This Bill passed in the House 314-100 with 95 Republicans voting for it (with 96 voting against it). In the Senate, it passed 86-8, with 40 Republicans voting in favor of the Bill, and only 7 voting against. And, of course, President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law.
There are plenty of SCSI write blockers out there.
This is not meant sarcastically. Are there really? My experience is that there are very few. The only ones I've ever seen, and I can't find links to them anymore, are full forensic recovery PC's, not adaptors like the parent links to. Can you point me to any such devices? I have a real need.
PS And, yes I know many SCSI drives have a write-protect jumper setting, but not all do, and the exceptions are important too.
I know. Don't feed the trolls. But... Your Rush Limbaugh promoted research is mistaken.
According to this August 7th article from Bloomberg (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/ar ticle/0,1299,DRMN_4_3094590,00.html) many more billionaires support Bush than do Kerry - 116 to 31. The billionaires for Bush include Bill Gates (who did not give to Kerry), 280 CEOs of Russell 1000 companies (Kerry got money from 52), and most Hollywood studio executives.
Bernie Ebbers Worldcom's disgraced former CEO was a huge Republican fund raiser, and Trent Lott's biggest benefactor.
The Saudi's (including the Bin Laden family) did sweethart deals for George W. Bush, bailing out two of his failed companies, and making him rich while the rest of the shareholders were left holding the bag.
Bush, by far - 57,218 to 26,911, outpaces Kerry in the $2,000+ donors category, and Kerry, again by a large margin - 35% of Kerry's donors compared to 28% of Bush's, outpaces Bush in the $200 or less category.
Please do check the facts yourself, and here's a hint: you won't find them on Rush Limbaugh's web site.
Don't you know that law firms use Word Perfect, for DOS, exclusively. It's like a religion with these people. Something about the mysterious "Reveal Codes" feature being critical to their work.
When and how much did you contribute? Fundrace's info is as of February 29, 2004 and campaign finance law only requires this information be collected for contributions of $200 or more.
Right. That's why they have all of those TV's in front of the treadmills, stair climbers, stationary bikes and eliptic walkers at the gym - because you have to stop everything you are doing and concentrate on the video.
I, for one, would welcome being able to watch videos of my own chosing while doing my cardio, rather than trying to block out "Good Morning, America", or whatever other crap they have on the gym's TV's. And , yes, I know that they already make portable DVD players; but they are expensive for something that does nothing but play DVDs.
Both North Korea and Iran have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. With that, they gave up their "right" to develop nuclear weapons.
You mean in the same way that the US signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and so gave up its right to build missile defense systems? The US unilaterally pulled out of the ABM treaty. North Korea unilaterally pulled out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What is the difference?
You're right of course. Nothing on TV is truly free. Some (probably most) is paid for by advertisers - who, of course, get the money to pay for their ads from consumers. Some is paid for by government funding, and/or public and private contributions, such as Public Broadcasting System programming in the US and BBC programming in the UK. Some is paid for by a combination of all of the above funding sources.
But, the point is it has been paid for. The person who receives the programming from broadcast sources (i.e., not subscript sources) does get the programming for free, unless you want to nit-pick over the few cents of electricity used, or the depreciation of the purchase price of the television. Making additional copies available in digital format has virtually no incremental cost, except for the cost of bandwidth and or media for distribution. Presumably the advertisers would pay whatever they felt appropriate for reaching the audiance they think they are reaching to achieve whatever target return on investment they think they will get from advertising.
The dirty little secret of television producers is that nobody really knows how many people actually watch the ads to start with. They sell the ads based on how many people are expected to watch their programs. Unlike web ads, there is no click through count on television ads.
Besides, it is the consumers who pay for all television programming regardless of their appearant funding sources. Everyone who goes out and buys a Toyota Camry has done their part to pay for the next episode of Futurama, whether they watch the program or not.
What is most interesting is the programming in the United States that is "sponsored" by companies that do not sell products directly to consumers, or at least not under the brand names they advertise during those programs. I'm thinking specifically of news/political analysis programs such as "Meet the Press" or "This Week". These programs are typically sponsored by Archer Danials Midland (ADM), Monsanto and similar companies. These companies have obvious policical agendas, and I know this may seem suprising, but there is amazingly little coverage of certain policical controversies on these shows, despite their obvious relevance as political topics of the day, such as genetically modified crops. Go figure.
Nope, I don't fail to understand at all. The government created the opportunity (going to war) and the means (without the government charters the privateers would have been subject to piracy laws). True, in the privateering example, that the wealth was stolen from the governments of other nations, but the wealth opportunity in the US was created by the American government.
Also, note that priviteering charters were not just given out to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who came along, but to those who had connections to the government. In other words, some things never change.
Wealth always has been and always will be created by governments. The first millionaires in the United States built their wealth through legalized piracy (er, privateering) under charter from the government during and following the revolution and subsequent conflicts with European powers. Then you had your "financiers" who bought up the IOUs that the government owed soldiers at cents on the dollar, and the debt of the independent states, which was then assumed and guaranteed by the new federal government. Here the money amassed came directly from the government.
Then you had your railroad barons, who made their fortunes off of land given to them by governments through imminent domain, special tax breaks and other public subsidies. (Most railroads built in the United States were very unprofitable in their basic business, they made most of their money selling off excess land that was given to them by the government).
Then you had war profiteers again during the Civil and both World Wars.
Or, to put it another way. Why do you thing corporations give so much money to political campaigns - because they have the best interests of the country at hearts? HA! They do it because it is one of the best investments they can make. It almost always produces high interest returns on the investment made.
America's healthcare system is not and never has been fully privitized. Ever hear of something called the "National Institutes for Health" or government funded research, or tax breaks specific to pharmacuetical companies, or Medicare, or the Veterans' Administration. Just because many doctors don't work directly for the government does not mean that the system is not highly subsidized by public funds.
"Famine" may be practically unheard of in first world countries, but hunger and starvation certainly is not. More than 24 million Americans had to seek emergency food aid last year to keep from starving to death.
That is one in ten households in the US that lived with hunger last year. (And I'm not talking about, I'm-a-little-hungry-let's-go-get-some-pizza hungry. I'm talking about not-having-enough-food-to-keep-their-bodies-functi oning-hungry.)
A lot of people keep talking about how Saddam used chemical weapons on "his own people". He used them on Kurds living in the area that most people around the world call Iraq, but that Kurds still like to refer to as "part of Kurdistan". The Kurds didn't like being Iraqis (nor Turks for that matter) and were openly rebelling. The Kurds were "Saddam's own people" in the same sense that the Cherokee were Andrew Jackson's own people.
This is not to excuse the use of chemical weapons in what was effectively a civil war. But the way it keeps being stated makes it sound like Saddam just rounded up a few randomly chosen Iraqis and gassed them for the fun of it. It was done in the context of putting down the Kurdish rebellion.
Americans and western Europeans (particularly the British) have done things at least as bad as Saddam did, if not worse with nasty weapons of mass destruction. (I'd be happy to cite examples if you'd like.)
Oh, go read the book. Hermione does not die, nor does Hagrid, nor Ron, nor any Weasley, nor any Malfoy. I won't say who it is, but it is neither a student nor a professor at Hogwarts.
Exactly what threats have Canada and Sweden faced that gives you the basis for saying that they have "been given a bit of a free ride where defense is concerned" by their big brother the US. The only nation Canada has ever really been threatened by has been the United States, and that was in 1812, when they (well, really the British, but they controlled Canada at the time) kicked America's sorry butts all the way back to Washington, DC before agreeing to end the conflict.
Iraq is not about delivering democracy to the Iraqi people (which is something the US definately doesn't want since the majority of Iraqis are Shiite and would very likely elect a government that looks a lot like Iran's), and it is not about WMD's (which they are not finding now - "But a senior US official familiar with initial testing said the white powder found at Latifya was believed to be explosives, AP reported.")
The alternative plan that antiwar protesters (and most members of the UN Security Council, and most nations outside of the 47 "coalition of the willing" countries) have is to let the inspections continue to work. The Bush administration presented no evidence that the inspections were not working, or that Iraq posed a credible threat to its own neighbors, much less the United States or Britain.
The supposed links between Iraq and terrorists are specious at best. If Sadaam were to give WMD's to terrorists they would most likely be used against him, since radical Islamic terrorist groups have hated and wanted to get rid of his secular government ever since it came to power. The groups "linked" to terrorism in northern Iraq that Powell tried to use as his examples are in Kurdish controlled territory under the protection of US and British war planes in the northern "No Fly Zone".
This war is wrong. The inspections were working. Support our the coalition troops; bring them home.
Dude, you do not use parachutes for re-entry. They would rip right off the craft during this phase of decent. All of the previous manned spacecraft used atmospheric braking and heat shields during re-entry. It is only after having slowed down considerably and reaching lower altitudes that Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Soyeuz deploy (or deployed) parachutes.
These types of cylinders are pretty dangerous no matter what is stored in them.
Oh, please. About three times a month I strap a cylinder with 3000 psi of gaseous nitrogen, oxygen and other mixed gases onto my back. I then take it from an environment with one atmosphere of pressure to an environment that applies about four atmospheres of pressure to the outside of the tank and then back to one atmosphere again. It's called SCUBA diving and thousands of people do it every day.
You should, of course, have your tanks pressure tested by a certified technician once a year, and retire any that show significant fatigue or any other flaws, but other than that, I worry much more about drowning then blowing up when I'm diving.
Actually, if they follow the same general methods as they did in Chicken Run, there will be some CGI, just not for the characters. In Chicken Run they used CGI for shots such as the explosion of the factory. It is very difficult (if not impossible) to do good stop motion plasticine models of exploding liquids.
Slashdot Mirror
In fairness, it probably seems like there is less sun in their mother's basement, which is apparently where they broadcast from.
This Bill passed in the House 314-100 with 95 Republicans voting for it (with 96 voting against it). In the Senate, it passed 86-8, with 40 Republicans voting in favor of the Bill, and only 7 voting against. And, of course, President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law.
There are plenty of SCSI write blockers out there.
This is not meant sarcastically. Are there really? My experience is that there are very few. The only ones I've ever seen, and I can't find links to them anymore, are full forensic recovery PC's, not adaptors like the parent links to. Can you point me to any such devices? I have a real need.
PS And, yes I know many SCSI drives have a write-protect jumper setting, but not all do, and the exceptions are important too.
I know. Don't feed the trolls. But... Your Rush Limbaugh promoted research is mistaken.
r ticle/0,1299,DRMN_4_3094590,00.html) many more billionaires support Bush than do Kerry - 116 to 31. The billionaires for Bush include Bill Gates (who did not give to Kerry), 280 CEOs of Russell 1000 companies (Kerry got money from 52), and most Hollywood studio executives.
s .asp?filter=A&sortby=2).
According to this August 7th article from Bloomberg (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/a
Until Enron's collapse, Ken Lay - Enron's CEO - was George W. Bush's top benefactor. As to small donors vs. large see this (http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordem
Bernie Ebbers Worldcom's disgraced former CEO was a huge Republican fund raiser, and Trent Lott's biggest benefactor.
The Saudi's (including the Bin Laden family) did sweethart deals for George W. Bush, bailing out two of his failed companies, and making him rich while the rest of the shareholders were left holding the bag.
Bush, by far - 57,218 to 26,911, outpaces Kerry in the $2,000+ donors category, and Kerry, again by a large margin - 35% of Kerry's donors compared to 28% of Bush's, outpaces Bush in the $200 or less category.
Please do check the facts yourself, and here's a hint: you won't find them on Rush Limbaugh's web site.
Don't you know that law firms use Word Perfect, for DOS, exclusively. It's like a religion with these people. Something about the mysterious "Reveal Codes" feature being critical to their work.
We buy SUVs and only like 1% of people can use them for what they are for.
You mean like driving a family around while not looking like you're driving a station wagon.
What? That's not what SUVs are for? Right....
When and how much did you contribute? Fundrace's info is as of February 29, 2004 and campaign finance law only requires this information be collected for contributions of $200 or more.
Right. That's why they have all of those TV's in front of the treadmills, stair climbers, stationary bikes and eliptic walkers at the gym - because you have to stop everything you are doing and concentrate on the video.
I, for one, would welcome being able to watch videos of my own chosing while doing my cardio, rather than trying to block out "Good Morning, America", or whatever other crap they have on the gym's TV's. And , yes, I know that they already make portable DVD players; but they are expensive for something that does nothing but play DVDs.
Both North Korea and Iran have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. With that, they gave up their "right" to develop nuclear weapons.
You mean in the same way that the US signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and so gave up its right to build missile defense systems? The US unilaterally pulled out of the ABM treaty. North Korea unilaterally pulled out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What is the difference?
Why are the assembly instructions always in some foreign language? And why can I never find tab C that is supposed to fit into slot D?
You're right of course. Nothing on TV is truly free. Some (probably most) is paid for by advertisers - who, of course, get the money to pay for their ads from consumers. Some is paid for by government funding, and/or public and private contributions, such as Public Broadcasting System programming in the US and BBC programming in the UK. Some is paid for by a combination of all of the above funding sources.
But, the point is it has been paid for. The person who receives the programming from broadcast sources (i.e., not subscript sources) does get the programming for free, unless you want to nit-pick over the few cents of electricity used, or the depreciation of the purchase price of the television. Making additional copies available in digital format has virtually no incremental cost, except for the cost of bandwidth and or media for distribution. Presumably the advertisers would pay whatever they felt appropriate for reaching the audiance they think they are reaching to achieve whatever target return on investment they think they will get from advertising.
The dirty little secret of television producers is that nobody really knows how many people actually watch the ads to start with. They sell the ads based on how many people are expected to watch their programs. Unlike web ads, there is no click through count on television ads.
Besides, it is the consumers who pay for all television programming regardless of their appearant funding sources. Everyone who goes out and buys a Toyota Camry has done their part to pay for the next episode of Futurama, whether they watch the program or not.
What is most interesting is the programming in the United States that is "sponsored" by companies that do not sell products directly to consumers, or at least not under the brand names they advertise during those programs. I'm thinking specifically of news/political analysis programs such as "Meet the Press" or "This Week". These programs are typically sponsored by Archer Danials Midland (ADM), Monsanto and similar companies. These companies have obvious policical agendas, and I know this may seem suprising, but there is amazingly little coverage of certain policical controversies on these shows, despite their obvious relevance as political topics of the day, such as genetically modified crops. Go figure.
doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
Nope, I don't fail to understand at all. The government created the opportunity (going to war) and the means (without the government charters the privateers would have been subject to piracy laws). True, in the privateering example, that the wealth was stolen from the governments of other nations, but the wealth opportunity in the US was created by the American government.
Also, note that priviteering charters were not just given out to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who came along, but to those who had connections to the government. In other words, some things never change.
Wealth always has been and always will be created by governments. The first millionaires in the United States built their wealth through legalized piracy (er, privateering) under charter from the government during and following the revolution and subsequent conflicts with European powers. Then you had your "financiers" who bought up the IOUs that the government owed soldiers at cents on the dollar, and the debt of the independent states, which was then assumed and guaranteed by the new federal government. Here the money amassed came directly from the government.
Then you had your railroad barons, who made their fortunes off of land given to them by governments through imminent domain, special tax breaks and other public subsidies. (Most railroads built in the United States were very unprofitable in their basic business, they made most of their money selling off excess land that was given to them by the government).
Then you had war profiteers again during the Civil and both World Wars.
Or, to put it another way. Why do you thing corporations give so much money to political campaigns - because they have the best interests of the country at hearts? HA! They do it because it is one of the best investments they can make. It almost always produces high interest returns on the investment made.
America's healthcare system is not and never has been fully privitized. Ever hear of something called the "National Institutes for Health" or government funded research, or tax breaks specific to pharmacuetical companies, or Medicare, or the Veterans' Administration. Just because many doctors don't work directly for the government does not mean that the system is not highly subsidized by public funds.
"Famine" may be practically unheard of in first world countries, but hunger and starvation certainly is not. More than 24 million Americans had to seek emergency food aid last year to keep from starving to death.
i oning-hungry.)
That is one in ten households in the US that lived with hunger last year. (And I'm not talking about, I'm-a-little-hungry-let's-go-get-some-pizza hungry. I'm talking about not-having-enough-food-to-keep-their-bodies-funct
A lot of people keep talking about how Saddam used chemical weapons on "his own people". He used them on Kurds living in the area that most people around the world call Iraq, but that Kurds still like to refer to as "part of Kurdistan". The Kurds didn't like being Iraqis (nor Turks for that matter) and were openly rebelling. The Kurds were "Saddam's own people" in the same sense that the Cherokee were Andrew Jackson's own people.
This is not to excuse the use of chemical weapons in what was effectively a civil war. But the way it keeps being stated makes it sound like Saddam just rounded up a few randomly chosen Iraqis and gassed them for the fun of it. It was done in the context of putting down the Kurdish rebellion.
Americans and western Europeans (particularly the British) have done things at least as bad as Saddam did, if not worse with nasty weapons of mass destruction. (I'd be happy to cite examples if you'd like.)
What I want to know is, "What is the frequency, Kenneth?" http://www.ape-o-naut.org/innuendo/
Well, property rights are mentioned in the Fifth Amendment:
"... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
But that's probably not what they meant.
Start reaching into your pockets, now folks -- Big Daddy's open for Bidness!
And how would this be different from every other Governer the state of Louisiana has had for the past 150 years?
Oh, go read the book. Hermione does not die, nor does Hagrid, nor Ron, nor any Weasley, nor any Malfoy. I won't say who it is, but it is neither a student nor a professor at Hogwarts.
Exactly what threats have Canada and Sweden faced that gives you the basis for saying that they have "been given a bit of a free ride where defense is concerned" by their big brother the US. The only nation Canada has ever really been threatened by has been the United States, and that was in 1812, when they (well, really the British, but they controlled Canada at the time) kicked America's sorry butts all the way back to Washington, DC before agreeing to end the conflict.
i casDefenses.pdf), written in part by Paul Wolfowitz, current US Deputy Secretary of Defense, and endorsed by other Project for the New American Century participants, such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad (US Special Envoy to the Mid-East), and several other members of the Bush administration (see http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc iples.htm and http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlette r.htm for complete lists of supporters).
Iraq is not about delivering democracy to the Iraqi people (which is something the US definately doesn't want since the majority of Iraqis are Shiite and would very likely elect a government that looks a lot like Iran's), and it is not about WMD's (which they are not finding now - "But a senior US official familiar with initial testing said the white powder found at Latifya was believed to be explosives, AP reported.")
It is about hegemony, or in simpler terms, unquestioned US supremacy and control of the region. See this white paper (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmer
The alternative plan that antiwar protesters (and most members of the UN Security Council, and most nations outside of the 47 "coalition of the willing" countries) have is to let the inspections continue to work. The Bush administration presented no evidence that the inspections were not working, or that Iraq posed a credible threat to its own neighbors, much less the United States or Britain.
The supposed links between Iraq and terrorists are specious at best. If Sadaam were to give WMD's to terrorists they would most likely be used against him, since radical Islamic terrorist groups have hated and wanted to get rid of his secular government ever since it came to power. The groups "linked" to terrorism in northern Iraq that Powell tried to use as his examples are in Kurdish controlled territory under the protection of US and British war planes in the northern "No Fly Zone".
This war is wrong. The inspections were working. Support our the coalition troops; bring them home.
Dude, you do not use parachutes for re-entry. They would rip right off the craft during this phase of decent. All of the previous manned spacecraft used atmospheric braking and heat shields during re-entry. It is only after having slowed down considerably and reaching lower altitudes that Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Soyeuz deploy (or deployed) parachutes.
These types of cylinders are pretty dangerous no matter what is stored in them.
Oh, please. About three times a month I strap a cylinder with 3000 psi of gaseous nitrogen, oxygen and other mixed gases onto my back. I then take it from an environment with one atmosphere of pressure to an environment that applies about four atmospheres of pressure to the outside of the tank and then back to one atmosphere again. It's called SCUBA diving and thousands of people do it every day.
You should, of course, have your tanks pressure tested by a certified technician once a year, and retire any that show significant fatigue or any other flaws, but other than that, I worry much more about drowning then blowing up when I'm diving.
Actually, if they follow the same general methods as they did in Chicken Run, there will be some CGI, just not for the characters. In Chicken Run they used CGI for shots such as the explosion of the factory. It is very difficult (if not impossible) to do good stop motion plasticine models of exploding liquids.