Yes, this is what I'm talking about. It wasn't the general public that was asked, it was a group representing women's interests. What your missing is that there are more ways than science to understand problems. For example, we could extend science to the debate on immigration. There is no scientific basis for seperation of people. However race relations are a large part of social policy, especially in multicultural societies such as Australia, America, and England. Whils 'scientifically' race doesn't exist, it is very real in a created sense. This is the foundation of post modernism. Post modernism is part of the larger post-positivist school of thought which also harbours, you guessed it, feminism.
"I have $1 000 000 for the orphans. Here, take it." **"No! You bastard you have billions." "But it's for the kids to help them." **"But relatively, it's worth cents to you." "So you'd rather fifty cents from an impoverished man, with which you could buy nothing?" **"Yes." "Rather than my millions which will feed, house and educate them?" **"Yes!" "There is a reason you're poor you know. It's because you're stupid, and don't understand something that's good for you when it is thrown at you in small notes in leather briefcases."
I don't know many people who boot the PC whilst having breakfast. Nor do I see many people on the train who have mobile internet, or have been assed to download the pages for reading (making the point of hyperlinking moot). And I don't see many people take there laptops into the lunchroom at morning tea to read the news.
The majority of industry is not IT oriented. I think the trend has nothing to do with instantaneous access. If that was the case, TV would have superceded the print decades ago. Instead, I would say it is part of the dumbification of society. Noam Chompsky's (only) good book, The Manufacture of Consent, has a lot to say about this.
Actually, it is appropriate for women to be bought into the debate. Unbeknownst to the scientific ommunity, for the past thirty years feminism has presented itself as a serious field of academia. Where not just talking about women's liberation movements, but into areas such as national security. I think that whats failing in modern scietific university courses is liberal arts issues. For example, a rigorus examination of the philosophy of scietific method would explain why ID was scietifically sound, comparable to evolution, and why creationism isn't. There is a very real importance to this article and this is news, and should inspire people to examine what's happening in the world of thought, not just science.
Now, mod me down for dissenting.
Actually, John Howard (Australian Prime Minister) calling you is enshrined in law. Whilst I support the liberty of confidentiality, I think it is probably important for the government to be able to do that sort of thing should the nneds arise. On the other hand, not being racist, but if a marketing company is going to call me the job better be given to a local person. As much as I like indians, out money should go to our own citizens first.
Actually, there's a good idea. Give the jobs to people in the prison system.
Why don't we sue them into oblivion?! Well, think of it this way. If you bought a car that had doors that didn't lock, would you leave it in a car park? If someone broke into it, you would sue them. If you put in in that position, it was probably your fault - you bought the lockless car.
When I set up a windows network, I usually put a firewall between the net and it. If you took you car, bought lockless, and put it in a car park, you'd bolt locks onto it if you didn't want it stolen. You may say that Microsoft shouldn't release software that can be infected.
Then again, everyone, yes everyone, knows it is common sense to install antivirus. same should go for firewalls and the such.
Then this too shall be my last post. I'll address each of your points respectively. 1. You question my right to attack others. Your first post read, regarding Dvorak, 'and for christ's sake Shut The Living Fuck Up, you mindless drolling old troll-fossil.' Those who live in glass houses...
2. I wasn't talking about 'user-interface design' but design philosophy, same as Dvorak.
3. The relationship between UI design and the back end? I wasn't talking about user interfaces.
4. The X window system is not a part of Unix.
5. For those reasons I will ignore your further references to UI design and Unix.
6. Actually, whilst I have calculated to give offence, my criticism of you ability to argue and understand english was not a case in point. Reread you comments and you will pick up your floors.
7. With regards to requests, you'd stated you'd make none. That is what I was referring to. Again, reread what you've written.
8. If you opinion was meant to be taken with humour, then it was a joke, not an opinion. While your jokes may count for something, if that is your attitude, youopinion doesn't.
9. Dvorak was attempting something serious, and he disagreed with you and you got upset. Grow up.
10. Maybe you RTFA, and simply didn't understand it.
11. You still have provided no evidence of the minds of the editors.
12. There are many ways of backing up claims made. And if you actually read what you wrote, you'd realise that either my point was made, or you don't know what the word moot means.
13. When claiming the *majority* of predictions are inaccurate, you made up another unsupported statistic.
14. In Aristatolean logic, an incorrect or fallacious presupposition does not negate the outcome. For example, the fact that the Americans were fighting the Vietnam war for different reasons from the Vietnamese does not change the fact that a war was fought nor the outcome.
15. I've already discussed how you seem not to mind personal attacks.
16. You attack people personally and expect them to treat you differently?
17. I am up for serious debate. I have two degrees, one major in maths (first degree hons stats) and minor computer science, and a second degree (obtained after) with a double major in politics and philosophy. I am offensive; so are you. I am also up for arguement at any point in time provided the rhetoric and prose anre good. You rhetoric is not good, yet you have passable english.
Example? You critisice me for my insultory nature (forth last paragraph), and then say 'Good at spotting irony at all?' which would make you insultory as well. Who are you criticising? What are you saying about yourself? Maybe then you'll realise that 'idiot' is not an insult, but a constructive suggestion.
P.S. Good at spotting irony at all? is not a grammatically correct sentence. Idiot.
An interesting note about the iBook. I run a 14.1" 1.25gig ibook. I network regularly and play two games predominantly. The Halo which you mentioned causes my laptop to run at a testicle blistering tempreture. Warcraft 3 on the other hand is smooth and creamy, taken in stride.
The only thing I could image causes that, in my very non-technical estimation, is that different parts of the graphics card run hotter than others. Or maybe there is more of a load on the CPU or graphics card in one or the other.
You made that joke already. I see where you incisive intellect lets you down, repetitious sarcasm has dragged you on. Lets be honest, you realised you can't actually put together a rational arguement, and this is your effort at a comeback right? Thank you for wasting my time one what I thought could be an intellectual arguement, Faggot.
The reason I bought unix into the issue, Dvorak is talking about design philosophy. I was making an analogy. Idiot.
I agree about your lack of knowledge statement. It extends to such things as rhetoric, and simily. Idiot.
How do you expect the market to deliver if yu as a consumer don't excercise your perogative to tell the producer. After all - "I'm not making a single constructive suggestion as to how to do it, either." How would you know the difference about whining or otherwise. Idiot.
You call yourself an "unprofessional, semi-serious, half-joking poster on an anonymous forum on the internet." Which is why your opinion counts for shit, while Dvorak is attempting criticism in a public rorumn for discussion. Or didn;t you RTFA. Idiot.
I'm sorry, could you point me to the references where the editors of slashdot state explicitly why they post stories about Dvorak for whimsy? No?! WTF? That's completely unfounded. Idiot.
Your predictions count for shit. If you can't prove you made them, who cares? I don't believe you. Idiot.
Where do you get the impression that Dvorak make inaccurate predictions often? Don't make up statistics. Idiot.
It's hard to believe that you got moderated up for insightful, especially by a linux-centric web audience. Unix for years has had a design philosophy based around small apps that do one job and do it well. This is why windows is crap. You are an angry man and a limited by your inability to appreciate the complexity of the problem Sure, he could be a "fucking Photoshop book." But, wouldn't it be better for him to tell commercial vendors what he really wants? This is the point of demand economy.
You should have been modded flame bait. Never have I seen dvorak ranting and swearing because someone disagrees with him. As for being an old fossil, there are certain perks that come with age, as the addage tells. And finally, if you have time, point me to the predictions in the computer industry, which you've made, which have come true.
Which is why the first bundle is called "For photographers...", then "for digital artists..." then "family photgrapher..." then "penis who uses works..."
I believe this is his point. You don't need all the functionality, depending on your role.
For your first question, the answer is thus. We know China has aspirations of regaining Taiwan because they've explicitly stated that to be the case. In terms of Taiwan, we know they want to be a nation of their own, because they've explicitly stated that to be the case.
The debate isn't pointless, it is ill informed. I've repeatedly pointed you to the references I've used. You seem to have no references except the heresay which you've heard in the pub. There are established means by which to gauge the military capacity of any country. You obvioulsy aren't familiar with them.
An on second thoughts, this is perhaps pointless. You make no effort to justify your claims, and your analogies are ridiculous. For the record, look up on google the defensive capabilities of China and Taiwan. This small bit of illegitimate research will correct you most recent opinion.
But you are wrong again. Taiwan doesn't want to invade mainland China, it's the other way around. Taiwan has been militarily superior, but in a defensive capability. You must be American. If that weren't the case, the China would have romped over them sometime ago. At this point I would also recommend a book which a class mate of mine wrote. William Tow, "Asia Pacific Strategic Relations, Seeking Convergent Security."
In this case I would point to the works of Joseph Stanislaw and Tom Nairn. It was the effect of the Second World War (only Americans call it the War), which sponsored the rapid technological and economic expansion of Taiwan. Your position is of course absurd. We are not commenting on the state of Taiwan at the end of the war. At that point it was an agrarian society. In contemporary times, it is a post industrialist country. Moreover, more troops in the world carry AK47s that any American built gun. This does not make them reliant on Russia, nor does it make Russia more powerful than America, another flawed arguement.
To summerise:
1. The war has little to do with the current technological status of Taiwan and China.
2. Selling guns has got something to do with strength, but not in the sense which you endow it.
I could only assume that you are talking about Korea or Vietnam, and mistaking it with Taiwan. The 'War' you may be talking about in China could be the proletariat coup, at which point the nationalist retreated to Taiwan. That was not a war with Taiwan, but with dissidents of the new regime. At anyrate, please please please read some history (post 1995) before you respond. Prefereably by a non-american author. Besides Joseph Stanislaws 'The Commanding Heights', I would recommend Nicholas Tarling's 'South East Asia, A Modern History.' They are both good reads, but Tarling is harder, aimed at an upper undergraduate level. This isn't school stuff.
BZZZ. Wrong. Taiwan has for the larger part of the last 50 years been militarily superior to China. America has nothing to do with it. The Taiwanese defense force has a similar technological prowess to the Japanese. Before you tell me Japan has no military capability, it still has a defence force. The reason military tension is now building up between China and Taiwan is due to the rapid modernisation of China's army. This is due also to the word trend at the moment in the development of attack based weapons (as opposed to defence, such as RADAR). Taiwan and China's relationship has also changed over the past 50 years. They currently have a multi-billion dollar trade relationship and are more economically tied than they ever were nationalistically. It would be a little silly for China to attack a country it relies on economicallly. This does not rule out an attack, but according to most pundits, its highly unlikely.
uhhh... the virus hasn't mutated yet to be transmitted to people. Any vaccines against the bird infectious form is ineffective in people, since the virus hasn't changed yet. Only after it changes can a vaccine can be made.
I'll take it by the "uhhh..." that you were trying to be sarcastic. Dumbass. Obviously, and think about this, you are wrong. Any mutation based on the original bird flu will be very close to the original structure. EVERY virus will be different due to reproduction errors, it's part of how virii reproduce. That why general anti-viral drugs work, because there is a general similarity between the virus. A vaccine can at the moment be created because the mutated virus will be significantly similar to the old one. Don't bother replying, you're obviously wrong. I will not read anymore of this thread, and neither will anyone else.
So here's what you do - write a worm and wrap it around a citrix or Windows Term Serv. Then when you have thousands, you can use then with DDOSs.
Seriously though - Golden Hacker Defender. I've never heard of this. It it were seriously a commercial product, I doubt it would be a rootkit, perhaps a "Remote administration tool." I can't goole (verb) where to purchase it.
So here's the thing. I wrote a virus, and now I'm going to sell it. It's a commercial virus. Oops! Not it isn't, it's just me selling a virus.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm writing this on an update 1.2G ibook which has been updated with no problems. Try booting with no services enabled.
Yes, this is what I'm talking about. It wasn't the general public that was asked, it was a group representing women's interests. What your missing is that there are more ways than science to understand problems. For example, we could extend science to the debate on immigration. There is no scientific basis for seperation of people. However race relations are a large part of social policy, especially in multicultural societies such as Australia, America, and England. Whils 'scientifically' race doesn't exist, it is very real in a created sense. This is the foundation of post modernism. Post modernism is part of the larger post-positivist school of thought which also harbours, you guessed it, feminism.
Last time I checked a good act was a good act.
"I have $1 000 000 for the orphans. Here, take it."
**"No! You bastard you have billions."
"But it's for the kids to help them."
**"But relatively, it's worth cents to you."
"So you'd rather fifty cents from an impoverished man, with which you could buy nothing?"
**"Yes."
"Rather than my millions which will feed, house and educate them?"
**"Yes!"
"There is a reason you're poor you know. It's because you're stupid, and don't understand something that's good for you when it is thrown at you in small notes in leather briefcases."
I don't know many people who boot the PC whilst having breakfast. Nor do I see many people on the train who have mobile internet, or have been assed to download the pages for reading (making the point of hyperlinking moot). And I don't see many people take there laptops into the lunchroom at morning tea to read the news.
The majority of industry is not IT oriented. I think the trend has nothing to do with instantaneous access. If that was the case, TV would have superceded the print decades ago. Instead, I would say it is part of the dumbification of society. Noam Chompsky's (only) good book, The Manufacture of Consent, has a lot to say about this.
Actually, it is appropriate for women to be bought into the debate. Unbeknownst to the scientific ommunity, for the past thirty years feminism has presented itself as a serious field of academia. Where not just talking about women's liberation movements, but into areas such as national security. I think that whats failing in modern scietific university courses is liberal arts issues. For example, a rigorus examination of the philosophy of scietific method would explain why ID was scietifically sound, comparable to evolution, and why creationism isn't. There is a very real importance to this article and this is news, and should inspire people to examine what's happening in the world of thought, not just science. Now, mod me down for dissenting.
Actually, John Howard (Australian Prime Minister) calling you is enshrined in law. Whilst I support the liberty of confidentiality, I think it is probably important for the government to be able to do that sort of thing should the nneds arise. On the other hand, not being racist, but if a marketing company is going to call me the job better be given to a local person. As much as I like indians, out money should go to our own citizens first. Actually, there's a good idea. Give the jobs to people in the prison system.
Why don't we sue them into oblivion?! Well, think of it this way. If you bought a car that had doors that didn't lock, would you leave it in a car park? If someone broke into it, you would sue them. If you put in in that position, it was probably your fault - you bought the lockless car.
When I set up a windows network, I usually put a firewall between the net and it. If you took you car, bought lockless, and put it in a car park, you'd bolt locks onto it if you didn't want it stolen. You may say that Microsoft shouldn't release software that can be infected.
Then again, everyone, yes everyone, knows it is common sense to install antivirus. same should go for firewalls and the such.
Then this too shall be my last post. I'll address each of your points respectively.
1. You question my right to attack others. Your first post read, regarding Dvorak, 'and for christ's sake Shut The Living Fuck Up, you mindless drolling old troll-fossil.' Those who live in glass houses...
2. I wasn't talking about 'user-interface design' but design philosophy, same as Dvorak.
3. The relationship between UI design and the back end? I wasn't talking about user interfaces.
4. The X window system is not a part of Unix.
5. For those reasons I will ignore your further references to UI design and Unix.
6. Actually, whilst I have calculated to give offence, my criticism of you ability to argue and understand english was not a case in point. Reread you comments and you will pick up your floors.
7. With regards to requests, you'd stated you'd make none. That is what I was referring to. Again, reread what you've written.
8. If you opinion was meant to be taken with humour, then it was a joke, not an opinion. While your jokes may count for something, if that is your attitude, youopinion doesn't.
9. Dvorak was attempting something serious, and he disagreed with you and you got upset. Grow up.
10. Maybe you RTFA, and simply didn't understand it.
11. You still have provided no evidence of the minds of the editors.
12. There are many ways of backing up claims made. And if you actually read what you wrote, you'd realise that either my point was made, or you don't know what the word moot means.
13. When claiming the *majority* of predictions are inaccurate, you made up another unsupported statistic.
14. In Aristatolean logic, an incorrect or fallacious presupposition does not negate the outcome. For example, the fact that the Americans were fighting the Vietnam war for different reasons from the Vietnamese does not change the fact that a war was fought nor the outcome.
15. I've already discussed how you seem not to mind personal attacks.
16. You attack people personally and expect them to treat you differently?
17. I am up for serious debate. I have two degrees, one major in maths (first degree hons stats) and minor computer science, and a second degree (obtained after) with a double major in politics and philosophy. I am offensive; so are you. I am also up for arguement at any point in time provided the rhetoric and prose anre good. You rhetoric is not good, yet you have passable english.
Example? You critisice me for my insultory nature (forth last paragraph), and then say 'Good at spotting irony at all?' which would make you insultory as well. Who are you criticising? What are you saying about yourself? Maybe then you'll realise that 'idiot' is not an insult, but a constructive suggestion.
P.S. Good at spotting irony at all? is not a grammatically correct sentence. Idiot.
An interesting note about the iBook. I run a 14.1" 1.25gig ibook. I network regularly and play two games predominantly. The Halo which you mentioned causes my laptop to run at a testicle blistering tempreture. Warcraft 3 on the other hand is smooth and creamy, taken in stride. The only thing I could image causes that, in my very non-technical estimation, is that different parts of the graphics card run hotter than others. Or maybe there is more of a load on the CPU or graphics card in one or the other.
You made that joke already. I see where you incisive intellect lets you down, repetitious sarcasm has dragged you on. Lets be honest, you realised you can't actually put together a rational arguement, and this is your effort at a comeback right? Thank you for wasting my time one what I thought could be an intellectual arguement, Faggot.
The reason I bought unix into the issue, Dvorak is talking about design philosophy. I was making an analogy. Idiot.
I agree about your lack of knowledge statement. It extends to such things as rhetoric, and simily. Idiot.
How do you expect the market to deliver if yu as a consumer don't excercise your perogative to tell the producer. After all - "I'm not making a single constructive suggestion as to how to do it, either." How would you know the difference about whining or otherwise. Idiot.
You call yourself an "unprofessional, semi-serious, half-joking poster on an anonymous forum on the internet." Which is why your opinion counts for shit, while Dvorak is attempting criticism in a public rorumn for discussion. Or didn;t you RTFA. Idiot.
I'm sorry, could you point me to the references where the editors of slashdot state explicitly why they post stories about Dvorak for whimsy? No?! WTF? That's completely unfounded. Idiot.
Your predictions count for shit. If you can't prove you made them, who cares? I don't believe you. Idiot.
Where do you get the impression that Dvorak make inaccurate predictions often? Don't make up statistics. Idiot.
PS You are in idiot.
Except OS X is Unix and based on the same principles.
It's hard to believe that you got moderated up for insightful, especially by a linux-centric web audience. Unix for years has had a design philosophy based around small apps that do one job and do it well. This is why windows is crap. You are an angry man and a limited by your inability to appreciate the complexity of the problem Sure, he could be a "fucking Photoshop book." But, wouldn't it be better for him to tell commercial vendors what he really wants? This is the point of demand economy.
You should have been modded flame bait. Never have I seen dvorak ranting and swearing because someone disagrees with him. As for being an old fossil, there are certain perks that come with age, as the addage tells. And finally, if you have time, point me to the predictions in the computer industry, which you've made, which have come true.
Which is why the first bundle is called "For photographers...", then "for digital artists..." then "family photgrapher..." then "penis who uses works..."
I believe this is his point. You don't need all the functionality, depending on your role.
Reminds me of time I ate to much ham shoulder. Doctor say, "Spam caused bog clog." Needed enema.
And yet it is not available for Apple yet. I think I'll have a busy weekend.
For your first question, the answer is thus. We know China has aspirations of regaining Taiwan because they've explicitly stated that to be the case. In terms of Taiwan, we know they want to be a nation of their own, because they've explicitly stated that to be the case.
The debate isn't pointless, it is ill informed. I've repeatedly pointed you to the references I've used. You seem to have no references except the heresay which you've heard in the pub. There are established means by which to gauge the military capacity of any country. You obvioulsy aren't familiar with them.
An on second thoughts, this is perhaps pointless. You make no effort to justify your claims, and your analogies are ridiculous. For the record, look up on google the defensive capabilities of China and Taiwan. This small bit of illegitimate research will correct you most recent opinion.
But you are wrong again. Taiwan doesn't want to invade mainland China, it's the other way around. Taiwan has been militarily superior, but in a defensive capability. You must be American. If that weren't the case, the China would have romped over them sometime ago. At this point I would also recommend a book which a class mate of mine wrote. William Tow, "Asia Pacific Strategic Relations, Seeking Convergent Security."
To summerise:
1. The war has little to do with the current technological status of Taiwan and China.
2. Selling guns has got something to do with strength, but not in the sense which you endow it.
I could only assume that you are talking about Korea or Vietnam, and mistaking it with Taiwan. The 'War' you may be talking about in China could be the proletariat coup, at which point the nationalist retreated to Taiwan. That was not a war with Taiwan, but with dissidents of the new regime. At anyrate, please please please read some history (post 1995) before you respond. Prefereably by a non-american author. Besides Joseph Stanislaws 'The Commanding Heights', I would recommend Nicholas Tarling's 'South East Asia, A Modern History.' They are both good reads, but Tarling is harder, aimed at an upper undergraduate level. This isn't school stuff.
BZZZ. Wrong. Taiwan has for the larger part of the last 50 years been militarily superior to China. America has nothing to do with it. The Taiwanese defense force has a similar technological prowess to the Japanese. Before you tell me Japan has no military capability, it still has a defence force. The reason military tension is now building up between China and Taiwan is due to the rapid modernisation of China's army. This is due also to the word trend at the moment in the development of attack based weapons (as opposed to defence, such as RADAR). Taiwan and China's relationship has also changed over the past 50 years. They currently have a multi-billion dollar trade relationship and are more economically tied than they ever were nationalistically. It would be a little silly for China to attack a country it relies on economicallly. This does not rule out an attack, but according to most pundits, its highly unlikely.
I'll take it by the "uhhh..." that you were trying to be sarcastic. Dumbass. Obviously, and think about this, you are wrong. Any mutation based on the original bird flu will be very close to the original structure. EVERY virus will be different due to reproduction errors, it's part of how virii reproduce. That why general anti-viral drugs work, because there is a general similarity between the virus. A vaccine can at the moment be created because the mutated virus will be significantly similar to the old one. Don't bother replying, you're obviously wrong. I will not read anymore of this thread, and neither will anyone else.
Yeah, that's it. I was wrong, very professional.
So here's what you do - write a worm and wrap it around a citrix or Windows Term Serv. Then when you have thousands, you can use then with DDOSs.
Seriously though - Golden Hacker Defender. I've never heard of this. It it were seriously a commercial product, I doubt it would be a rootkit, perhaps a "Remote administration tool." I can't goole (verb) where to purchase it.
So here's the thing. I wrote a virus, and now I'm going to sell it. It's a commercial virus. Oops! Not it isn't, it's just me selling a virus.
Move along, nothing to see here.
That is correct, there is not vaccine. The Minister states that a vaccine is close at hand, the reason for my skepticism.
80mil AUD = approx 50mil Euro = 60mil USD
250 = 156 = 188