Reasonable people differ on the substance of legislation, but opposing something based on its complexity alone smacks of corrosive know-nothingism.
O.k., Sparky, have you read the health bill? If you say you have, you are a liar.
Blindly accepting that self-interested career politicians can bring together a patchwork of often contradictory sections of proposed law and amendments that will somehow fix an arguably broken system without creating more problems than it solves is just plain idiocy. The mantra in D.C. is "Fire...Ready...Duck...Aim...Why is everyone angry at us?"
The simple fact that they rammed it through, at full speed without a fair reading and explanation is enough to make anyone wary.
This is very much like you giving up on trying to get your wife to let you fuck her anally, so you just jam it in there before she has a chance to say, "no". You got what you wanted, she's going to have deal with the pain, then, she'll deal with you. We are the wife and congress is the jackass husband.
Asking others to delete emails (remember these are government employees who are required to keep an audit trail)
Attempts to get peer reviewed journal editors replaced because they published a skeptical paper
Additional subversion of the peer review process
Receiving millions of dollars in green corporate funding (including SHELL!) while accusing skeptics of receiving oil money tax evasion.
The problem with pushing AGW is that the public isn't buying it. What is the purpose of the discussion? To get popular buy-in so as to push neighbors into positive action to make changes to energy policies and other things that relate to our ecology. What they have done is not only hurt their own argument, but other environmental arguments.
I have not been on the AGW bandwagon, I believe there are other things driving the changes. I have said in the past that if we hitch our horses to this argument, it would bite us in the ass. Instead, the argument should be over-all climate awareness, general environmental involvement, and third world poverty. The drum-beat-hysteria drummed up by people who the public perceive as having a monetary interest, and now the perception of scientific malpractice will hurt the larger issues.
I was already well into programming when I bought a Sharp MZ-80k. While everyone else was shipping with a version BASIC, the Sharp shipped with Pascal. That probably shaped my good opinion of Modula-2.
Let me rework my own comment: People really hate when a language does well despite their hate for the language. It rises to an almost religious fervor.
If I had mod points I'd find someway to give all of them to you for insight. What follows in this thread is the same tired religious discussion. Back in my day of programming that included paper tape, teletype terminals on time shares things were tough. We were making fun of the new little "home" computers. I can't tell you how many computer languages that I sneered at. I was sure C++ would go down in flames, same for Java. I was sure Modula-2 would be the next great thing. The simple fact that people don't like that languages they hate are still seeing wide spread usage shows that the discussion is more religious than logic.
I've already patented "A Quantum Method for Parralel Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Registration".
(Note: I assert that this comment is now prior art in all Universes and proof of my ownership of said patent, including Universes that contain no processes or concepts of copyright, trademark, or patent.)
Or, you get more combinations of right, wrong, and other as answers. Now, what happens when one unit in the cluster suddenly starts throw the right answer 100%?
Or, goes 100% wrong?
Or, goes 100% OTHER?
What if it taps something we cannot comprehend?
What if it hits "other" just once. And as a result, somewhere in the timeless Eternity, God freezes, bends over, and monkeys fly out of His ass?
In some alternate universe, there's a guy who is riding a bus, a thought pops into his head, "Pick a number between 1 and 100. Now, add 3. Now, divide by 13...". 99% of the time, he does the problem in his head, 79% of the time he finishes it. 1% of the time, he says, "Screw it". 100% of the time, he wonders where the hell these things are coming from and decides to check himself into the nearest mental ward.
This is the US Government we're talking about. One of the few entities on the planet where "Budget" is virtually meaningless. Someone sneezes funny and a million dollars goes out the door.
I'm a GS-12, I just sneezed funny. It was one of those "choo choo choo choo CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE" kind of sneazes. My boss, a GS-14 has put me in for a merit increase, I've been given 25 days of basket leave, and my budget for my new project was just doubled. Quick figuring...yes, a million dollars. I thank you for your tax dollars.
Seriously, if I may, I understand the power of the PS3 and its specialized abilities, but couldn't this be accomplished using more traditional lash ups?
I guess what I'm asking, did someone start this out as a "gee, I've 150 extra PS3's that DHS turned over to us from a mob bust, what can we do with them" kind of a project? Did it snowball?
During the Cold War, the most effective way of breaking through to the people behind the Iron Curtain was to keep our doors open (ahem, CUBA!) and allow them free access to the 'west'. Eventually, it snowballed, fences and walls came down. The so-called "People's Army" turned their guns from the people to the government, in some cases, or were just dropped, and the people tore down the blockades.
I'm torn on this. We want freedom. Does that mean we let the companies have freedom to do business with China and follow their rules? Or, should we demand that companies from the "free world" not contribute to the human rights problems of China, and others?
This is a huge problem. Many U.S. Government agencies have yet to move off of IE6. Especially the military. Mostly due to IT management contracts that require the gov't to pay for every little upgrade action. For a simple upgrade, one agency gets tagged per profile per month by the company that runs their IT. That same company has a policy of being 2 versions behind current. Meaning, it is actual policy to be running IE6, Office 2003, and XP/Server 2003. The approval process is so overtaken with red tape and time that most give up trying to get upgrades. One agency just recently removed NETSCAPE from their builds. NETSCAPE!
All it takes is a hostile government to set up a few magnet sites, get banner ads deployed, and bam, your U.S. Government has rampant infections. Is it any wonder we read, from time to time, about gov't employees being prohibited from going to certain sites?
In academia, it's "Publish or Perish". The creator of "GO!" did publish. But, the problem is, he is in the world of IT/CS, and in that world, it's "Market or Perish".
Google is marketing their language, they have a working system, compiler, etc. and it is generally available.
This guy did some work, but unless he has a company actively pushing it, then all he has is a thought experiment.
Now, if Google, took HIS work, extended it and called it their own, then they have a problem.
When I was a kid I knew a woman who invented the "Barbie" doll. She had drawings that dated a year before the drawings that Mattel used to prove their ownership (she's been on TV a few times). Mattel beat her to market, they won. (There was another woman that claimed she created Barbie, but the problem was she worked for Mattel, before leaving to create the doll.)
Just because this is Glenn Beck, and there is almost a syndrome about the Beck/Limbaugh/Fox hatred going on right, doesn't take away from the vile level to which some people stoop to personally destroy someone.
If this was: www.didmichelleobamagangbangacollegefootballteamandgetpregnant.org people would be furious with the decision that it was legal.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I do look for a certain level of intellectual honest on/. After all, this isn't the Huffington Post.
Slashdot Mirror
But, I want mountain ranges on Epsilon Baumfuhc 5. Can we get a radar mission so I can have realistic missions there?
In your race to be first, you failed to read the article.
O.k., Sparky, have you read the health bill? If you say you have, you are a liar.
Blindly accepting that self-interested career politicians can bring together a patchwork of often contradictory sections of proposed law and amendments that will somehow fix an arguably broken system without creating more problems than it solves is just plain idiocy. The mantra in D.C. is "Fire...Ready...Duck...Aim...Why is everyone angry at us?"
The simple fact that they rammed it through, at full speed without a fair reading and explanation is enough to make anyone wary.
This is very much like you giving up on trying to get your wife to let you fuck her anally, so you just jam it in there before she has a chance to say, "no". You got what you wanted, she's going to have deal with the pain, then, she'll deal with you. We are the wife and congress is the jackass husband.
Whoooosh, the sound of a Nook zooming over your head.
First, you make my brain hurt. When brain hurt drink beer.
Next, whats the vig on virtual particles. If you miss a payment, does God send Jesus to break your knee caps?
The problem with pushing AGW is that the public isn't buying it. What is the purpose of the discussion? To get popular buy-in so as to push neighbors into positive action to make changes to energy policies and other things that relate to our ecology. What they have done is not only hurt their own argument, but other environmental arguments.
I have not been on the AGW bandwagon, I believe there are other things driving the changes. I have said in the past that if we hitch our horses to this argument, it would bite us in the ass. Instead, the argument should be over-all climate awareness, general environmental involvement, and third world poverty. The drum-beat-hysteria drummed up by people who the public perceive as having a monetary interest, and now the perception of scientific malpractice will hurt the larger issues.
I was already well into programming when I bought a Sharp MZ-80k. While everyone else was shipping with a version BASIC, the Sharp shipped with Pascal. That probably shaped my good opinion of Modula-2.
Let me rework my own comment: People really hate when a language does well despite their hate for the language. It rises to an almost religious fervor.
Now, I can has my edit button?
You, sir, are worthy!
If I had mod points I'd find someway to give all of them to you for insight. What follows in this thread is the same tired religious discussion. Back in my day of programming that included paper tape, teletype terminals on time shares things were tough. We were making fun of the new little "home" computers. I can't tell you how many computer languages that I sneered at. I was sure C++ would go down in flames, same for Java. I was sure Modula-2 would be the next great thing. The simple fact that people don't like that languages they hate are still seeing wide spread usage shows that the discussion is more religious than logic.
I've already patented "A Quantum Method for Parralel Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Registration".
(Note: I assert that this comment is now prior art in all Universes and proof of my ownership of said patent, including Universes that contain no processes or concepts of copyright, trademark, or patent.)
Or, you get more combinations of right, wrong, and other as answers. Now, what happens when one unit in the cluster suddenly starts throw the right answer 100%?
Or, goes 100% wrong?
Or, goes 100% OTHER?
What if it taps something we cannot comprehend?
What if it hits "other" just once. And as a result, somewhere in the timeless Eternity, God freezes, bends over, and monkeys fly out of His ass?
In some alternate universe, there's a guy who is riding a bus, a thought pops into his head, "Pick a number between 1 and 100. Now, add 3. Now, divide by 13...". 99% of the time, he does the problem in his head, 79% of the time he finishes it. 1% of the time, he says, "Screw it". 100% of the time, he wonders where the hell these things are coming from and decides to check himself into the nearest mental ward.
Quantum computing is screwing up someone's day.
I'm a GS-12, I just sneezed funny. It was one of those "choo choo choo choo CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE" kind of sneazes. My boss, a GS-14 has put me in for a merit increase, I've been given 25 days of basket leave, and my budget for my new project was just doubled. Quick figuring...yes, a million dollars. I thank you for your tax dollars.
Seriously, if I may, I understand the power of the PS3 and its specialized abilities, but couldn't this be accomplished using more traditional lash ups?
I guess what I'm asking, did someone start this out as a "gee, I've 150 extra PS3's that DHS turned over to us from a mob bust, what can we do with them" kind of a project? Did it snowball?
In this case: I am a former law enforcement officer.
Sorry for the confusion. Move along.
Wrong. First, speak to the article:
He did tweet. He tweeted twice.
Had he not tweeted, it still wasn't his responsibility. If the crowd needs to be dispersed, it is the responsibility of the police to notify people.
Oh, for the record:
IAAFLEO
During the Cold War, the most effective way of breaking through to the people behind the Iron Curtain was to keep our doors open (ahem, CUBA!) and allow them free access to the 'west'. Eventually, it snowballed, fences and walls came down. The so-called "People's Army" turned their guns from the people to the government, in some cases, or were just dropped, and the people tore down the blockades.
I'm torn on this. We want freedom. Does that mean we let the companies have freedom to do business with China and follow their rules? Or, should we demand that companies from the "free world" not contribute to the human rights problems of China, and others?
This is a huge problem. Many U.S. Government agencies have yet to move off of IE6. Especially the military. Mostly due to IT management contracts that require the gov't to pay for every little upgrade action. For a simple upgrade, one agency gets tagged per profile per month by the company that runs their IT. That same company has a policy of being 2 versions behind current. Meaning, it is actual policy to be running IE6, Office 2003, and XP/Server 2003. The approval process is so overtaken with red tape and time that most give up trying to get upgrades. One agency just recently removed NETSCAPE from their builds. NETSCAPE!
All it takes is a hostile government to set up a few magnet sites, get banner ads deployed, and bam, your U.S. Government has rampant infections. Is it any wonder we read, from time to time, about gov't employees being prohibited from going to certain sites?
Well, if Hell really is freezing over, does that mean Global Warming is a hoax?
Completely separate discussion.
In academia, it's "Publish or Perish". The creator of "GO!" did publish. But, the problem is, he is in the world of IT/CS, and in that world, it's "Market or Perish".
Google is marketing their language, they have a working system, compiler, etc. and it is generally available.
This guy did some work, but unless he has a company actively pushing it, then all he has is a thought experiment.
Now, if Google, took HIS work, extended it and called it their own, then they have a problem.
When I was a kid I knew a woman who invented the "Barbie" doll. She had drawings that dated a year before the drawings that Mattel used to prove their ownership (she's been on TV a few times). Mattel beat her to market, they won. (There was another woman that claimed she created Barbie, but the problem was she worked for Mattel, before leaving to create the doll.)
Ouch, how wrong you are. That was a much ballyhooed OBAMA initiative. Misguided. Actually, I think it became the primary example of misguided.
Just because this is Glenn Beck, and there is almost a syndrome about the Beck/Limbaugh/Fox hatred going on right, doesn't take away from the vile level to which some people stoop to personally destroy someone.
If this was: www.didmichelleobamagangbangacollegefootballteamandgetpregnant.org people would be furious with the decision that it was legal.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I do look for a certain level of intellectual honest on /. After all, this isn't the Huffington Post.
So if someone set up a similar site in your name it, you'd rest with the decision that it was parody and legal?