Yes, the Government is no longer able to keep us from killing ourselves in the name of adventure.
This statement would only make sense if you think the government should own your life. If, on the other hand, you believe individuals own their own lives, you'd be glad the government stayed out of the way.
Truthfully, a lot of these X-Prize contestans remind me of the guy who attached weather baloons to his lawn chair. Is it any wonder that Scaled won it? Not really, they where the only contender.
Some other contenders:
* American Astronautics
* Acceleration Engineering
* American Advent
* ARCA
* Armadillo Aerospace
* Bristol Spaceplanes
* Canadian Arrow
* Da Vinci
* Discraft Corporation
* Fundamental Technology Systems
* High Altitude Research Corp.
* Interorbital Systems
* ILAT
* Lone Star Space Access
* Micro Space
* Pablo de León & Associates
* PanAero, Inc.
* Pioneer Rocketplane
* Mojave Aerospace Ventures, LLC.
* Space Transport Corporation
* Starchaser Industries LTD
* Suborbital Corporation
* TGV Rockets, Inc.
* Vanguard Spacecraft
Yes, but that's less likely to happen because MS Office licenses are not quite free. Downloading OOo or FireFox, however, is (as long as you don't have a nasty ISP) free.
In an office environment MS Office is "free" as in "no cost" to the cube dwelling end user. Most offices have all of Office installed on all the computers. Yet most cube dwellers use only one or two of the components, if that.
Also, a company that rolls out OOo or Firefox would likely only download one copy to the network, and install multiple times from that copy.
But it comes down to an obvious truth. You can't really judge by downloads alone what the count of active usage is. At best you can reasonably compare past downloads to current downloads and infer that the general trend is up or down.
Seriously, unless it's a corporate computer, have you really seen one where the user would have paid a single red cent for any of the soft/data, other than the kids' games?
A single red cent, no. Many thousands of red cents, yes.
What would surprise me is if Bush and Kerry jointly announced that they have both been living a lie, and are both gay lovers. Also, there'd have to be a male intern coming forward claiming sexual harassment.
True. But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?
You fail to mention one of the main reasons the states choose the President. The Federal government is meant to govern the states, not the people. The states are partially autonomous. The reason for that is to get the direct governance closer to the people, where the people have more control over the government directly affecting them.
The US Civil War shifted more power to the federal government; contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't just about slavery. Yet the laws and the Constitution did not change. The years since the Civil War have shown an increasing level of power grabs from the federal government.
The fact that control of the government has been slipping away from the local level is not, I believe, a good reason to say that more control should be shifted that direction.
In contrast to you opinion, I believe the people are better represented by moving the power back down to the State, County, and local level. Let them decide what is best for their State, and the State will represent them Federally.
as long as they're shooting in high res, snapping a bunch of pics with this and transmitting them over 802.11g isn't going to go very fast. most photographers aren't going to want to put up with a lag that poor.
The camera produces 7MB jpegs. 802.11g is 54Mbits per second. 54/8 gives you 6.75MBytes per second. Throw in some overhead and call it a conservative 5MBps of throughput. Throw in the camera buffer of 32 frames at 4fps and it becomes a moot point unless you're trying to take pictures at a sustained rate for more than 8 seconds. If you're going to do that you need a movie camera, not at still camera.
So far, everyone else responding seemed to have missed your point. The article correctly uses "worse than usless". It is the submitter and/or our ever so thorough Slashdot editors to blame for the "worse then useless" grammar mistake.
And for all of you that missed the grammar mistake and are debating the meaning of "worse than useless", yes, things can be worse than useless. Things can be harmful. They can cause additional harm or frustration, as opposed to a useless item which just does not do anything useful.
So you're offended that he would try to stop the publication of a book that slanders him and one that he is the author of? Sounds like he was within his moral rights.
Offended? Why would I be offended? It's nothing personal, just the facts.
George W. Bush said: "They ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.... There have been millions of dollars spent.... I signed a law that I thought would get rid of those (groups)."
I did mention campaign finance reform as one of the things both sides are promoting. I notice you chose to not quote that part. I had not heard that Bush was launching a lawsuit against MoveOn.org, but I have heard that Kerry did so against the Swift Boat vets. Neither surprises me.
So, usually foreigners would not knowingly make the worse choice for the US.
I agree with you. They are not likely to intentionally choose who is the worst choice for America. It's not an either/or situation. When they choose to watch American TV programs it's because they like them - not because it is good for America. When they buy American products it's because they like them - not because it is good for America.
They are likely to choose who they think is best for them (being a non-American), based on whatever critera is important to them and their situation. That is very likely based only on their perception of how US foreign policy affects them. That was the point of my sarcasm.
They are not likely to try to determine who the best choice for Americans is. They are not likely to be concerned with US Domestic policy at all. They are not living their lives and making their choices based on what is best for the US. They are making their choices based on what they think is best for them.
As I'm quite sure the rest of the world doesn't have our best interests in mind, just the opposite in fact.
Sure the rest of the world has US interest in mind. I'm sure the first thing that went through the poll respondants mind when polled was "Well, who would best represent the interests of the US people... because that's who I want." Then they go to the store and think to themselves, "What products can I buy to best support US companies?". They go home, flip on the TV and think, "Which show can I watch to best support Hollywood and the US media?". Then they get on their computers and think to themselves, "Which website can I go to to best support the US tech industry."
They think all these things because they really, really have our best interests in mind. That's why they want Kerry.
Democrats are much less likely to promote censorship than Republicans are.
You don't seriously believe that, do you?
Kerry has used his power and influence as a sitting Senator and a Presidential candidate to attempt to effect a ban on two books within the last few months. The swift boat book, and Kerry's own "The New Soldier" book. He fortunately failed on both accounts.
Democrats are proponents of politically correct speech. They want to outlaw what they view as "hate" speech. These two things are in my opinion the most insidious assaults on free speech.
Both Democrats and Republicans want the government to be able to control political speech during an election (Campaign Finance Reform).
Both sides like trying to silence opposing views. Both sides treat the Constitution like toilet paper.
The Democrats want to outlaw any speech which is unfavorable to them or their constitutes. The Republicans want to outlaw speech they consider immoral. Both claim they are protecting someone. Neither are.
The ease with which oil shoots from the ground and burns in furnaces has allowed us to waste so much of it that it now costs over $40:barrel, with $50 inevitable, and soon.
No, $50 is not inevitable. The $40 a barrel mark is about where it becomes profitable to refine the non-sweet oil. There are huge oil reserves that have been largely untapped (a huge amount in Canada and the US) because it was simply cheaper to use the easier-to-process oil. As the refining of the dirtier oil becomes more common, it will also become more efficient and cheaper.
The main reason Middle Eastern oil has been in such demand is because it is of the sweeter variety. If the price of that goes up, more non-Middle Eastern oil will be used. In that respect, the higher oil prices could be considered a good thing.
This is because they poll only landline phones, and a substantial fraction of younger people have only cell phones -- so they hit a biased demographic.
I wonder how that information was gathered... Maybe some sort of sampling method like a poll? Maybe a hunch? Totally made up, perhaps?
Nah, I'm sure it's totally reliable and accurate information from a completely unbiased unquestionably authoratative source.
H&R block disappears in a puff of smoke. (Which is, again, probably why this will never happen.)
This assumes H&R Block does only tax returns and is incapable of doing anything else. It also assumes that people that are no longer having to spend money on tax returns wouldn't decide to spend it on financial planning instead. Believe me, H&R Block would rather be doing financial planning and investing work than overly complicated seasonal tax return work.
Oh...wait. Didn't SCO cap their legal funds. Looks like they're the ones who will go bankrupt!
Yes. I believe it was at $35M. The SCO lawyers haven't reached that yet. I think they'll give up when they do.
I can see it now:
SCO Lawyer: Judge Kimball, I'm a little embarrassed here, but it looks like we really don't have a case. You know how complicated these computer things are. It turns out the line "for( i=0; imax; i++)" is actually not SCO IP. Can we just forget this silly lawsuit, please?
Well, you can't really blame Forbes for this. According to the sizable disclaimer at the bottom, the article is from a news feed called FinancialWire.
Sure you can. Forbes published it. If FinancialWire had reported 2+2=5 and Forbes published that, Forbes is still clueless. Whether or not FinancialWire is also clueless is another matter.
Re:Try this (Score:1)
by Rei (128717) Alter Relationship on Friday September 10, @13:31 (#10214923) (http://www.cursor.org/) Yes. They've conclusively proven that Times New Roman is close to Times New Roman, when you manipulate it. Give them a cookie.
Everytime I read a particularly glaring example of blindly ignoring the facts I would see "Rei" as the author. So for fun I clicked on www.cursor.org and saw exactly what I expected. A tin-foil hat far left liberal conspiracy theory site. Give it up Rei, you've lost this one. You'll get better traction out of something no so obviously false.
I've considered myself a Libertarian since I first discovered the party when Andre Marrou ran for president in 1992. I even joined the party and agree with almost everything the party stands for down the line. There is one major issue I do have a different opinion on though: Iraq and the war on terrorism.
I disagree with your reasoning for why they hate us (as stated on your website). I believe they hate us because we do not have a system based on Islamic law. We both seem to agree that they do hate us. I believe we can't ignore that they have plotted, executed, and intend to continue executing a campaign of attacks on the United States.
I'm all for limited government, but protection against foreign enemies is definately one of the valid purposes of a federal government.
So much for the build up, here's the question: If you believe the Bush administration's policy on the war on terror is the wrong method, what would you as President do differently to put an end to (or at least significantly diminish) acts of terrorism?
Why do I care if I get 4 delegates and the opposition gets 5? Even in a close election... one elector isn't going to make that much difference.
But it can. What it will do is make the candidate pay attention to the state even if it is not a toss up state. As an example, look at NY right now. Do you think Bush is going to even try and campaign there? It was an early write off for him. NY is going to vote Democrat. Do you think Kerry is going to pay any attention to NY? Why would he? He's going to win it. He's going to focus efforts in contested states.
The effect of splitting the electors is to make every state contested, and force the candidates to pay attention to all of them.
There's one thing I'd like to see done differently from the plan mentioned. Instead of a porportional system, I'd like to see a system where the candidate gets each elector based on which congressional districts they win the popular vote for. The 2 additional electors would go to the person who wins the popular vote for the entire state independant of congressional districts. This would localize the election even more, and it's similar to how the House and Senate are elected.
Don't bother to RTFA this time, the article's about as low on info as the summary.
Complete lack of technical savvy is what I've come to expect from Forbes. They just don't get the SCO thing either. And in this article, they interchangably use the terms "World Wide Web" and "internet". Forbes is obviously the magazine for pointy haired bosses, I can't imagine anyone else taking it seriously.
Actually, I suspect that this admin did NOT think about N.K.
I suppose that's why Bush named them as part of the Axis of Evil?
Right now, we are maxed out with troops deployed on 2 fronts, about 11K in Afghanastan and about 140K in Iraq. It is known that we will have to increase the troops in Iraq to about 160-180K in order to control it.
That is hardly maxed out for the US military. We have troops stationed in 130 nations around the world and over 145,000 active duty Guard alone. I question your assessment about what is "known" to be necessary to "control" Iraq. Care to be more specific on that?
Well since we did not get the job done, Afghanastan is slowly falling back under control of Al Qaeda.
Besides being a non-sequiter, it's also incorrect. What is your definition of "getting the job done"? Leaving Saddam in power? A few more years to allow him to hide weapons? Iraq is being turned over to the Iraqis. They will have elections in a few months. If the new Iraqi government asked us to leave, this administration has stated uncatagorically that the US would leave. In the meantime, we are fighting the radical Muslim terrorists as they travel to, and try desperately to upset the peace in Iraq. That's much better than fighting them in Manhatten.
We are about to step up the numbers of troops in Afghanastan in a big way (I suspect that is why the draft board is being set back up).
The draft board is not being set back up. The democrats want it set up as a way to foster more objections to the operations in Iraq. But there is not going to be a draft any time soon.
The problem is that afghanastan had a bigger landmass( also more difficult terrarain) and higher population than Iraq. IOW, we need more troops than is currently in Iraq. It is probably for this reason why we are taking troops out of other countries. But one of the countries is S.K., right at a time where N.K. has obviously aquired a nuke (I am guessing on monday, that we will hear all about it).
Wow! What a ramble! Troops are being redeployed because the current deployment strategy was aimed at protecting against the Soviet Union. The USSR doesn't exist any more. More troops are needed closer to the current hot spots in the Middle East. I do question removing troops from South Korea, but I am not privy to the stragery.
This implies that the admin did not give NK a second thought when making decisions to invade Iraq.
You started and ended with this thought. Surly the substance of your post should have been aimed at supporting that statement. The best you got was "troops are being removed from South Korea". Yet you entirely ignore the fact that Bush has specifically named them as part of the Axis of Evil. Obviously thought was given to them. Obviously your statement is wrong. Do you not remember the shock that the media expressed due to the "Axis of Evil" speech? It was similar to the Reagan "Evil Empire" speech. I don't think the media ever got over that one. But now the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. Perhaps the plan with N. Korea is similar to the plan with the USSR. It should actually be easier with N Korea. They can never be as big of a threat as the Soviet Union was.
Multiple generations of copying/faxing would "stagger" the edges of the letters.
That could cause waves and/or jaggies, but it would not cause some letters to be slightly high, and other letters to be slightly low - consistantly.
It was earlier today I looked at a comparison with Word. If I remember correctly, the "originals" had letters that had slightly more flourish also. That doesn't prove Word didn't do it, nor that a typewriter did, but it is another difference. The letter spacing and size did look identical to me though.
So going from that, the results were remarkably similar, but the height variances make me think the original was done on a typewriter.
Slashdot Mirror
This statement would only make sense if you think the government should own your life. If, on the other hand, you believe individuals own their own lives, you'd be glad the government stayed out of the way.
Some other contenders:
* American Astronautics
* Acceleration Engineering
* American Advent
* ARCA
* Armadillo Aerospace
* Bristol Spaceplanes
* Canadian Arrow
* Da Vinci
* Discraft Corporation
* Fundamental Technology Systems
* High Altitude Research Corp.
* Interorbital Systems
* ILAT
* Lone Star Space Access
* Micro Space
* Pablo de León & Associates
* PanAero, Inc.
* Pioneer Rocketplane
* Mojave Aerospace Ventures, LLC.
* Space Transport Corporation
* Starchaser Industries LTD
* Suborbital Corporation
* TGV Rockets, Inc.
* Vanguard Spacecraft
How long before someone straps a board to their feet and hops out capturing the X-treme X-Prize?
In an office environment MS Office is "free" as in "no cost" to the cube dwelling end user. Most offices have all of Office installed on all the computers. Yet most cube dwellers use only one or two of the components, if that.
Also, a company that rolls out OOo or Firefox would likely only download one copy to the network, and install multiple times from that copy.
But it comes down to an obvious truth. You can't really judge by downloads alone what the count of active usage is. At best you can reasonably compare past downloads to current downloads and infer that the general trend is up or down.
A single red cent, no. Many thousands of red cents, yes.
What would surprise me is if Bush and Kerry jointly announced that they have both been living a lie, and are both gay lovers. Also, there'd have to be a male intern coming forward claiming sexual harassment.
Anything else would not be a surprise.
You fail to mention one of the main reasons the states choose the President. The Federal government is meant to govern the states, not the people. The states are partially autonomous. The reason for that is to get the direct governance closer to the people, where the people have more control over the government directly affecting them.
The US Civil War shifted more power to the federal government; contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't just about slavery. Yet the laws and the Constitution did not change. The years since the Civil War have shown an increasing level of power grabs from the federal government.
The fact that control of the government has been slipping away from the local level is not, I believe, a good reason to say that more control should be shifted that direction.
In contrast to you opinion, I believe the people are better represented by moving the power back down to the State, County, and local level. Let them decide what is best for their State, and the State will represent them Federally.
The camera produces 7MB jpegs.
802.11g is 54Mbits per second.
54/8 gives you 6.75MBytes per second.
Throw in some overhead and call it a conservative 5MBps of throughput.
Throw in the camera buffer of 32 frames at 4fps and it becomes a moot point unless you're trying to take pictures at a sustained rate for more than 8 seconds. If you're going to do that you need a movie camera, not at still camera.
So it gets worse, _then_ it is useless?
So far, everyone else responding seemed to have missed your point. The article correctly uses "worse than usless". It is the submitter and/or our ever so thorough Slashdot editors to blame for the "worse then useless" grammar mistake.
And for all of you that missed the grammar mistake and are debating the meaning of "worse than useless", yes, things can be worse than useless. Things can be harmful. They can cause additional harm or frustration, as opposed to a useless item which just does not do anything useful.
Offended? Why would I be offended? It's nothing personal, just the facts.
I did mention campaign finance reform as one of the things both sides are promoting. I notice you chose to not quote that part. I had not heard that Bush was launching a lawsuit against MoveOn.org, but I have heard that Kerry did so against the Swift Boat vets. Neither surprises me.
I agree with you. They are not likely to intentionally choose who is the worst choice for America. It's not an either/or situation. When they choose to watch American TV programs it's because they like them - not because it is good for America. When they buy American products it's because they like them - not because it is good for America.
They are likely to choose who they think is best for them (being a non-American), based on whatever critera is important to them and their situation. That is very likely based only on their perception of how US foreign policy affects them. That was the point of my sarcasm.
They are not likely to try to determine who the best choice for Americans is. They are not likely to be concerned with US Domestic policy at all. They are not living their lives and making their choices based on what is best for the US. They are making their choices based on what they think is best for them.
Sure the rest of the world has US interest in mind. I'm sure the first thing that went through the poll respondants mind when polled was "Well, who would best represent the interests of the US people... because that's who I want." Then they go to the store and think to themselves, "What products can I buy to best support US companies?". They go home, flip on the TV and think, "Which show can I watch to best support Hollywood and the US media?". Then they get on their computers and think to themselves, "Which website can I go to to best support the US tech industry."
They think all these things because they really, really have our best interests in mind. That's why they want Kerry.
You don't seriously believe that, do you?
Kerry has used his power and influence as a sitting Senator and a Presidential candidate to attempt to effect a ban on two books within the last few months. The swift boat book, and Kerry's own "The New Soldier" book. He fortunately failed on both accounts.
Democrats are proponents of politically correct speech. They want to outlaw what they view as "hate" speech. These two things are in my opinion the most insidious assaults on free speech.
Both Democrats and Republicans want the government to be able to control political speech during an election (Campaign Finance Reform).
Both sides like trying to silence opposing views. Both sides treat the Constitution like toilet paper.
The Democrats want to outlaw any speech which is unfavorable to them or their constitutes. The Republicans want to outlaw speech they consider immoral. Both claim they are protecting someone. Neither are.
No, $50 is not inevitable. The $40 a barrel mark is about where it becomes profitable to refine the non-sweet oil. There are huge oil reserves that have been largely untapped (a huge amount in Canada and the US) because it was simply cheaper to use the easier-to-process oil. As the refining of the dirtier oil becomes more common, it will also become more efficient and cheaper.
The main reason Middle Eastern oil has been in such demand is because it is of the sweeter variety. If the price of that goes up, more non-Middle Eastern oil will be used. In that respect, the higher oil prices could be considered a good thing.
I wonder how that information was gathered... Maybe some sort of sampling method like a poll? Maybe a hunch? Totally made up, perhaps?
Nah, I'm sure it's totally reliable and accurate information from a completely unbiased unquestionably authoratative source.
This assumes H&R Block does only tax returns and is incapable of doing anything else. It also assumes that people that are no longer having to spend money on tax returns wouldn't decide to spend it on financial planning instead. Believe me, H&R Block would rather be doing financial planning and investing work than overly complicated seasonal tax return work.
Arggh. Slashdot ate my less-than sign...There, that's better.
Yes. I believe it was at $35M. The SCO lawyers haven't reached that yet. I think they'll give up when they do.
I can see it now:
SCO Lawyer: Judge Kimball, I'm a little embarrassed here, but it looks like we really don't have a case. You know how complicated these computer things are. It turns out the line "for( i=0; imax; i++)" is actually not SCO IP. Can we just forget this silly lawsuit, please?
Sure you can. Forbes published it. If FinancialWire had reported 2+2=5 and Forbes published that, Forbes is still clueless. Whether or not FinancialWire is also clueless is another matter.
Everytime I read a particularly glaring example of blindly ignoring the facts I would see "Rei" as the author. So for fun I clicked on www.cursor.org and saw exactly what I expected. A tin-foil hat far left liberal conspiracy theory site. Give it up Rei, you've lost this one. You'll get better traction out of something no so obviously false.
I've considered myself a Libertarian since I first discovered the party when Andre Marrou ran for president in 1992. I even joined the party and agree with almost everything the party stands for down the line. There is one major issue I do have a different opinion on though: Iraq and the war on terrorism.
I disagree with your reasoning for why they hate us (as stated on your website). I believe they hate us because we do not have a system based on Islamic law. We both seem to agree that they do hate us. I believe we can't ignore that they have plotted, executed, and intend to continue executing a campaign of attacks on the United States.
I'm all for limited government, but protection against foreign enemies is definately one of the valid purposes of a federal government.
So much for the build up, here's the question: If you believe the Bush administration's policy on the war on terror is the wrong method, what would you as President do differently to put an end to (or at least significantly diminish) acts of terrorism?
But it can. What it will do is make the candidate pay attention to the state even if it is not a toss up state. As an example, look at NY right now. Do you think Bush is going to even try and campaign there? It was an early write off for him. NY is going to vote Democrat. Do you think Kerry is going to pay any attention to NY? Why would he? He's going to win it. He's going to focus efforts in contested states.
The effect of splitting the electors is to make every state contested, and force the candidates to pay attention to all of them.
There's one thing I'd like to see done differently from the plan mentioned. Instead of a porportional system, I'd like to see a system where the candidate gets each elector based on which congressional districts they win the popular vote for. The 2 additional electors would go to the person who wins the popular vote for the entire state independant of congressional districts. This would localize the election even more, and it's similar to how the House and Senate are elected.
Complete lack of technical savvy is what I've come to expect from Forbes. They just don't get the SCO thing either. And in this article, they interchangably use the terms "World Wide Web" and "internet". Forbes is obviously the magazine for pointy haired bosses, I can't imagine anyone else taking it seriously.
That is hardly maxed out for the US military. We have troops stationed in 130 nations around the world and over 145,000 active duty Guard alone. I question your assessment about what is "known" to be necessary to "control" Iraq. Care to be more specific on that?
Besides being a non-sequiter, it's also incorrect. What is your definition of "getting the job done"? Leaving Saddam in power? A few more years to allow him to hide weapons? Iraq is being turned over to the Iraqis. They will have elections in a few months. If the new Iraqi government asked us to leave, this administration has stated uncatagorically that the US would leave. In the meantime, we are fighting the radical Muslim terrorists as they travel to, and try desperately to upset the peace in Iraq. That's much better than fighting them in Manhatten.
The draft board is not being set back up. The democrats want it set up as a way to foster more objections to the operations in Iraq. But there is not going to be a draft any time soon.
Wow! What a ramble! Troops are being redeployed because the current deployment strategy was aimed at protecting against the Soviet Union. The USSR doesn't exist any more. More troops are needed closer to the current hot spots in the Middle East. I do question removing troops from South Korea, but I am not privy to the stragery.
You started and ended with this thought. Surly the substance of your post should have been aimed at supporting that statement. The best you got was "troops are being removed from South Korea". Yet you entirely ignore the fact that Bush has specifically named them as part of the Axis of Evil. Obviously thought was given to them. Obviously your statement is wrong. Do you not remember the shock that the media expressed due to the "Axis of Evil" speech? It was similar to the Reagan "Evil Empire" speech. I don't think the media ever got over that one. But now the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. Perhaps the plan with N. Korea is similar to the plan with the USSR. It should actually be easier with N Korea. They can never be as big of a threat as the Soviet Union was.
Not quite right
That could cause waves and/or jaggies, but it would not cause some letters to be slightly high, and other letters to be slightly low - consistantly.
It was earlier today I looked at a comparison with Word. If I remember correctly, the "originals" had letters that had slightly more flourish also. That doesn't prove Word didn't do it, nor that a typewriter did, but it is another difference. The letter spacing and size did look identical to me though.
So going from that, the results were remarkably similar, but the height variances make me think the original was done on a typewriter.
Still, it proves nothing one way or the other.