worthwhile.
This won't work in Israel at least. The easiest way to explain why is to repeat an old quote I heard:
There will be peace in Israel when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Jews
... or something like that.
The point is that there are many in the Arab world who would rather die and see their entire families die trying to kill Jews than live in peace while Israel exists.
No, it isn't what liberals think. Are you so desperate to make liberals look bad that you're going to take an obviously uninformed and ridiculous viewpoint and try to make it seem representative of what members of a political party think? I suppose that's one way to make an excuse for Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the like.
Sorry, but I don't see a whole lot of conservatives blocking energy production. Liberals want to ban any energy production that may make someone money. They are against natural gas, nuclear, and even renewable, green energy. Try to cover Death Valley with solar panels and you'll have a horde of liberals protesting that it will harm some endangered fly that lives there. Try to put wind turbines in West Texas and you have environmentalists complaining about the damage to birds that may fly into the spinning blades.
Conservatives don't care where the energy comes from. They want to drill for oil, extract oil from shale, pull gas from the ground, put up wind turbines, build nuclear power plants and cover the deserts solar panels. Conservatives believe that the market is Darwinian. They believe that the market will naturally find the most efficient way to produce energy in the quest to maximize profit. Competition between industries and companies will ensure that the "strong survive and the weak die off" through the natural selection of the market. When one method of energy production becomes scarce, peak oil for example, the price goes up, making other forms of production more desirable. The idea is that as we run out of oil, it will become more expensive. This will spur more efficient/effective ways of extracting it and will naturally encourage other means of production. When oil is expensive, renewables are suddenly not so expensive by comparison which will spur development in that area. Natural selection will win out and continue to provide us with the most efficient means of energy production possible.
Because conservatives consider that fossil fuels as a viable option in energy production, and because it is currently the most efficient method of producing energy, liberals like to label them as against renewables. Unfortunately, that label is not accurate. Conservatives are not against renewables. Conservatives are against providing subsidies to one sector while penalizing another in other to give an advantage to methods that are not the most efficient. It doesn't matter that the goal of a free and open is to maximize efficiency. Liberals will intentionally mislabel conservatives as opposing renewable energy with the goal of destroying the planet.
And to bring this point back to the topic, just as liberals with mislabel conservatives as those who for no known reason like a destroyed planet, liberals will mislabel renewable or sustainable energy as "free" to sweeten the idea in an attempt to push their agenda.
your criticism of 'lefties' for what they didn't actually do immediately after sep 11 2001 rings especially hollow given that 'righties' did do what is described i.e. grab more power and control over peoples lives, using the 'war on terror' as an excuse,
So, we are drilling in ANWR now? No? Then it appears the "righties" didn't get their way as much as you like to lead people to believe.
As for the "righties" being solely responsible for the "war on terror", I seem to recall very few "lefties" voting against it.
How can something be X-times less massive than something else? I can understand half as massive, or 1/10 as massive, but two to ten times less massive doesn't make any mathematical sense for a result that must be a positive number.
I agree. That pet peeve ranks right up there with "I could care less".
Doing this kind of shit (and plain terrorist assassinations of physicists) only re-enforces Ahmadinejaad's power in Iran. It is not too difficult for state media there to display US, CIA and Israel as evil entities. So, this stupid "solution" to Iranian A-bomb problem actually made problem almost impossible to solve now.
Slashdot Mirror
And some Americans electrocute or gas their own citizens - so what?
The US is singularly unable to assert any "moral highground" arguments.
Really? You think that executing the absolute worst criminals in society means we can't "assert any moral highground" over people that behead reporters, lob rockets into neighborhoods from school grounds, fly planes full of civilians into buildings filled with civilians, hangs homosexuals and stones rape victims to death for the "crime" of adultery?
Seriously?
It's not just a 1984 idea - it dates all the way back to the ~1100 AD crusades. The only justification for those wars was because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas, and therefore they needed to die. No wonder they hate Europeans & Americans - they still desire revenge for the injustices done to Arabs long ago.
From Wikipedia's page on the Crusades:
The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was defeated, which led to the loss of all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) save the coastlands.
So, Muslims attacked the Byzantine empire and the Byzantine emperor asks for and receives help from Europe. So, it's Europe's fault for not telling the Byzantine emperor Alexios I to simply give up and die in place?
More:
While the Reconquista was the most prominent example of European reactions against Muslim conquests, it is not the only such example. The Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard had conquered Calabria in 1057 and was holding what had traditionally been Byzantine territory against the Muslims of Sicily. The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca, freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids. Much earlier, the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies. This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine Emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands starting with Jerusalem.
Someone is wrong here. You say the Crusades were "because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas" and Wikipedia states that it was because of Muslim aggression into the Byzantine empire. Hmmm. I wonder who's wrong?
".....remove the heads from thy enemies....." - Qor'an
"....turn the other cheek...." - The Holy Bible
And Christians are the bad guys.
And as for your sig... you think that those that hold a different view from you should be "BANNED"? Kinda goes against the whole "free exchange of ideas" thing doesn't it? How many tyrannical dictators gained power by people who felt the same way you do about people they disagreed with?
Exactly, As long as theres PC gamers, there will be PCs.
PC are not dead.... not for a long time.
Yes, PC's are not going anywhere within the next 5 years. But as for games, phones play games as well. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but hottest processor coming out for phones is an nvidia designed, quad-core processor running at 1 GHz with integrated 3d acceleration and it is NOT hampered by the i386 instruction set we've been slave to for the past 20 years. Games will not be a problem. And the beauty of it is that you will be able to take the game with you, wherever you go and stay online the entire time. These things will play games at least as good as a PC (eventually) with the ability to stick it in your pocket and take it on the road.
What happens after 5 years? The hardware and software will be "good enough" to replace PC's in both games and productivity. The portability will allow them to take over even if not as powerful as PC's and still take over. Of course, in the workplace, servers will still be "PC's", but all the clients will be plugging their phones into docking stations to connect their phones to the keyboard, mouse and monitor so they can get real work done.
Giving the average user control, is like giving them a plane and believing that since they have an autopilot they can land safely.
Apple's walled garden has limited this kind of behavior so far despite having 10's of million of more phones sold.
Well, if you are an "average user", and I presume you are, then I guess you need someone holding your hand in a walled garden.
Personally, I'm NOT an average user. To use your airplane analogy, I'm a pilot who wants the auto-pilot turned off! I demand the ability to do whatever I wish to MY phone and I am fully aware that I am responsible for the consequences. Look, I don't mind a walled garden. All the stuff I install comes from the Android Market exclusively. But within my walled garden, I want to choose the plants that are in there. I want to choose the color of the wall and decide what bricks it's made of. I want to decide if my garden is organic or so full of pesticides that the birds die from flying over it. So, with a simple rooting of my phone, I have my walled garden and the ability to remove/disable all the crapware I don't want on my phone. I'm now fully able to put any GUI I wish on MY phone. I chose the one that came with it, but dammit I MADE THAT CHOICE, not some turtleneck wearing, Hollywood social elite who thinks he knows what I want better than I do.
"You're a consumer, aren't you? Do you like people who think they are smarter than you telling you what to do... because they are smarter?"
If my doctor tells me to do something I'll do it. Because he's smarter and more educated in medicine than I am.
Really? When my doctor prescribes me a medication, I take it home and research it to learn all i can about it. That doctor may know more about medicine than I do, but before I take a drug, I want to know more about THAT medicine than my doctor. Then I'll bounce it off my wife who teaches pharmacy at a college level.
I will happily admit that my doctor is much smarter than I am but he's still human. He makes mistakes just like every other human. More than once I've gone back to the doctor to question my treatment based on my research or what I learned from my wife. Sometimes it's price as another, cheaper drug may do the same job. Sometimes it's side effects as another drug may offer the same benefits without a particular side effect. And sometimes it's a reaction with another drug that I'm taking that either my doctor did not know about or simply missed. Most of the time, the doctor will agree with us and change my treatment. Sometimes he comes back with "I knew that, but here is why I went that way..." and we agree with him. At first, I don't think he liked to be second guessed, but after he learned that we knew what we were talking about, he quit taking offense to it.
You should never blindly trust someone just because you think they are smarter than you. You take their advice and educate yourself before acting. Sometimes, you'll learn that brilliant people are wrong. I'm way too busy paying for my own mistakes to pay for someone who should know better.
Wow, I was unaware light bulbs were dangerous!
This is preposterous. If they want people to use less power (and hence reduce greenhouse gases), they should make polluting power more expensive via taxes or mandates. This gives me an incentive to use CFL's where I can, but use normal bulbs where I need to.
Or get rid of all the red tape that is preventing nuclear power from being an option.
In the first case try an LED, or spend more on better CFLs. In the second, do that same.
Or a better solution would be just to tax the old style bulbs to discourage their use.
So you have government tax the things YOU don't like. Why would you want to tax incandescent light bulbs? Is it because they use too much energy? So says the guy that is using a computer than easily uses five times the energy of the most inefficient light bulbs a consumer can legally buy.
Tell you what; You turn off your computer that is powered by at least a 500 watt power supply and I might replace my 60 watt incandescent light bulb with a mercury polluting 40 watt CFL. You know, because I can tell you are concerned about how much energy I use because you are wasting so much energy letting me know what an asshole I am for wasting those 20 watts with my light bulbs.
They will still be happy you aren't using a heater for light. In California especially since you probably running the AC.
The small amount of mercury is nothing to bitch about if you eat tuna.
Seriously? Do you have any idea how that mercury got into the tuna? Here's a hint: Tuna do not naturally produce mercury. Tuna has a high level of mercury because they are a large fish that eats many smaller fish. See, the smaller fish don't have enough mercury to be a problem. Tuna wouldn't either, but because they eat so many small fish, the mercury builds up in their system to dangerous levels. Kinda like the same way that DDT killed birds. See, DDT sprayed or dusted onto a bird is not a problem. But like mercury, DDT doesn't readily leave your system. So after eating so many DDT infested insects, it would eventually kill the birds too.
Anyway, where does the mercury come from? You guessed it; pollution! It used to be industry and coal that produced most of it. Now, a lot of it comes from these CFL bulbs you are pushing, all while you tell me I can't bitch because I eat food that IS POISONED BY YOUR BULBS!!!
Consumers are in general morons who will buy the cheapest fucking thing they can find....
Again this is the idiot consumer trying the cheapest short term option at the cost of the longterm. No wonder most Americans are broke.
Do you eat meat? Have you ever stopped to consider the greenhouse gasses that are released due to meat production. All so you can eat flesh? You are quick to call others stupid, yet you have no problem destroying our planet just so you can feel like some sort of macho hunter for butchering that bucket of chicken.
Do you eat vegetables? Do you have any idea how many carbon absorbing trees had to be cut down to create the farms that grew your veggies? Do you even care about the carbon emitting machinery that is used to not just grow your veggies, but to get them to the market? Did you ever consider the poison that gets released into the fucking ground and our fucking drinking water just so you don't see some baby insect bite mark that might make your apple not pretty?
Seriously, do you give a flying fuck about anything but yourself or are you too stupid to realize the committing suicide by your food choices?
See, no matter what you do, someone can make you out to be a fucking idiot. Don't be so quick to judge the intelligence of others because, and trust me on this one, you do not possess the qualifications.
Because consumers are stupid - that's why.
You're a consumer, aren't you? Do you like people who think they are smarter than you telling you what to do... because they are smarter? Probably not. So here's some free advice:
DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE and don't support those that do, dumbass.
Actually it makes you a social moderate. It doesn't speak at all of your fiscal views.
If you're fiscal view are the same as the Tea Party, that makes you a dumb ass.
Tell that to those that wrote the 10th Amendment.
How about we stop legislating what I am allowed to consume as an adult?
How about those supposed small government types stop worrying about what people ingest and what people do in there bedrooms.
As a "Tea Party", Fox News Watching, conservative, I agree completely.
Hmmm. Guess that makes me more of a Libertarian.
Is this a setting, now? Because when I tried it, you had to hack up a bunch of images as well as change some files somewhere. Wasn't really fun.
No you don't. Click here for instructions with pretty pictures.
Or, just followed the instructions I so thoughtfully copied and pasted
Press Alt+F2 to bring up the Run Application dialog box, enter “gconf-editor” in the text field, and click on Run.
The Configuration Editor should pop up.
The key that we want to edit is in apps/metacity/general.
Click on the + button next to the “apps” folder, then beside “metacity” in the list of folders expanded for apps, and then click on the “general” folder.
The button layout can be changed by changing the “button_layout” key. Double-click button_layout to edit it.
Change the text in the Value text field to:
menu:maximize,minimize,close
Click OK and the change will occur immediately, changing the location of the window buttons in the Configuration Editor.
Note that this ordering of the window buttons is slightly different than the typical order; in previous versions of Ubuntu and in Windows, the minimize button is to the left of the maximize button.
You can change the button_layout string to reflect that ordering, but using the default Ubuntu 10.04 theme, it looks a bit strange.
If you plan to change the theme, or even just the graphics used for the window buttons, then this ordering may be more natural to you.
This is just the industrial military complex finding better ways to kill brown people.
Oh wait...
When two groups of retards attack each other, no one wins...
No, we all win! Well, except for the retards, of course.
You have a Constitutional right to petition your government. You do NOT have the Constitutional right to petition the grieving families at a soldier's funeral.
Sorry, but even free speech is not absolute.
However, even though I'm straight, I would certainly pitch in a few bucks to fly some gay men to WBC for a nice love-in on the steps of the church. I say that as both a Christian Baptist and a veteran.
The GOP is a monstrosity. As Brad Delong says, they "lie about everything all the time." More than that, though, every single Republican initiative exacerbates inequality, smashes our dignity, and adds to the sum of human misery. There are no exceptions. There are no moderates left in the Republican party. What remains is an organization dedicated to aristocracy, superstition, and the snuffing out of curiosity. This party is a scourge, and to see its members elected against and against forces one to doubt the fundamental goodness of human nature.
Please allow me to summarize your post:
All who see things differently than I do are evil.
As it is, big R's have a problem on their hands because the small-r's and teabaggers seem to think everything will just roll along fine if they gut funding (for everything but the bloated defense industry and tax cuts, of course.) The big R's know what damage this will cause, but they can't even really say so publicly without losing their next primary. They also know the Dems will have no incentive to get on board since voting for these types of cuts is a vote loser for people elected from Democratic strongholds. So unless the big R's can convince the teabaggers that we really don't need to shoot the economy in the head right now by cutting social and research spending, they are going to have a total fail on their hands in the form of a government shutdown.
If something absolutely necessary is cut, then it should be up to the states to provide, per the 10th Amendment. Don't like the cuts? Pester your state legislators to make up for them. In the mean time, stop taking MY money to fund projects I care nothing about.
Like making sure "Obama is a one term President!" Yeh, gotta get priorities set right, cause thats what the people want! Conflict and inaction to make sure someone else is elected, not any actual work on any real issues... ugh, makes me sick
-Tm
Elections have consequences.
--Barrack Obama
"Conservatives are against providing subsidies to one sector while penalizing another in other to give an advantage to methods that are not the most efficient."
Glad to have conservatives on board with killing fossil fuel's annual $15-35 billion subsidy. I'm sure Boehner will include that in the House budget to help reduce the deficit and to make the energy market freer.
Yes, but at the same time, the government needs to get out of the way when it comes to energy production. For example, declaring the polar bear and endangered species, when by every definition it's not, is the kind of crap that has to stop.
What we need to do, same as with Israel and Palestine and many others, is dump shitloads of weapons on them, let them duke it out fairly and then, when they finally have enough of killing each other, we could sit down and help them build something worthwhile.
This won't work in Israel at least. The easiest way to explain why is to repeat an old quote I heard:
There will be peace in Israel when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Jews
... or something like that.
The point is that there are many in the Arab world who would rather die and see their entire families die trying to kill Jews than live in peace while Israel exists.
No, it isn't what liberals think. Are you so desperate to make liberals look bad that you're going to take an obviously uninformed and ridiculous viewpoint and try to make it seem representative of what members of a political party think? I suppose that's one way to make an excuse for Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the like.
Sorry, but I don't see a whole lot of conservatives blocking energy production. Liberals want to ban any energy production that may make someone money. They are against natural gas, nuclear, and even renewable, green energy. Try to cover Death Valley with solar panels and you'll have a horde of liberals protesting that it will harm some endangered fly that lives there. Try to put wind turbines in West Texas and you have environmentalists complaining about the damage to birds that may fly into the spinning blades.
Conservatives don't care where the energy comes from. They want to drill for oil, extract oil from shale, pull gas from the ground, put up wind turbines, build nuclear power plants and cover the deserts solar panels. Conservatives believe that the market is Darwinian. They believe that the market will naturally find the most efficient way to produce energy in the quest to maximize profit. Competition between industries and companies will ensure that the "strong survive and the weak die off" through the natural selection of the market. When one method of energy production becomes scarce, peak oil for example, the price goes up, making other forms of production more desirable. The idea is that as we run out of oil, it will become more expensive. This will spur more efficient/effective ways of extracting it and will naturally encourage other means of production. When oil is expensive, renewables are suddenly not so expensive by comparison which will spur development in that area. Natural selection will win out and continue to provide us with the most efficient means of energy production possible.
Because conservatives consider that fossil fuels as a viable option in energy production, and because it is currently the most efficient method of producing energy, liberals like to label them as against renewables. Unfortunately, that label is not accurate. Conservatives are not against renewables. Conservatives are against providing subsidies to one sector while penalizing another in other to give an advantage to methods that are not the most efficient. It doesn't matter that the goal of a free and open is to maximize efficiency. Liberals will intentionally mislabel conservatives as opposing renewable energy with the goal of destroying the planet.
And to bring this point back to the topic, just as liberals with mislabel conservatives as those who for no known reason like a destroyed planet, liberals will mislabel renewable or sustainable energy as "free" to sweeten the idea in an attempt to push their agenda.
your criticism of 'lefties' for what they didn't actually do immediately after sep 11 2001 rings especially hollow given that 'righties' did do what is described i.e. grab more power and control over peoples lives, using the 'war on terror' as an excuse,
So, we are drilling in ANWR now? No? Then it appears the "righties" didn't get their way as much as you like to lead people to believe.
As for the "righties" being solely responsible for the "war on terror", I seem to recall very few "lefties" voting against it.
How can something be X-times less massive than something else? I can understand half as massive, or 1/10 as massive, but two to ten times less massive doesn't make any mathematical sense for a result that must be a positive number.
I agree. That pet peeve ranks right up there with "I could care less".
Like nails on a chalkboard.
Doing this kind of shit (and plain terrorist assassinations of physicists) only re-enforces Ahmadinejaad's power in Iran. It is not too difficult for state media there to display US, CIA and Israel as evil entities. So, this stupid "solution" to Iranian A-bomb problem actually made problem almost impossible to solve now.
OK, what would you suggest?