Odd, but that's not generally the case here in the States, IIRC - typically public rights-of-way are established for any or all utilities. That is, once the ROW has been established for the power company, the phone company and sewer company can piggyback along that same ROW, and the power company can also use the same ROW for other public services as well. I personally know of at least one power company currently stringing fiber along their existing rights-of-way - it's completely dark at the moment, but they see it as being well-positioned for future services....
Your entire post is nothing more than an ad hominem attack against those with whom you happen to disagree. I would normally point out that this does not exactly support your claim to superior intellect or rationality or what have you, but my amusement at watching you make a completely incoherent argument in the process of accusing others of incoherence is simply too delicious to pass up.
I'm not going to bother reading the court opinion this time...
And yet you're "informative"? I guess in the sense that you're "informing" people about your wild-ass guesses, maybe...
...but I can pretty much guess the four judges come from this group:
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, Kennedy.
They were appointed by Republican presidents (surprise)
FYI, the five justices voting to uphold the injunction were Kennedy (Republican), Stevens (Republican), Souter (Republican), Thomas (Republican), and Ginsburg (Democrat). The four who voted against the injunction were Rehnquist (Republican), Scalia (Republican), O'Connor (Republican), and Breyer (Democrat). Breyer wrote a dissent that Rehnquist and O'Connor signed on to, as a matter of fact. Next time, dump the crystal ball and try actually reading the thing before shooting from the hip like that.
I've been downloading porn from BBS's since I was 13. I'm 27 now. That means I've been "desensitizing" myself to online porn for 15 YEARS...
That's why I married a smart girl.
Hopefully that smart girl is balancing the checkbook and handling any other mathematical-type tasks that might arise;)
When trying to teach people about computers, I think it's best to use analogies from things they have at least a partial understanding of.
When my non-techie friends or relatives ask me about things like this, I tell them that a P4 is like a shoebox, whereas the Celeron is more like a dust mop, and then I nod sagely. It confuses the hell out of them, and they never really know what it means, but they don't inquire further. Which is good, because then they leave me alone and I can get some fucking work done...
he damn thing couldn't even play a Divx-encoded movie fullscreen without stuttering like crazy.
Naaahhh, come on. Something else musta been going on, because I have an old Celery 667 currently acting as a print server here that played DiVX-encoded movies just fine back when it was still on the desktop. Encoding is another story, though - just for shits, I set it loose doing a two-pass DiVX-encoding of a 110 minute movie a while back. Took it about 48 hours to grind through the thing....
BTW, if my back-of-the-envelope scribblings are correct, at 16,000 PSI - the very deep parts of the ocean - water would lose about 5% of its volume due to the pressure.
Good point, but if liquids were as compressible as a gas, then hydraulics woudn't work so well!
True enough. Although there are precision applications, such as aircraft controls, where you want to take even a small amount of fluid compression into account - if your flaps are a degree or two lower or higher than you think they are, the results are potentially unpleasant.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that liquids do indeed compress, albeit generally not as easily as gases, as you say - under normal conditions, it's not at all incorrect to think of water as being incompressible, but it is compressible to some small degree, as you can see here;)
On the last point, a liquid isn't compressible in itself.
Of course it is. If you hold the temperature and salinity constant, then the density of seawater increases with the depth due to progressively higher pressures as you go deeper - you can see that quite clearly by playing with this seawater density calculator (try 15 degrees and a salinity of 35, then increase the pressure from 1 to 1000 to 10,000 kPa, and watch what happens to the density).
Greater density means more seawater per unit of volume as you go deeper, which you can do because liquids are, in fact, readily compressible, albeit not as compressible as gases are. Bringing water up from a depth of 10 meters simply isn't deep enough to observe the effect you want to observe. Bring water up from 10,000 meters, say from the bottom of the Marianas trench, and you will indeed observe it expanding quite forcefully when you open its container - if you don't have a container that can withstand the internal pressure of that water trying to expand, it'll go pop as you try to bring it back up.
Cheney says he gave the order to shoot down the airliners after he spoke to Bush. He said this because he doesn't have the authority to issue that order....
Dick Cheney doesn't have the authority, so therefore nobody does? Forget any citation about the legality of it, any factual examination of how the military chain of command works - that stinker doesn't even pass the Logic 101 test.
Watch the film and show to me one dishonest thing he did...
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.
Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something--I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now--has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that thes
There is a huge difference between Club Fed and a real prison.
LOL. Man, can I call it or what? So you're "dismissing it as not being REAL enough", then?
Plus the people you refer to kept a shitload of the money they stole making it well worth their while.
I don't even know you at all, and yet I'll confidently predict that you just pulled that little factoid straight out of your dark and smelly place. Why don't you post some numbers to back that contention up, if you can.
The Liberal Media [airamericaradio.com]
Muahahahaha. Hope they can start paying their bills, otherwise I suggest you don't get too attached;)
What about the hammer moving the center of gravity towards the head of the hammer?
As long as it's putting its mass on the nail, that should suffice. I'm sure we can imagine perverse hammers that don't really do that, but truthfully, ever since some guy first added lever action by tying a handle to his flat rock some thousands of years ago, everything since then has just been tweaking;)
Or the curved top so nail removal has a smaller chance of damaging the surface?
Virtually all claw hammers have a curved top for that reason. Besides which, a surface that you're removing a nail from is already "damaged" in some reasonable sense of the word - it's got a nail hole in it;)
I'm sure there are some minor improvements in functionality, but enough to justify the price? I don't think so, ergo what you're paying for is the aesthetics of it, and very, very few people buy hammers for the looks of the thing, now that Martha Stewart is out of business...
I find it amazing that after millions of years of humans making hammers that they can still improve on it.
Define "improve". These are design awards, not necessarily functionality awards - it's a very pretty hammer, I guess, but it also costs three times more than an ordinary claw hammer that will last just as long. Something makes me doubt that it's actually three times better at pounding nails, and the guys I know who regularly work with hand tools really don't strike me as the type to worry about whether their hammers are pretty enough.
Whether or not you think that NDAs are morally acceptable, it's not right to use taxpayer money on enforcing them.
Huh? Taxpayers pay for NDA enforcement every day of the week, because everyone has a vested interest in seeing that valid contracts remain legally binding. You may pay for your own lawyer if someone violates a contract they have with you, but the taxpayers pay for the building your case will be heard in, the judge who will decide it, and the sheriffs or marshals who actually enforce the court's judgement. You're really not out there enforcing your own agreements, unless you're Tony Soprano and you get off on smashing kneecaps or whatever - that's why we have a taxpayer-sponsored civil court system, to enforce them for you.
Name two people who are actually doing REAL prison time for defrauding investors.
Why? Typically people who ask for things like that will simply dismiss any names given as not being REAL enough.
Here's a list of names - you can decide for yourself if the penalties they faced or face are REAL enough to suit you: Andrew Fastow, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Dennis Levine, Martin Seigel, Ben Glisan, Michael Kopper. And many, many more.
You can of course hold down shift and then right click the program, then select "run as" from the list of presented options, which will give you a nice GUI interface instead.
Ha - someone should mod you up. I didn't know about this either, but it definitely does as you say.
THREE! Three ways to elevate privileges in Windows, a ha ha ha ha ha! (lightning and thunder)
Windows does sort of the same thing when it encounters an installation program, only not quite as slick - if you're not logged in as administrator, it pops up a dialog offering to let you install as administrator, given the proper username and pw, of course.
Under Windows, there's no easy way to go from "joe user" to "super user"...
Sure there is, but few people take advantage of it or understand why it's a good idea - runas/user:user_name program_name, where user_name is the local administrator. Enter the password and away you go. If you have a proggy that you regularly need to run with admin privs, create a shortcut and pull up the properties sheet for the shortcut - check the box marked "Run as different user". Enter the username and pw when prompted, and away you go.
Anyway, the point is, people who are confused by this, who don't understand it and why it's not a good idea to not run as root all the time, they are not suddenly going to grok the mysteries of sudo when switching to some other OS. People who are clueless will not become clueful just by switching wallpapers on them - unless and until people are better educated in safe computing practices, nothing is really going to change.
Fine, but that's the sort of "free" that this particular audience is mainly concerned about - the corporate world does not generally set out to make a political statement via their choice of operating system, not at the expense of the bottom line. For MS to point out that Linux is not free beer is both an accurate and effective talking point, considering who they're talking to. Linux beer may or may not be cheaper than MS beer, but it ain't free, and Microsoft would be a gang of fools to not point that out.
Receiving radio signals (as covered ad nauseum in previous posts) does not diminish anyone's ability to use the frequencies one is receiving.
Ad nauseam indeed - I see your confusion is deep and impenetrable. To reiterate, the fact that you think nobody else's use is diminished does not give you the right to decide that the value of the service is zero, and thereby rationalize an act that the laws label theft.
Do you not understand the basic priciples of the rights of man?
Do you not understand that your unilateral declaration that free satellite television is a "right" does not, in fact, make it so?
Invent all the "rights" you like, but at the end of the day, if you're outvoted, none of them mean squat in the here and now, and you can look to the next life to exact any justice that these slings and arrows to your sense of natural rights may demand...
Slashdot Mirror
Odd, but that's not generally the case here in the States, IIRC - typically public rights-of-way are established for any or all utilities. That is, once the ROW has been established for the power company, the phone company and sewer company can piggyback along that same ROW, and the power company can also use the same ROW for other public services as well. I personally know of at least one power company currently stringing fiber along their existing rights-of-way - it's completely dark at the moment, but they see it as being well-positioned for future services....
Your entire post is nothing more than an ad hominem attack against those with whom you happen to disagree. I would normally point out that this does not exactly support your claim to superior intellect or rationality or what have you, but my amusement at watching you make a completely incoherent argument in the process of accusing others of incoherence is simply too delicious to pass up.
And yet you're "informative"? I guess in the sense that you're "informing" people about your wild-ass guesses, maybe...
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, Kennedy.
They were appointed by Republican presidents (surprise)
FYI, the five justices voting to uphold the injunction were Kennedy (Republican), Stevens (Republican), Souter (Republican), Thomas (Republican), and Ginsburg (Democrat). The four who voted against the injunction were Rehnquist (Republican), Scalia (Republican), O'Connor (Republican), and Breyer (Democrat). Breyer wrote a dissent that Rehnquist and O'Connor signed on to, as a matter of fact. Next time, dump the crystal ball and try actually reading the thing before shooting from the hip like that.
That's why I married a smart girl.
Hopefully that smart girl is balancing the checkbook and handling any other mathematical-type tasks that might arise ;)
Heh. This public discourse thingy sure is a lot easier when you a priori define one side or the other as irrational, isn't it? ;)
When my non-techie friends or relatives ask me about things like this, I tell them that a P4 is like a shoebox, whereas the Celeron is more like a dust mop, and then I nod sagely. It confuses the hell out of them, and they never really know what it means, but they don't inquire further. Which is good, because then they leave me alone and I can get some fucking work done...
Naaahhh, come on. Something else musta been going on, because I have an old Celery 667 currently acting as a print server here that played DiVX-encoded movies just fine back when it was still on the desktop. Encoding is another story, though - just for shits, I set it loose doing a two-pass DiVX-encoding of a 110 minute movie a while back. Took it about 48 hours to grind through the thing....
BTW, if my back-of-the-envelope scribblings are correct, at 16,000 PSI - the very deep parts of the ocean - water would lose about 5% of its volume due to the pressure.
True enough. Although there are precision applications, such as aircraft controls, where you want to take even a small amount of fluid compression into account - if your flaps are a degree or two lower or higher than you think they are, the results are potentially unpleasant.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that liquids do indeed compress, albeit generally not as easily as gases, as you say - under normal conditions, it's not at all incorrect to think of water as being incompressible, but it is compressible to some small degree, as you can see here ;)
Of course it is. If you hold the temperature and salinity constant, then the density of seawater increases with the depth due to progressively higher pressures as you go deeper - you can see that quite clearly by playing with this seawater density calculator (try 15 degrees and a salinity of 35, then increase the pressure from 1 to 1000 to 10,000 kPa, and watch what happens to the density).
Greater density means more seawater per unit of volume as you go deeper, which you can do because liquids are, in fact, readily compressible, albeit not as compressible as gases are. Bringing water up from a depth of 10 meters simply isn't deep enough to observe the effect you want to observe. Bring water up from 10,000 meters, say from the bottom of the Marianas trench, and you will indeed observe it expanding quite forcefully when you open its container - if you don't have a container that can withstand the internal pressure of that water trying to expand, it'll go pop as you try to bring it back up.
Dick Cheney doesn't have the authority, so therefore nobody does? Forget any citation about the legality of it, any factual examination of how the military chain of command works - that stinker doesn't even pass the Logic 101 test.
Try again.
False. Which pretty much renders the rest of what you posted irrelevant.
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.
Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something--I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now--has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that thes
LOL. Man, can I call it or what? So you're "dismissing it as not being REAL enough", then?
Plus the people you refer to kept a shitload of the money they stole making it well worth their while.
I don't even know you at all, and yet I'll confidently predict that you just pulled that little factoid straight out of your dark and smelly place. Why don't you post some numbers to back that contention up, if you can.
The Liberal Media [airamericaradio.com]
Muahahahaha. Hope they can start paying their bills, otherwise I suggest you don't get too attached ;)
As long as it's putting its mass on the nail, that should suffice. I'm sure we can imagine perverse hammers that don't really do that, but truthfully, ever since some guy first added lever action by tying a handle to his flat rock some thousands of years ago, everything since then has just been tweaking ;)
Or the curved top so nail removal has a smaller chance of damaging the surface?
Virtually all claw hammers have a curved top for that reason. Besides which, a surface that you're removing a nail from is already "damaged" in some reasonable sense of the word - it's got a nail hole in it ;)
I'm sure there are some minor improvements in functionality, but enough to justify the price? I don't think so, ergo what you're paying for is the aesthetics of it, and very, very few people buy hammers for the looks of the thing, now that Martha Stewart is out of business...
Define "improve". These are design awards, not necessarily functionality awards - it's a very pretty hammer, I guess, but it also costs three times more than an ordinary claw hammer that will last just as long. Something makes me doubt that it's actually three times better at pounding nails, and the guys I know who regularly work with hand tools really don't strike me as the type to worry about whether their hammers are pretty enough.
Huh? Taxpayers pay for NDA enforcement every day of the week, because everyone has a vested interest in seeing that valid contracts remain legally binding. You may pay for your own lawyer if someone violates a contract they have with you, but the taxpayers pay for the building your case will be heard in, the judge who will decide it, and the sheriffs or marshals who actually enforce the court's judgement. You're really not out there enforcing your own agreements, unless you're Tony Soprano and you get off on smashing kneecaps or whatever - that's why we have a taxpayer-sponsored civil court system, to enforce them for you.
Why? Typically people who ask for things like that will simply dismiss any names given as not being REAL enough.
Here's a list of names - you can decide for yourself if the penalties they faced or face are REAL enough to suit you: Andrew Fastow, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Dennis Levine, Martin Seigel, Ben Glisan, Michael Kopper. And many, many more.
Yah, me too. Kinda sucks, but at least you can take comfort in the fact that you're not alone in this ;)
Ha - someone should mod you up. I didn't know about this either, but it definitely does as you say.
THREE! Three ways to elevate privileges in Windows, a ha ha ha ha ha! (lightning and thunder)
Windows does sort of the same thing when it encounters an installation program, only not quite as slick - if you're not logged in as administrator, it pops up a dialog offering to let you install as administrator, given the proper username and pw, of course.
True enough, but that's a little bit more complicated an argument than "it's free!" ;)
Sure there is, but few people take advantage of it or understand why it's a good idea - runas /user:user_name program_name, where user_name is the local administrator. Enter the password and away you go. If you have a proggy that you regularly need to run with admin privs, create a shortcut and pull up the properties sheet for the shortcut - check the box marked "Run as different user". Enter the username and pw when prompted, and away you go.
Anyway, the point is, people who are confused by this, who don't understand it and why it's not a good idea to not run as root all the time, they are not suddenly going to grok the mysteries of sudo when switching to some other OS. People who are clueless will not become clueful just by switching wallpapers on them - unless and until people are better educated in safe computing practices, nothing is really going to change.
Fine, but that's the sort of "free" that this particular audience is mainly concerned about - the corporate world does not generally set out to make a political statement via their choice of operating system, not at the expense of the bottom line. For MS to point out that Linux is not free beer is both an accurate and effective talking point, considering who they're talking to. Linux beer may or may not be cheaper than MS beer, but it ain't free, and Microsoft would be a gang of fools to not point that out.
Ad nauseam indeed - I see your confusion is deep and impenetrable. To reiterate, the fact that you think nobody else's use is diminished does not give you the right to decide that the value of the service is zero, and thereby rationalize an act that the laws label theft.
Do you not understand the basic priciples of the rights of man?
Do you not understand that your unilateral declaration that free satellite television is a "right" does not, in fact, make it so?
Invent all the "rights" you like, but at the end of the day, if you're outvoted, none of them mean squat in the here and now, and you can look to the next life to exact any justice that these slings and arrows to your sense of natural rights may demand...