How would you like to have to manually lock 20 thousand doors everytime you left your house?
1. Staffing 2. Machines, Such as this one 3. Information. Track the source and destinations of the containers. 4. We don't have to scan all of them, but we can do better then scanning 5%.
that destroying and keeping the terrorists and the reason they exist is a lot easier
Easier? Like how Israel's anti-terrorism campaign in Palestine, now going on for more then 50 years? Britains efforts against the IRA? America's efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan?
I think you don't understand the nature or scope of the problem.
I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.
Ever hear of adoption? Artificial insemination? Kids from previous relationships? These situations are pretty common in both straight and gay families.
Should straight couples who don't want kids be excluded from the same marriage laws, since their union will not yield children?
Not that I agree with either stance, but being pro-consumer is at odds with the Libertarian stance in many instances due to government regulations that (rightly or wrongly) seek to help consumers at the expense of manufacturers.
Ah, sorry I wasn't clear. That is what I meant in the second paragraph-- certainly there are differences between the two parties.
But if the leadership for the two (or hey, this applies to several of the smaller parties) could agree to work with each other for some of these issues -- Drug decriminalization being one, the Patriot Act is another big possibility. Hey, they do it in many European countries, Canada, Japan, etc.
However, in my experience most people who refer to themselves as members of the Libertarian party don't really care about civil-libertarianism and much as lowering taxes.
The Nader folks, on the other hand, do want the government to step in and legislate solutions to problems over the environment, corporate law, etc.
And we also want the government to get the fuck out of people's personal lives-- there should be no constitutional "clarification" on marriage, decriminalize drugs (Though there is debate on full-legalizeation, and soft drugs vs hard drugs), cops shouldn't be infiltrating political groups, the Patriot Act contains many unconstitutional acts which need to be rolled back today.
And yes, when a company is selling you a vehicle and they call it 'safe', 'safe' should mean that the vehicle really is 'safe', and it's not just some marketing term.
I have to admit, the only thing I've tried on myself were those smelling salts you use on unconcious people. I was of course, concious at the the time. Good thing I was sitting on the floor, because as soon as I broke the little package and the stuff hit my nose I flew backwards and thrashed around for 10 feet...
I am really sick and tired of you people that seem to think because someone is successful they have some moral obligation to everyone else. Go find your own success and ask the "hard questions" for all I care.
That is not what I said.
You can mix humor and hard questions. TDC is actually one of the best forums to do this at. Just because it's a comedy show doesn't mean he shouldn't ask hard questions... raise the bar a little!
"My show follows puppets making crude prank calls. You guys are on CNN."
That is a pretty lame excuse.
Stewart is trying to point the finger at someone else but the fact is, Comedy show or not, John Stewart still has the capability to ask hard questions, and a forum to ask them in.
I think Stewart is right that CNN has a moral obligation to ask real, hard questions from politicians; but Stewart can do this also.
As Michael Badnarik said, there is nothing better to replace the electoral college unless you want to go to a mob rule, which usually results in collapsing the government in a while.
Really? There are a number of countries in the world who vote Democratically for their President (1 person 1 vote, biggest vote wins). How many of those democracies have collapsed?
Holy fuck, I remember trying to download that fucker over my 2400bps modem.
It was faster to walk to the library, download it over the T-1, save it to floppy, walk back to my dorm and install it.
Re:Still why not base AOL on Netscape?
on
Netscape Turns 10
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Remember that when AOL and MS made this agreement, Mozilla wasn't very good (Slow, bloated, buggy-- but I still used it).
Today we have a very different situation. Firefox rocks my world. My 60 year old father switched a few months ago ON HIS OWN ACCORD. He actually said "Hey Son, you should try out Firefox, it's pretty cool".
The MS/AOL decision might be different if it happened a year from now, when Firefox is even better.
Re:Still why not base AOL on Netscape?
on
Netscape Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
Because business people are making technical decisions, even if they don't know what the hell they are doing.
It always ends in disaster.
With Mozilla, you have technical people making technical decisions, and we've ended up with an awsome browser.
I love how many religious authority figures get angry about situations like this. Don't blame yourself for selling out-- you were forced to defend yourself against an unethical attack from a man who claimed to be an agent of god.
My last argument against one of these people (10+ years ago) "Just who do you think you are? What makes you so special that you have a special relationship with god and I do not?
This argument is between me and god. YOU are not god. Buzz off."
When I left the church the Sunday School teacher was pretty angry with me-- something about hell, turning away from Christ, etc.
Soon after, his daughter was drunk & stoned, had unprotected sex and ended up pregnant. The guy who got her pregnant (well respected football jock) fled town.
Myself, I was never irresponsible in that way and I have never hurt anyone like that.
If there is a god, he knows I'm a nice guy. It's between me and him, not me and some religous freak.
In my experience (As a former born-again Christian with formerly-religious parents[1]), many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian.
It's an 'us and them' thing. WE are right, THEY are wrong. There is only one way. "Protestants" worship Jesus Christ directly. Catholics are a cult worship the pope and saints and are in league with the Devil. That pretty much sums up Sunday School for me.
Oh, and Led Zepplin is a cult.
[1] MY father was Catholic. My mother was Protestant mother. My dad was 17 in Catholic high school and asked a priest a fundamental question: How did he know that God exists? The priest beat up my father-- it took several people to pry the priest off of my father.
And no where did I say that all Democrats are good. The father of the drug war was a Republican.
I'm not a Democrat, but I agree with many Democratic candidates on a number of issues. The Drug War is not one of the issues.
The big-L Libertarian candidates are usually kooks, and can usually care less about my little-l libertarian desires.
And again, most of my democratic-voting friends realize that the drug war is a farce: most non-addictive drugs such as Pot or Extasy should be legalized, taxed just like alcohol and the taxes should help to fund treatment centers It's a win win solution: Cheaper drugs, take alot of money and power away from the drug dealers, more money to pay for services.
Pot is very tollerated here (SF Bay Area): I walk by someone smoking pot on the street a couple times a week. The cops don't care as long as the person isn't flaunting it or acting violent.
Slashdot Mirror
How would you like to have to manually lock 20 thousand doors everytime you left your house?
1. Staffing
2. Machines, Such as this one
3. Information. Track the source and destinations of the containers.
4. We don't have to scan all of them, but we can do better then scanning 5%.
that destroying and keeping the terrorists and the reason they exist is a lot easier
Easier? Like how Israel's anti-terrorism campaign in Palestine, now going on for more then 50 years? Britains efforts against the IRA? America's efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan?
I think you don't understand the nature or scope of the problem.
I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.
Ever hear of adoption? Artificial insemination? Kids from previous relationships? These situations are pretty common in both straight and gay families.
Should straight couples who don't want kids be excluded from the same marriage laws, since their union will not yield children?
What you need to do is to stop terrorists at their source not after they've gotten their goods into the harbours.
Yes, we all know that locking your door is pointless. You need to stop the criminals at their source, not after they've walked into your house.
So, you're saying that scanning containers is impossible, but somehow it is possible to find every single terrorist hiding spot?
Slaves? SLAVES?
That's tender young juicy Hobbit meat you are talking about.
Slave, feh. I've been stuck in this cave for three lousy years with nothing but maggoty meat to eat and you want Slaves?
What good purpose does this device serve?
It's like taking heroin away from a junkie.
They might, you know, have an insightful conversation or read the news, read a book or think a little more.
Then, maybe we'd wouldn't have have the problem where 32% of the American population believe that Saddam Hussein personally planned the 9/11 attacks or other such bullshit.
Not that I agree with either stance, but being pro-consumer is at odds with the Libertarian stance in many instances due to government regulations that (rightly or wrongly) seek to help consumers at the expense of manufacturers.
Ah, sorry I wasn't clear. That is what I meant in the second paragraph-- certainly there are differences between the two parties.
But if the leadership for the two (or hey, this applies to several of the smaller parties) could agree to work with each other for some of these issues -- Drug decriminalization being one, the Patriot Act is another big possibility. Hey, they do it in many European countries, Canada, Japan, etc.
However, in my experience most people who refer to themselves as members of the Libertarian party don't really care about civil-libertarianism and much as lowering taxes.
The Nader folks, on the other hand, do want the government to step in and legislate solutions to problems over the environment, corporate law, etc.
And we also want the government to get the fuck out of people's personal lives-- there should be no constitutional "clarification" on marriage,
decriminalize drugs (Though there is debate on full-legalizeation, and soft drugs vs hard drugs), cops shouldn't be infiltrating political groups, the Patriot Act contains many unconstitutional acts which need to be rolled back today.
And yes, when a company is selling you a vehicle and they call it 'safe', 'safe' should mean that the vehicle really is 'safe', and it's not just some marketing term.
I have to admit, the only thing I've tried on myself were those smelling salts you use on unconcious people. I was of course, concious at the the time. Good thing I was sitting on the floor, because as soon as I broke the little package and the stuff hit my nose I flew backwards and thrashed around for 10 feet...
But I'll never, ever forget the smell.
Troll? TROLL? How can that be a Troll.
It's offtopic, but not a troll. Learn the difference.
Christian Fascist fuckhead mods. (That is a troll).
"And DHCP server function help you to setup IP address automatically.We guarantee you, your familiy or your guest have an exciting time!"
"Hey Dude! Whatcha doin!?"
"It's Saturday night! I'm playing with DHCP! The 169.254.x.x subnet rocks my world!"
"WooooooooHOOOOOOOOO! Exciting!"
(Sadly, I *was* fixing DHCP last night... but I have a baby boy, and can't go out anyways...)
I am really sick and tired of you people that seem to think because someone is successful they have some moral obligation to everyone else. Go find your own success and ask the "hard questions" for all I care.
That is not what I said.
You can mix humor and hard questions. TDC is actually one of the best forums to do this at. Just because it's a comedy show doesn't mean he shouldn't ask hard questions... raise the bar a little!
"My show follows puppets making crude prank calls. You guys are on CNN."
That is a pretty lame excuse.
Stewart is trying to point the finger at someone else but the fact is, Comedy show or not, John Stewart still has the capability to ask hard questions, and a forum to ask them in.
I think Stewart is right that CNN has a moral obligation to ask real, hard questions from politicians; but Stewart can do this also.
I'm waiting for seven fat fuckers going down one of those badass hills in SF to find out that the brakes simply can't cope.
That sounds remarkably like a dotcom I worked for...
"Papers, please!"
RTFA!
"PEPPERS please!"
(As someone who has been peppered sprayed by cops during protests, I have a right to make a joke!"
As Michael Badnarik said, there is nothing better to replace the electoral college unless you want to go to a mob rule, which usually results in collapsing the government in a while.
Really? There are a number of countries in the world who vote Democratically for their President (1 person 1 vote, biggest vote wins). How many of those democracies have collapsed?
>Nothing to be concerned about.. have you tried
>explaining this to your customer?
Something about "Pack the computer into the box and ship it back. You're obviously too stupid to use a computer."
Holy fuck, I remember trying to download that fucker over my 2400bps modem.
It was faster to walk to the library, download it over the T-1, save it to floppy, walk back to my dorm and install it.
Remember that when AOL and MS made this agreement, Mozilla wasn't very good (Slow, bloated, buggy-- but I still used it).
Today we have a very different situation. Firefox rocks my world. My 60 year old father switched a few months ago ON HIS OWN ACCORD. He actually said "Hey Son, you should try out Firefox, it's pretty cool".
The MS/AOL decision might be different if it happened a year from now, when Firefox is even better.
Because business people are making technical decisions, even if they don't know what the hell they are doing.
It always ends in disaster.
With Mozilla, you have technical people making technical decisions, and we've ended up with an awsome browser.
6 people can travel too Mars.
But once they land, they discover that the return vehicle can only have one passenger.
"5 people enter, one person leaves!"
I love how many religious authority figures get angry about situations like this. Don't blame yourself for selling out-- you were forced to defend yourself against an unethical attack from a man who claimed to be an agent of god.
My last argument against one of these people (10+ years ago) "Just who do you think you are? What makes you so special that you have a special relationship with god and I do not?
This argument is between me and god. YOU are not god. Buzz off."
When I left the church the Sunday School teacher was pretty angry with me-- something about hell, turning away from Christ, etc.
Soon after, his daughter was drunk & stoned, had unprotected sex and ended up pregnant. The guy who got her pregnant (well respected football jock) fled town.
Myself, I was never irresponsible in that way and I have never hurt anyone like that.
If there is a god, he knows I'm a nice guy. It's between me and him, not me and some religous freak.
are not considered 'proper' churches. They suffer from 'defects
Sorry about that. I'll have the bug fix checked into CVS by this afternoon, and will then close the ticket in bugzilla.
BTW, do you have a URL so I can verify the fix?
Thanks!
In my experience (As a former born-again Christian with formerly-religious parents[1]), many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian.
It's an 'us and them' thing. WE are right, THEY are wrong. There is only one way. "Protestants" worship Jesus Christ directly. Catholics are a cult worship the pope and saints and are in league with the Devil. That pretty much sums up Sunday School for me.
Oh, and Led Zepplin is a cult.
[1] MY father was Catholic. My mother was Protestant mother. My dad was 17 in Catholic high school and asked a priest a fundamental question: How did he know that God exists? The priest beat up my father-- it took several people to pry the priest off of my father.
And no where did I say that all Democrats are good. The father of the drug war was a Republican.
I'm not a Democrat, but I agree with many Democratic candidates on a number of issues. The Drug War is not one of the issues.
The big-L Libertarian candidates are usually kooks, and can usually care less about my little-l libertarian desires.
And again, most of my democratic-voting friends realize that the drug war is a farce: most non-addictive drugs such as Pot or Extasy should be legalized, taxed just like alcohol and the taxes should help to fund treatment centers
It's a win win solution: Cheaper drugs, take alot of money and power away from the drug dealers, more money to pay for services.
Pot is very tollerated here (SF Bay Area): I walk by someone smoking pot on the street a couple times a week. The cops don't care as long as the person isn't flaunting it or acting violent.
Opensecrets kept crashing when I tried to lookup Fox, but it seems to be working now:
FOX: 81% DEM, 19% REP
Where the heck did they get their numbers from?
This one is way off. According to Opensecrets, Fox employees gave
$62,540 to Bush, and
$87,875 to Kerry.