Or it could be because, as the Wikipedia article says:
In late 2003, GM officially cancelled the EV1 program[1][2] Despite unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees, GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable. In fact, during the latter stages of development for the car, GM officials claimed that they stood no chance of ever making a profit on the EV1 itself. But hey, why base your arguments on actual solid reason when wild conspiracy theories work just as well?
The auto industry -- and I think this goes for both the U.S. and most of the other ones -- have very little interest in anything that's going to fundamentally alter or shake up the landscape. Electric cars, high-mileage cars, fuel-cell cars... they're all vaguely threatening if you're a dinosauric car manufacturer.
Yeah, we don't see anyone making those fancy hybrids these days. Got any evidence that, given something profitable that companies would toss it aside rather than develop it?
Corporations do many shitty things, but in general they are done to make money. I've seen no evidence that a high-mileage vehicle that is also viable profitability-wise would simply be thrown away.
The setting is in (run secpol.msc) -> Security Settings -> Local Policies -> User Right Assignment -> "Debug programs." The images that we used had this set to administrators by default, and we had to set it down to "Users," as these were lab machines. I'm not sure if this is normal or a fringe case.
He didn't prevent people from practicing their religion. I don't see how you can claim that picketing a "church" somehow violates freedom of religion. You have a right to hold and practice religious beliefs, but you don't have a right to never have your religious beliefs challenged or insulted.
Your right to religion doesn't give you a right to silence all speech related to said religion. Free speech is important.
Ah, the problem is that most places seem to require a high degree of fluency in Japanese, and its pretty damn hard to become fluent while living in America.
My options seem to be going back to college and getting into an exchange program, or English teaching.
From what I remember of the case, he skipped town because he received a lot of threats that, if he went to jail, that he wouldn't make it out of jail alive. It was heavily implied that they would use their connections to make this happen. Skipping town would start looking like a very good option to me.
Does this sort of thing apply to religions in general? I mean, I've had people tell me things to my face that ranged from "I hope Christianity dies down" to "We should put religious people in camps (seriously)" and nothing ever happens to them.
I think the difference with Scientology is they have a lot of money, and they're very active in using that money to destroy your life if you ever badmouth their "religion."
I haven't checked whether this is the case on Vista or not (since I run 2k5 in admin mode), but XP definitely did not allow debuggers to be attached to processes in user modes. There is a specific option to enable user-mode debugging in XP. Vista may be the same.
I'm rather curious so I hope you don't mind me asking, but I was wondering how you ended up in Japan? I've sort-of developed an interest in spending time over there.
I agree. From my perspective, its obvious he was trying to point to his legislative support of the expansion of the internet, but he chose a very bad way to present it. It happens. No, I don't think he deserves to be crucified, and in most contexts people refer to the statement as a joke. The fact that there is so much effort put in to validate what he said and the *wording of what he said* is sort-of baffling to me. Kinda like how Scopes said he didn't claim to invent the internet because he said that he "took the initiative in creating the internet." WTF?
Can we just agree that he chose a really bad way to present his legislative involvement in internet development, laugh about it, and move on?
I agree with that. Letting children know the consequences is good.
However, purposely denying them access to a vaccine so that a horrible consequence sticks around is horrible. Denying them information about how to possibly mitigate the consequences is bad parenting. Denying them the opportunity to mitigate or prevent disease or pregnancy because you want more leverage in a "sex is baaad, mmkay" crusade is wrong.
I don't know if I will ever have children, but if I did, their education concerning this would include the consequences, plus ways to protect themselves. They'd know that I wouldn't approve of them being sexually active, but if they chose to do so I would want them to protect themselves, having full knowledge of the consequences.
A lot of manufacturers are switching back to offering XP, at least temporarily. In the past, Windows ME didn't really get the kind of market-share that 98 or XP enjoyed, due to its poor quality. I don't think that its a given that Vista will become ubiquitous. Probable? Yes. Definite? No.
I'm guessing its the graphics card. On a AMD X2 4200, 7800 GT, and 2 GB of RAM, my games have worked fine, with the exception of GalCiv 2 (this was back in January). The developers for that game stated that the problem was with nVidia's drivers in particular, not with Vista. Newer drivers may have rectified the situation, but I haven't tested yet.
Half Life 2 and FEAR both worked perfectly, and I also got Psychonauts off of Steam (which also worked).
Although lately a similar issue has sprung up with a human papaloma vaccine. Is giving your daughter a vaccine for a STD at 11 condoning sex?
The whole papaloma thing is both amusing and intensely depressing at the same time. What does it say about your parenting abilities if you have to resort to threatening your child with horrible diseases to keep them in line? People who try to codify their particular morals into laws "for the children" might as well tattoo "I'm a bad parent" on their foreheads.
I don't care if he's great or if this personally offends you. The a law that throws people in jail for hurting peoples' feelings is an abomination. I'm certain that "The worst thing to do" would involve something a little more serious than insulting someone via YouTube.
Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay, Thailand.
I don't appreciate the need to respect other cultures', if said cultures are not worthy of respect. Not that I'm saying that Thai culture in general isn't worthy of respect, but there is no way in hell I'm going to "respect" the fact that they want to bring real fines and possibly jail time against someone for hurting peoples' feelings.
If part of that culture involves jailing people for mere insults, then that culture doesn't deserve respect. Typically, those liberal types (especially Slashdotters) love freedom, and having to face jail time for voicing an unpopular opinion is the anti-thesis of freedom.
If you did make a statue of Jesus out of feces, you would not be imprisoned in the US. Disliked? Sure. Imprisoned? No. The riots over the prophet Mohammed were just as reviled as this particular episode. No, I don't think its appropriate for Muslims to resort to threats and violence when they feel their prophet is slighted.
Just as I wouldn't respect a culture that involves making women lower class citizens, I won't respect a culture that says its OK to throw a person into jail because they insulted someone, even a beloved political figure.
I've known Thai's, and they were nice people. I'm sure the majority of them are nice people. I'm also sure they have a rich and interesting culture. But this is still wrong, and saying that we should respect other peoples' culture is a cop-out.
If the person in question would really be killed over this, then the Thai's need to grow some thicker skin.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure its just a really bad pun. Shocking - bow shock, gettit?
Everyone is stupid about something at some point in their life. You just gotta sit back, relax, and laugh at yourself.
But if they do that, how will they be able to make their money hats? That stuff doesn't just grow on trees you know.
Or it could be because, as the Wikipedia article says:
In late 2003, GM officially cancelled the EV1 program[1][2] Despite unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees, GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable. In fact, during the latter stages of development for the car, GM officials claimed that they stood no chance of ever making a profit on the EV1 itself. But hey, why base your arguments on actual solid reason when wild conspiracy theories work just as well? The auto industry -- and I think this goes for both the U.S. and most of the other ones -- have very little interest in anything that's going to fundamentally alter or shake up the landscape. Electric cars, high-mileage cars, fuel-cell carsYeah, we don't see anyone making those fancy hybrids these days. Got any evidence that, given something profitable that companies would toss it aside rather than develop it?
Corporations do many shitty things, but in general they are done to make money. I've seen no evidence that a high-mileage vehicle that is also viable profitability-wise would simply be thrown away.
I'd assume you'd "see" it by observing how it interacts with massive bodies around it, like planets, stars, gas clouds, etc.
What would be the point in killing it? If an auto company buys it, I'd expect them to put it into production.
The setting is in (run secpol.msc) -> Security Settings -> Local Policies -> User Right Assignment -> "Debug programs." The images that we used had this set to administrators by default, and we had to set it down to "Users," as these were lab machines. I'm not sure if this is normal or a fringe case.
He didn't prevent people from practicing their religion. I don't see how you can claim that picketing a "church" somehow violates freedom of religion. You have a right to hold and practice religious beliefs, but you don't have a right to never have your religious beliefs challenged or insulted.
Your right to religion doesn't give you a right to silence all speech related to said religion. Free speech is important.
Ah, the problem is that most places seem to require a high degree of fluency in Japanese, and its pretty damn hard to become fluent while living in America.
My options seem to be going back to college and getting into an exchange program, or English teaching.
From what I remember of the case, he skipped town because he received a lot of threats that, if he went to jail, that he wouldn't make it out of jail alive. It was heavily implied that they would use their connections to make this happen. Skipping town would start looking like a very good option to me.
Thanks for explaining that for me.
Well, most religions don't require you to pay to learn the religious texts. Donations and the like are "heavily encouraged" but not required.
Yeah, I'm not really sure how they can get tax-exempt status, given they're running the thing as a business.
:)
Watch out, looks like theres Scientology fans with mod-points today
Does this sort of thing apply to religions in general? I mean, I've had people tell me things to my face that ranged from "I hope Christianity dies down" to "We should put religious people in camps (seriously)" and nothing ever happens to them.
I think the difference with Scientology is they have a lot of money, and they're very active in using that money to destroy your life if you ever badmouth their "religion."
I haven't checked whether this is the case on Vista or not (since I run 2k5 in admin mode), but XP definitely did not allow debuggers to be attached to processes in user modes. There is a specific option to enable user-mode debugging in XP. Vista may be the same.
I'm rather curious so I hope you don't mind me asking, but I was wondering how you ended up in Japan? I've sort-of developed an interest in spending time over there.
I agree. From my perspective, its obvious he was trying to point to his legislative support of the expansion of the internet, but he chose a very bad way to present it. It happens. No, I don't think he deserves to be crucified, and in most contexts people refer to the statement as a joke. The fact that there is so much effort put in to validate what he said and the *wording of what he said* is sort-of baffling to me. Kinda like how Scopes said he didn't claim to invent the internet because he said that he "took the initiative in creating the internet." WTF?
Can we just agree that he chose a really bad way to present his legislative involvement in internet development, laugh about it, and move on?
Blue Dragon was done by Mistwalker Studios. Sakaguchi, who designed Final Fantasy, left Square and formed his own studio.
I agree with that. Letting children know the consequences is good.
However, purposely denying them access to a vaccine so that a horrible consequence sticks around is horrible. Denying them information about how to possibly mitigate the consequences is bad parenting. Denying them the opportunity to mitigate or prevent disease or pregnancy because you want more leverage in a "sex is baaad, mmkay" crusade is wrong.
I don't know if I will ever have children, but if I did, their education concerning this would include the consequences, plus ways to protect themselves. They'd know that I wouldn't approve of them being sexually active, but if they chose to do so I would want them to protect themselves, having full knowledge of the consequences.
A lot of manufacturers are switching back to offering XP, at least temporarily. In the past, Windows ME didn't really get the kind of market-share that 98 or XP enjoyed, due to its poor quality. I don't think that its a given that Vista will become ubiquitous. Probable? Yes. Definite? No.
I'm guessing its the graphics card. On a AMD X2 4200, 7800 GT, and 2 GB of RAM, my games have worked fine, with the exception of GalCiv 2 (this was back in January). The developers for that game stated that the problem was with nVidia's drivers in particular, not with Vista. Newer drivers may have rectified the situation, but I haven't tested yet.
Half Life 2 and FEAR both worked perfectly, and I also got Psychonauts off of Steam (which also worked).
Although lately a similar issue has sprung up with a human papaloma vaccine. Is giving your daughter a vaccine for a STD at 11 condoning sex?
The whole papaloma thing is both amusing and intensely depressing at the same time. What does it say about your parenting abilities if you have to resort to threatening your child with horrible diseases to keep them in line? People who try to codify their particular morals into laws "for the children" might as well tattoo "I'm a bad parent" on their foreheads.
I don't care if he's great or if this personally offends you. The a law that throws people in jail for hurting peoples' feelings is an abomination. I'm certain that "The worst thing to do" would involve something a little more serious than insulting someone via YouTube.
Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay, Thailand.
I don't appreciate the need to respect other cultures', if said cultures are not worthy of respect. Not that I'm saying that Thai culture in general isn't worthy of respect, but there is no way in hell I'm going to "respect" the fact that they want to bring real fines and possibly jail time against someone for hurting peoples' feelings.
If part of that culture involves jailing people for mere insults, then that culture doesn't deserve respect. Typically, those liberal types (especially Slashdotters) love freedom, and having to face jail time for voicing an unpopular opinion is the anti-thesis of freedom.
If you did make a statue of Jesus out of feces, you would not be imprisoned in the US. Disliked? Sure. Imprisoned? No. The riots over the prophet Mohammed were just as reviled as this particular episode. No, I don't think its appropriate for Muslims to resort to threats and violence when they feel their prophet is slighted.
Just as I wouldn't respect a culture that involves making women lower class citizens, I won't respect a culture that says its OK to throw a person into jail because they insulted someone, even a beloved political figure.
I've known Thai's, and they were nice people. I'm sure the majority of them are nice people. I'm also sure they have a rich and interesting culture. But this is still wrong, and saying that we should respect other peoples' culture is a cop-out.
If the person in question would really be killed over this, then the Thai's need to grow some thicker skin.