The world is full of horror, and there are people who are trying to protect you, and they do care about the Constitution.
They would not need to work quite so hard to protect me (and you!) if they would stop trying to prevent me (and you!) to protect myself (and yourself!).
Caring about the Constitution is great but when your care leads you to thoughts (and laws!) that justify violating the Constitution, you have lost your way. Caring is not enough. The Constitution MUST be priority #1 when evaluating the creation of any new laws. If the Constitution is inconvenient, either accept it or use the legal methods to change it.
Now about that horror stuff... Perhaps you are right and the average American is so sheltered that they could never deal with such things, but that is what enables the abuses. There are still horrible and terrible things happening daily. It might be something like cancer or it could be something like a car wreck. Dying a terrible death is NOT limited to terrorism and using terrorism to justify the abuses we have seen is the sign of a sick and predatory mind.
And they're bullying a poor country like "hey, all these medicines that we were not going to sell because you can't afford, you are not allowed to make them yourselves; tell your population to just die."
See? This is what I do not get. If they were not going to be selling that stuff there, why do they care if it is manufactured and distributed locally. No money lost, right?
Shouldn't the entire species also go with grace when it reaches its limits? You know, as opposed to the grand visions of the species colonizing the universe and being forever an ape that lasts a few decades before completely falling apart?
I wasn't going to log in, but you made me: Crocodiles and sharks are both VERY old as a species. They have evolved but they have stayed recognizable. You seem to be claiming that the human race must die for evolution to continue or else the human race will stay as it is. Forever and ever. Amen.
While dolphins and pigs may be "smart" they do not have intelligence like humans do. None of the other animals are quite like us. Our intelligence should indeed be seeded throughout the universe. Our bodies will evolve. Our intelligence may grow to be even more unique.
It should not be remarkable to you that any species wishes to continue itself.
Regardless of "needing to ship" or what features are on the board, the commenting system is the ONLY reason people come here. Reading moderated comments is the ONLY reason I come here.
The dev team absolutely needs to ensure that commenting, reading comments, and seeing threads is FULLY functional.
The wasted space is annoying but livable... except when a deeply nested comment is only 3 words wide and contains multiple paragraphs.
The annoying pictures are livable too.
The fonts are livable... but some things are NOT.
Again, this must be heard: It is all about the comments and participating in the comments (writing or moderating).
Hm. There are more people reading than responding. Granted, the most important people who are part of Slashdot are the commenters (else why view it at all?), but they are trying to do more to accomodate the viewers... but they seem to have forgotten the reason why people view. D'oh!
I have done 170 miles per hour on certain stretches of road. I think arbitrarily low speed limits are an unnecessary evil. Yes, there are places where speeds should be limited. I have actually seen places where I thought the limits were too high (35 in a business/industrial area where lots of trucks were parked next to entrances to said businesses). There are stretches of highway in Arizona where you can see the road ahead for 20 miles or more and it will be utterly empty. Why should the speed limit be 65mph there?
If you ever consider any of these things metrics even WORTH bothering to measure, you're a fecking idiot of a boss.
Have you ever considered that there are a LOT of idiot bosses out there? Really, I have met many of them. Thankfully, I was not usually subject to their idiotness. (I know, I know, idiocy. I like my word better.)
Actually, you raise a good point here: Since the script was unpublished, this is more theft than mere copyright infringement. He still has his original copy, so it is not purely theft in the original sense of the word; however, the chance at being the first to show it to everyone has actually been taken from him. Ergo, it is theft.
If combat was really at that range, why isn't everyone armed with 8" battleship guns? That'll rip through an armored building, built with no concern about weight or movement.
Actually, one of the four main "races" does indeed use those types of guns and yes, they are quite devastating.
I was not trying to contradict you. I was just answering your question about ranges.:)
The fallacy still exists. They could have used the money/time in game for other things, or to expand their holdings instead of rebuilding, they could have been larger.
Not true. All of the space in Eve is claimed. Either by NPCs or player organizations. You can not "grow bigger" without taking something from someone else.
In short, the battle was about control of territory. The loss of ships on the winning side granted control of that territory. It is therefore, not a loss but a gain. The price was only the price of the lost ships. Granted, the people who lost, lost big, but even then the fallacy is not valid. They "spent" those ships in the hopes of having control of the territory after the battle was over. They lost so they did not have control.
It is not recommended that people drive more than 8 hours in a day. There are people like me, who will drive coast to coast in roughly 38 hours of straight driving. That is not a common trip for me but driving halfway is relatively common. I drive for 12 to 20 hours straight (stopping only momentarily for gas) several times a year.
Granted, this is not considered normal for most people but a surprisingly large number of people do have to travel more than 300 miles in a trip. America is not exactly a small place.
Now, I lost some faith in the Surface when I saw it have a BSOD just after 8.1 rolled out, but it only happened to him once.
Brutal. BSODs were claimed to always be for crappy drivers provided by 3rd parties and then they claimed their driver signing program reduced the BSODs to virtually nil... and now you have seen a BSOD on Microsoft hardware with Microsoft drivers?
The ultimate in nastiness. It calls into question their own code quality. Yowsa.
Hm... Okay, let's make this simple: More money has been paid into the Social Security fund than has been withdrawn.
That does not make a deficit in the budget. It makes a surplus.
It was in the early 80s when congress decided that there was too much cash sitting in the Social Security account and decided to take it with the excuse that the money was just sitting there and should be used for the General Fund. So yeah, not 20 years ago but 30... but I figured exact dates were not terribly meaningful in this context.
So running cash-flow negative, and cashing in IOUs that the Government wrote to itself by borrowing money to cover them, doesn't add to our deficit.
No. It does not add to the deficit. The deficit was created more than twenty years ago. That is the problem, you are only now seeing it and incorrectly saying it is adding to the deficit now.
If you steal (borrow?!) $20 dollars from me and tell me you will pay it back in a year, does it add to your deficit when you pay it back? No. You already benefited from it so all it does is return you to normal, even if that normal is deep in debt. Keep your accounting books in order and these types of confusions will not occur.
I do not currently have a newsletter but I will keep you informed.;)
Social Security is running cash-flow negative, meaning it is spending reserves rather than living on current cash flow. And whilst, on paper, that looks like it doesn't add to the overall Federal deficit, those reserves are simply bonds from the Federal Government which must be redeemed out of current Federal revenues.
Except those bonds were taken out on cash that was already in the SS system. In other words, SS was already paid for and the government spent all the cash and replaced them with bonds.
Saying SS isn't adding to the deficit is like saying your department in a company that is losing money isn't adding to the loss because you're still under budget - even if the products your department builds don't cover your budgeted costs.
Absolutely wrong. SS is NOT adding to the deficit. Spending the money that was in SS 20 years ago is what makes SS look like a deficit to YOU. Those of us who were alive and aware in the early 80s knew this was going to happen and... here it is: Some moron claiming that Social Security is a drain on the budget when in fact, it was fully paid for and the money spent with "bonds" being given in return.
I hate to be rude... Reality specifies otherwise.:(
"Socialism" really is a synonym for "badness" in the US, isn't it?
Well, to be honest, anything that puts a "governmental body" in charge of production or distribution is just begging for massive pain and misery on scales already seen in history. This is why Capitalism is so popular even though it is so terrible.
Socialism and Communism (twins in a shallow American point of view) are the very epitome of evil when you can see what kinds of governmental abuses they have allowed/permitted/enabled.
In other words, Socialism and Communism concentrate power while Capitalism at least has the chance of spreading power.
Slashdot Mirror
The world is full of horror, and there are people who are trying to protect you, and they do care about the Constitution.
They would not need to work quite so hard to protect me (and you!) if they would stop trying to prevent me (and you!) to protect myself (and yourself!).
Caring about the Constitution is great but when your care leads you to thoughts (and laws!) that justify violating the Constitution, you have lost your way. Caring is not enough. The Constitution MUST be priority #1 when evaluating the creation of any new laws. If the Constitution is inconvenient, either accept it or use the legal methods to change it.
Now about that horror stuff... Perhaps you are right and the average American is so sheltered that they could never deal with such things, but that is what enables the abuses. There are still horrible and terrible things happening daily. It might be something like cancer or it could be something like a car wreck. Dying a terrible death is NOT limited to terrorism and using terrorism to justify the abuses we have seen is the sign of a sick and predatory mind.
And they're bullying a poor country like "hey, all these medicines that we were not going to sell because you can't afford, you are not allowed to make them yourselves; tell your population to just die."
See? This is what I do not get. If they were not going to be selling that stuff there, why do they care if it is manufactured and distributed locally. No money lost, right?
Shouldn't the entire species also go with grace when it reaches its limits? You know, as opposed to the grand visions of the species colonizing the universe and being forever an ape that lasts a few decades before completely falling apart?
I wasn't going to log in, but you made me: Crocodiles and sharks are both VERY old as a species. They have evolved but they have stayed recognizable. You seem to be claiming that the human race must die for evolution to continue or else the human race will stay as it is. Forever and ever. Amen.
While dolphins and pigs may be "smart" they do not have intelligence like humans do. None of the other animals are quite like us. Our intelligence should indeed be seeded throughout the universe. Our bodies will evolve. Our intelligence may grow to be even more unique.
It should not be remarkable to you that any species wishes to continue itself.
I am sad. This looks like the end for Slashdot. If beta does not kill it, then lack of revenue will. :(
*sigh*
Regardless of "needing to ship" or what features are on the board, the commenting system is the ONLY reason people come here. Reading moderated comments is the ONLY reason I come here.
The dev team absolutely needs to ensure that commenting, reading comments, and seeing threads is FULLY functional.
The wasted space is annoying but livable... except when a deeply nested comment is only 3 words wide and contains multiple paragraphs.
The annoying pictures are livable too.
The fonts are livable... but some things are NOT.
Again, this must be heard: It is all about the comments and participating in the comments (writing or moderating).
Thank you for your time.
Gee, who do you think has unlimited mod points and a vested interest in shutting down the anti-beta posts?
Then why am I seeing so many highly rated anti-Beta posts? Oy. I thought I was a conspiracy theorist.
But yeah, I tried beta several months ago and again recently. I do not like it and a few others have detailed EXACTLY why.
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
I like your .sig
We are not the audience. We are the performers!
Hm. There are more people reading than responding. Granted, the most important people who are part of Slashdot are the commenters (else why view it at all?), but they are trying to do more to accomodate the viewers... but they seem to have forgotten the reason why people view. D'oh!
I have done 170 miles per hour on certain stretches of road. I think arbitrarily low speed limits are an unnecessary evil. Yes, there are places where speeds should be limited. I have actually seen places where I thought the limits were too high (35 in a business/industrial area where lots of trucks were parked next to entrances to said businesses). There are stretches of highway in Arizona where you can see the road ahead for 20 miles or more and it will be utterly empty. Why should the speed limit be 65mph there?
If you ever consider any of these things metrics even WORTH bothering to measure, you're a fecking idiot of a boss.
Have you ever considered that there are a LOT of idiot bosses out there? Really, I have met many of them. Thankfully, I was not usually subject to their idiotness. (I know, I know, idiocy. I like my word better.)
Sure, it's orwell in a can, but it's not designed for every day use.
Sure, the technology behind nuclear power can be used to make high-powered explosives but it is not designed for that.
Sure, the technology for CALEA could be used for spying on all Americans, but it is note designed for that.
Sure, RICO could be abused, but it is not designed for that.
Wheeee. I could go on and on. :)
Actually, you raise a good point here: Since the script was unpublished, this is more theft than mere copyright infringement. He still has his original copy, so it is not purely theft in the original sense of the word; however, the chance at being the first to show it to everyone has actually been taken from him. Ergo, it is theft.
Hm. I thought you were extinct: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
Crap. I used up all my mod points yesterday. You do NOT deserve to have your comment labelled as Troll. Such a shame. :(
If combat was really at that range, why isn't everyone armed with 8" battleship guns? That'll rip through an armored building, built with no concern about weight or movement.
Actually, one of the four main "races" does indeed use those types of guns and yes, they are quite devastating.
I was not trying to contradict you. I was just answering your question about ranges. :)
What range are you presuming these space battles take place?
No more than 200km. Usually quite a bit less. 30km is fairly normal.
(I should have been in that battle but I have not logged in for over a week now :( I imagine my corp and alliance are quite disappointed in me.)
The fallacy still exists. They could have used the money/time in game for other things, or to expand their holdings instead of rebuilding, they could have been larger.
Not true. All of the space in Eve is claimed. Either by NPCs or player organizations. You can not "grow bigger" without taking something from someone else.
In short, the battle was about control of territory. The loss of ships on the winning side granted control of that territory. It is therefore, not a loss but a gain. The price was only the price of the lost ships. Granted, the people who lost, lost big, but even then the fallacy is not valid. They "spent" those ships in the hopes of having control of the territory after the battle was over. They lost so they did not have control.
It is not recommended that people drive more than 8 hours in a day. There are people like me, who will drive coast to coast in roughly 38 hours of straight driving. That is not a common trip for me but driving halfway is relatively common. I drive for 12 to 20 hours straight (stopping only momentarily for gas) several times a year.
Granted, this is not considered normal for most people but a surprisingly large number of people do have to travel more than 300 miles in a trip. America is not exactly a small place.
Now, I lost some faith in the Surface when I saw it have a BSOD just after 8.1 rolled out, but it only happened to him once.
Brutal. BSODs were claimed to always be for crappy drivers provided by 3rd parties and then they claimed their driver signing program reduced the BSODs to virtually nil... and now you have seen a BSOD on Microsoft hardware with Microsoft drivers?
The ultimate in nastiness. It calls into question their own code quality. Yowsa.
Hm... Okay, let's make this simple: More money has been paid into the Social Security fund than has been withdrawn.
That does not make a deficit in the budget. It makes a surplus.
It was in the early 80s when congress decided that there was too much cash sitting in the Social Security account and decided to take it with the excuse that the money was just sitting there and should be used for the General Fund. So yeah, not 20 years ago but 30... but I figured exact dates were not terribly meaningful in this context.
So running cash-flow negative, and cashing in IOUs that the Government wrote to itself by borrowing money to cover them, doesn't add to our deficit.
No. It does not add to the deficit. The deficit was created more than twenty years ago. That is the problem, you are only now seeing it and incorrectly saying it is adding to the deficit now.
If you steal (borrow?!) $20 dollars from me and tell me you will pay it back in a year, does it add to your deficit when you pay it back? No. You already benefited from it so all it does is return you to normal, even if that normal is deep in debt. Keep your accounting books in order and these types of confusions will not occur.
I do not currently have a newsletter but I will keep you informed. ;)
Social Security is running cash-flow negative, meaning it is spending reserves rather than living on current cash flow. And whilst, on paper, that looks like it doesn't add to the overall Federal deficit, those reserves are simply bonds from the Federal Government which must be redeemed out of current Federal revenues.
Except those bonds were taken out on cash that was already in the SS system. In other words, SS was already paid for and the government spent all the cash and replaced them with bonds.
Saying SS isn't adding to the deficit is like saying your department in a company that is losing money isn't adding to the loss because you're still under budget - even if the products your department builds don't cover your budgeted costs.
Absolutely wrong. SS is NOT adding to the deficit. Spending the money that was in SS 20 years ago is what makes SS look like a deficit to YOU. Those of us who were alive and aware in the early 80s knew this was going to happen and... here it is: Some moron claiming that Social Security is a drain on the budget when in fact, it was fully paid for and the money spent with "bonds" being given in return.
I hate to be rude... Reality specifies otherwise. :(
I've looked for regedit in the Fedora repo and I couldn't find it.
It is in the Wine package. ;)
That alone is enough to turn me into a rapid FreeBSD supporter.
Rabid perhaps? ;)
"Socialism" really is a synonym for "badness" in the US, isn't it?
Well, to be honest, anything that puts a "governmental body" in charge of production or distribution is just begging for massive pain and misery on scales already seen in history. This is why Capitalism is so popular even though it is so terrible.
Socialism and Communism (twins in a shallow American point of view) are the very epitome of evil when you can see what kinds of governmental abuses they have allowed/permitted/enabled.
In other words, Socialism and Communism concentrate power while Capitalism at least has the chance of spreading power.