My (perhaps weak) analogy is that while it is possible for a human to swim the english channel unaided, it is wiser to use technology to allow the feat to be easier, safer and better in general.
Right.
Like flippers and a rudimentary floatation device? A rubber dinghy? Rowboat? Cruise ship? Chunnel? or do we wait until we perfect Teleportation?
Of course we should use technology; the question is how much. We should go to mars as soon as we have enough technology to have a high liklihood of pulling it off successfully.
So we let in a bunch of mice so we got a cat, then we got a dog to get rid of the cat, but then we got a lion to get rid of the dog, but then we got an elephant to get rid of the lion, then we got a mouse to get rid of the elephant...
You just have to set it up right:
Skinner: ahh, but as it turns out the lizards where a god send since they've eaten all the pigeons. Lisa: Isn't that a little short sighted, what happens when where up to our ears with lizards? Skinner: Ah, well we shall simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. Lisa: then what about the snakes? Skinner: We simply import gorillas who will eat all the snakes. Lisa: Well what happens when where up to our ears in gorilla's! Skinner: Ah that's the beauty of the thing, come winter the gorillas will freeze to death.
These products all have very large commercial contributors and are all fine examples of openness.
Yes. Its absolutely true that not every commercial led OSS project takes this path. But its not as rare as all that... here are examples of major projects that are taking this path to some degree or other:
Scalix, Zimbra, VMware, Amanda Backup, MySQL
Its not that I object to companies creating proprietary extensions or enhancements to OSS software, ESPECIALLY given that in many cases they are the ones who created the software and then open sourced it.
But at the same time, the community is seriously stifled in terms of making enhancements to the OSS software to give it the desirable features of the proprietary enhancements. So 'yes' its open source, but the promise of open source isn't really being fulfilled, where OSS is more a marketing ploy than an invitation to modify the source and add features.
What they're really looking for is token ring - which was (and still is) a superior protocol - for Ethernet, as you increase the bandwidth utilization beyond 10%, you get so many collisions that your throughput goes through the floor, while for token ring, the throughput degradation is much more gradual. For bandwidth utilization above 10%, token ring is far superior to Ethernet.
That was true in hub based networks, but hasn't been true for a long time in switch based networks.
Why Ethernet was adopted over token ring has more to do with religious issues and who can scream the loudest and bully their way through technical issues with emotion than it has to do with technical superiority.
Ethernet was adopted because it was significantly cheaper, far simpler to set up, and most networks are low utilization. And the arrival of full duplex switches has made ethernet nearly as good as token ring.
Collisions occur when there are more than one sender on a collision domain, they don't have to be sending to the same host. Imagine you have four computers on a hub. Computer A sends a message to B while C simultaneously sends a message to D -- this is a collision.
We are really just talking about how collisions occur on a switch. Technically, they CAN'T occur on a full duplex switched network. The collision domain is the switch port and the PC port, and both can talk at once (full duplex).
Hypothetically though, if you set aside buffering, a 'collision like' conflict occurs when multiple PCs try to talk to a single port, except that one gets through and the rest are 'blocked' which is what I was trying to say. Of course, due to buffering, this is 'handled' and the conflict is actually pushed back to when the buffer overflows instead.
And yes, switches do have outbound buffers for each port so that if two sources try to send to the same host they can be done in sequence rather than causing an outbound collision on the destination port's collision domain. I am not sure what happens if this buffer becomes full, I had always assumed the switch would just begin dropping the packets (as indicated by this Cisco document).
Dropping packets is one option. The other is to use 'back pressure' to signal to the PC to back off a bit. This can be done by sending 'fake collisions' or via 802.3x Flow Control 'pause' signals. Many switches support these modes including those from intel and cisco.
Its often better to just dropping the packets and let tcp deal with it, but in some cases you can get better performance by using flow control/back pressure features.
Earth to Slashdot... this is how almost every major OSS project runs; people who pay for developers [such as me] will get the features they want.
No. There is a big difference.
Typically when a commercial entity leads development of OSS where they have a propriety solution that enhances it, they PREVENT those key proprietary feature from EVER being added to the free version. Thus the ONLY way to get it to use their paid version.
Even if the community WANTS the feature in the free version, and volunteer developers are willing to build it, the commercial entity prevents it from happening. Refusing those patches, playing politics, and so on.
Of course the OSS community can always fork the project... but then they lose out on all the good things the commercial entity IS feeding into the development, and you get all the other community fragmentation issues that go along with forking too... there is no win-win.
No. Switches don't notify the source that the packet was dropped. TCP's retransmit works without explicit notification.
Some switches report port buffer overflow as a collision.
Consider dropping a packet destined for a remote system with high latency. The RTT time used to tune TCP retransmits might be several thousand milliseconds. Where if the switch reports that it dropped the packet the CSMA/CD retransmit time would be MUCH shorter.
Clearly if the congestion issues are transient and temporary and the latency is high you can achieve much better overall performance by signaling for retransmits at the ethernet level, rather than relying on TCP retransmits.
It also can boost the reliability of connectionless protocols like UDP.
Ahh thank you. I don't know that much with regards to networking, but I would imagine well before this standards issue haven't there been many forms of this already implemented, say as routing ethernet connections to switches? I mean only one true "Sender" is on each ethernet line, right?
Wrong.
Collisions still occur when multiple computers try to talk to a single computer at once. Of course this is an extremely common scenario in a typical client-server network. However, with a switch at least one packet always gets through.
So technically you could argue that there was not really a "collision" but the computer that didn't get its packet through is still told there was one so that it retransmits.
And to further complicate things, switches generally have buffers and can hold multiple packets bound for the same port, and transmit them in sequence rather than reporting 'collisions'. But the buffers can fill (especially if a lot of clients are hitting the same server at once), and then the switch has to start reporting 'collisions' again.
Government requests be damned! Verizon charges everybody 10 bucks / month for GPS tracking; even the new debt clock can't handle that much!
Verizon charges you 10 bucks to tell you where you are. But they surely collect that information regardless of whether you purchase access to it. Meanwhile its still available to -them- to be handed over to government, data-mined, and otherwise sold to advertisers.
I'm sure there is all sorts of information you can determine from data-mining cellular gps data... what percentage of church goers visit mcdonalds vs burger king after service... how many different restaurants the user visits in an average month... what percentage of those meals were lunch vs dinner... the correlation between their rate plan and their restaurant choices...
It may be optional, but it is marked as a critical update that would then get installed automatically on most systems.
There is a world of difference between buying an android phone with a 'kill switch' you can't turn off, and buying an android phone with a 'kill switch utility' that is on by default, but which can be easily turned off if you don't want it.
As for windows, they don't force the malware removal tool on anyone. Sure if you enable automatic updates (which is both OPTIONAL and OFF by default) you'll start getting it, but I disagree that you can equate that to a remote kill switch.
By that logic, your antivirus software is a remote kill switch too. Sure on some level yes, you are giving control to a 3rd party to restrict what runs on your machine... but antivirus, like windows update, and UNLIKE android's kill switch is an OPT-IN program that you can turn off at any time.
The android kill switch on the other hand, is on by default, and can't be turned off. There is no valid comparison.
An optional tool. Not only do you not have to use it, but not using it doesn't prevent you from using anything else (e.g. you are not blocked from anything on your PC, on the internet, or even from install other items from windows update.)
In some ways it'd be stupid not to include a kill switch.
Ah. So you think Microsoft should include it in Windows update?
Or perhaps it should be a feature of the Debian or Ubuntu repositories so the distro maintainer can blacklist an app, and anyone who previously installed it via apt-get can have it forcibly removed on them? And its ok, because you can always just download the tar.gz or perhaps even compile it from source yourself?
So, yeah, it'd be be stupid not to include a kill switch, right?... So why haven't we done it yet? The increasing power of computers means we'll be soon seeing rogue applications on linux...
Hmmm...
Bottom line, the kill switch on android is just as bad as the one Apple has. Android may have an advantage in being able to load apps through other mechanisms that aren't subject to the switch, but that's a separate issue that really has no bearing on this conversation.
The death penalty is a power too big for government to hold, but under no cases can it be even remotely defined as "murder".
Unless its another country doing it? That was sort of my point.
When Pakistan or Afghanistan or other $evil governments do it we (or at least our media) call it murder without hesitation. What is the fundamental difference when we do it?
We've freed some dozen death row inmates in the recent past due to -volunteer- efforts to exonerate them... the 'system' failed. If we execute an innocent man, how is that anything but murder? Especially when it comes out that the police deliberately buried the evidence on men they knew were innocent?
Not to mention the secret prisons, torture, suspension of habeus corpus and so on we've got going on...
Or our handling of Saddam Hussein. We deliberately set him up to get executed by having him tried in that kangaroo court in Iraq. Had he been tried here, he'd still be alive, perhaps on death row, but there is no way he'd have gone from captured to executed as quickly here.
Or we could talk about the Salem witch trials...
My point isn't to say that death row in the US is the equivalent of a serial killer. Its categorically not the same.
But the veneer of civilization and due process and fail safes that are supposed to ensure that it isn't is not as solid as we like to pretend.
my responsibility is not to go out in a blaze of ineffective glory, but to do my best to make things better.
Ah. So Tibet and Taiwan should should just peacefully and quietly cede to China instead of resisting? Georgia should have just peacefully ceded to Russia? And I guess Palestine to Israel? When Iraq invaded Kuwait they shouldn't have resisted either? When Germany attacked its neighbors they should have just rolled over?
Get real.
Even the French, whom its popular to mock as a surrendering nation, is famous for its resistance efforts after 'surrendering' to germany.
If there is a military coup in this country, or we abandon democracy and go to martial law
You were right, right up until the "leave" part. Where the hell would you go would be the first thing on many's minds. The second would be executions if you tried to pass a border, most likely.
The invading force leaves, because it has not stake in being there, not the residents.
What do you think would be written if it had been their unmanned drone and our children?
And as for this:
"10/13/2008 Pakistan Murid Wal 1 0 A young man is forced by honor to kill his mother when she refuses to break off an 'illicit' relationship."
Gee that sounds awful.. but doesn't REALLY sound much different than this:
"An 18 year old boy, Sean Powell, was shot to death in his car outside the home of the married teacher he had been having an affair with. Local police have arrested the woman's husband, Eric Mclean, in the shooting."
Same motivation, Same result, same difference. Oh wait... you mean to say it was a state sanctioned murder? gotcha...luckily we have those too...
"Kevin Watts, 27, was pronounced dead on Thursday at 6:17 pm Texas time (2317 GMT), spokeswoman Michelle Lyons told AFP.
It was Texas' tenth execution since the start of the year, and the second execution to take place this week. Ten more inmates are scheduled to be killed in Texas by the end of November."
Granted we don't do it for adultry... but on the other hand, we don't exactly have the best track record for even properly ensuring our victims are guilty...
Plus they have the religeous fanaticism to stand against an overwhelming force that gives them the totally false hope of defeating us. Any sane group would have given up.
If they had invaded your country with an overwhelming force, would you have given up?
It doesn't take religious fanaticism to relentlessly resist an unwanted invader; a strong sense of principles and willingness to fight for them is all it takes. These traits are in ample supply in populations throughout the world.
Plus they don't have to "defeat you" they just have to sap your will to fight, and your homelands will to fund the fight for perpetuity. Since you have no real stake in being there; you WILL eventually be worn down; you WILL eventually leave.
Please link to some news stories of Christian suicide bombings.
1) Christians have one-upped suicide bombings. We have the "proxy bomb" which are even worse.
That's where Christians(*) kidnapped an innocent family and then coerced the father to drive a car bomb into a target to save his hostage family.
Not only does it have all the terror of being bombed, but now you have the added terror of having your family kidnapped and being coerced into doing the bombing yourself.
2) Christian tenets, even extreme fundamentalist ones, don't put suicide on a pedestal as a path to glory in heaven, so there aren't many Christian suicide bombers. But there are LOTs of regular bombers who place the bomb and then leave... I fail to see how that is morally or ethically any better? In some respects its actually worse... a Christian bomber lives to bomb again, and again, and again.
(*) Proxy bombs were used by the IRA in the 90's for a short time. The IRA was predominantly Catholic, but also had many Protestant members -- either of course qualify as Christians.
so aside from the chassis they're two completely different machines. i'm sure the Elise handles much better, but the Tesla Roadster is more of a luxury sports car.
Try sitting in one. There is nothing you can do to an Elise that will make it a "luxury sports car".:)
Not that I'm complaining, I love the elise, but the entry/exit characteristics, seat position, and legroom situation ensure that 'luxury' is not an adjective that should be applied.
its got crazy performance and handling, and its insanely fun... but adding power windows and air conditioning isn't going to make this a luxury car.
FireWire 800 is even better than FireWire 400 for most anything and it is backward compatible.
But FW800 wasn't on the macbooks so it really isn't an issue.
Seems like it would just be a lot cheaper to just add a FireWire CardBus 54 (PCIe) notebook controller card?
Too bad the Macbook doesn't have an expresscard 54; nor an expresscard 34 for that matter.
For me the big loss with firewire is the ability to boot in firewire target mode. Do you have any idea how handy it is to just boot your computer up as an external hard drive for another unit. Makes all kinds of stuff completely painless.
I also prefer firewire to usb2 for external drives, although I've always bought dual or even tri mode (eSata) enclosures because I value being able to use fw/esata where available, and being able to fall back to usb when its not.
The macbook not having a fw port isn't a deal breaker for me, but seriously, it would have added less than $2 bucks to the cost; there is really no good reason for it not to be there.
Please, except for Nimoy, all actors in Star Trek TOS were just plain bad actors.
Nobody said Shatner was a good actor. But he IS Captain Kirk.
They could choose anyone at random from the street and there's a high chance he would still do a better job than Shatner.
At being a space captain, sure, even Kevin Sorbo who is painfully bad was about as good at it as Shatner. But only a truly great actor would be able to convincingly play "William Shatner playing Captain Kirk" without having the whole thing degenerate into a complete farce.
You cant do that because FF != F^2 since the first F is for Fire and the second is for Fox.
You can't have two variables bound to different values within the same scope, given we have from the OP that FF3 x 5 = IE8, we can assume for all F in the equation: F=F.
I suppose you could argue that implies Fire = Fox as a corollary.:)
Slashdot Mirror
My (perhaps weak) analogy is that while it is possible for a human to swim the english channel unaided, it is wiser to use technology to allow the feat to be easier, safer and better in general.
Right.
Like flippers and a rudimentary floatation device?
A rubber dinghy?
Rowboat?
Cruise ship?
Chunnel?
or do we wait until we perfect Teleportation?
Of course we should use technology; the question is how much. We should go to mars as soon as we have enough technology to have a high liklihood of pulling it off successfully.
So we let in a bunch of mice so we got a cat, then we got a dog to get rid of the cat, but then we got a lion to get rid of the dog, but then we got an elephant to get rid of the lion, then we got a mouse to get rid of the elephant...
You just have to set it up right:
Skinner: ahh, but as it turns out the lizards where a god send since they've eaten all the pigeons.
Lisa: Isn't that a little short sighted, what happens when where up to our ears with lizards?
Skinner: Ah, well we shall simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes.
Lisa: then what about the snakes?
Skinner: We simply import gorillas who will eat all the snakes.
Lisa: Well what happens when where up to our ears in gorilla's!
Skinner: Ah that's the beauty of the thing, come winter the gorillas will freeze to death.
These products all have very large commercial contributors and are all fine examples of openness.
Yes. Its absolutely true that not every commercial led OSS project takes this path. But its not as rare as all that... here are examples of major projects that are taking this path to some degree or other:
Scalix, Zimbra, VMware, Amanda Backup, MySQL
Its not that I object to companies creating proprietary extensions or enhancements to OSS software, ESPECIALLY given that in many cases they are the ones who created the software and then open sourced it.
But at the same time, the community is seriously stifled in terms of making enhancements to the OSS software to give it the desirable features of the proprietary enhancements. So 'yes' its open source, but the promise of open source isn't really being fulfilled, where OSS is more a marketing ploy than an invitation to modify the source and add features.
What they're really looking for is token ring - which was (and still is) a superior protocol - for Ethernet, as you increase the bandwidth utilization beyond 10%, you get so many collisions that your throughput goes through the floor, while for token ring, the throughput degradation is much more gradual. For bandwidth utilization above 10%, token ring is far superior to Ethernet.
That was true in hub based networks, but hasn't been true for a long time in switch based networks.
Why Ethernet was adopted over token ring has more to do with religious issues and who can scream the loudest and bully their way through technical issues with emotion than it has to do with technical superiority.
Ethernet was adopted because it was significantly cheaper, far simpler to set up, and most networks are low utilization. And the arrival of full duplex switches has made ethernet nearly as good as token ring.
Collisions occur when there are more than one sender on a collision domain, they don't have to be sending to the same host. Imagine you have four computers on a hub. Computer A sends a message to B while C simultaneously sends a message to D -- this is a collision.
We are really just talking about how collisions occur on a switch. Technically, they CAN'T occur on a full duplex switched network. The collision domain is the switch port and the PC port, and both can talk at once (full duplex).
Hypothetically though, if you set aside buffering, a 'collision like' conflict occurs when multiple PCs try to talk to a single port, except that one gets through and the rest are 'blocked' which is what I was trying to say. Of course, due to buffering, this is 'handled' and the conflict is actually pushed back to when the buffer overflows instead.
And yes, switches do have outbound buffers for each port so that if two sources try to send to the same host they can be done in sequence rather than causing an outbound collision on the destination port's collision domain. I am not sure what happens if this buffer becomes full, I had always assumed the switch would just begin dropping the packets (as indicated by this Cisco document).
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/backpressure.html
Dropping packets is one option. The other is to use 'back pressure' to signal to the PC to back off a bit. This can be done by sending 'fake collisions' or via 802.3x Flow Control 'pause' signals. Many switches support these modes including those from intel and cisco.
Its often better to just dropping the packets and let tcp deal with it, but in some cases you can get better performance by using flow control/back pressure features.
Earth to Slashdot... this is how almost every major OSS project runs; people who pay for developers [such as me] will get the features they want.
No. There is a big difference.
Typically when a commercial entity leads development of OSS where they have a propriety solution that enhances it, they PREVENT those key proprietary feature from EVER being added to the free version. Thus the ONLY way to get it to use their paid version.
Even if the community WANTS the feature in the free version, and volunteer developers are willing to build it, the commercial entity prevents it from happening. Refusing those patches, playing politics, and so on.
Of course the OSS community can always fork the project... but then they lose out on all the good things the commercial entity IS feeding into the development, and you get all the other community fragmentation issues that go along with forking too... there is no win-win.
No. Switches don't notify the source that the packet was dropped. TCP's retransmit works without explicit notification.
Some switches report port buffer overflow as a collision.
Consider dropping a packet destined for a remote system with high latency. The RTT time used to tune TCP retransmits might be several thousand milliseconds. Where if the switch reports that it dropped the packet the CSMA/CD retransmit time would be MUCH shorter.
Clearly if the congestion issues are transient and temporary and the latency is high you can achieve much better overall performance by signaling for retransmits at the ethernet level, rather than relying on TCP retransmits.
It also can boost the reliability of connectionless protocols like UDP.
Ahh thank you. I don't know that much with regards to networking, but I would imagine well before this standards issue haven't there been many forms of this already implemented, say as routing ethernet connections to switches? I mean only one true "Sender" is on each ethernet line, right?
Wrong.
Collisions still occur when multiple computers try to talk to a single computer at once. Of course this is an extremely common scenario in a typical client-server network. However, with a switch at least one packet always gets through.
So technically you could argue that there was not really a "collision" but the computer that didn't get its packet through is still told there was one so that it retransmits.
And to further complicate things, switches generally have buffers and can hold multiple packets bound for the same port, and transmit them in sequence rather than reporting 'collisions'. But the buffers can fill (especially if a lot of clients are hitting the same server at once), and then the switch has to start reporting 'collisions' again.
Government requests be damned! Verizon charges everybody 10 bucks / month for GPS tracking; even the new debt clock can't handle that much!
Verizon charges you 10 bucks to tell you where you are. But they surely collect that information regardless of whether you purchase access to it. Meanwhile its still available to -them- to be handed over to government, data-mined, and otherwise sold to advertisers.
I'm sure there is all sorts of information you can determine from data-mining cellular gps data... what percentage of church goers visit mcdonalds vs burger king after service... how many different restaurants the user visits in an average month... what percentage of those meals were lunch vs dinner... the correlation between their rate plan and their restaurant choices...
It may be optional, but it is marked as a critical update that would then get installed automatically on most systems.
There is a world of difference between buying an android phone with a 'kill switch' you can't turn off, and buying an android phone with a 'kill switch utility' that is on by default, but which can be easily turned off if you don't want it.
As for windows, they don't force the malware removal tool on anyone. Sure if you enable automatic updates (which is both OPTIONAL and OFF by default) you'll start getting it, but I disagree that you can equate that to a remote kill switch.
By that logic, your antivirus software is a remote kill switch too. Sure on some level yes, you are giving control to a 3rd party to restrict what runs on your machine... but antivirus, like windows update, and UNLIKE android's kill switch is an OPT-IN program that you can turn off at any time.
The android kill switch on the other hand, is on by default, and can't be turned off. There is no valid comparison.
So what exactly do you think this is?
An optional tool. Not only do you not have to use it, but not using it doesn't prevent you from using anything else (e.g. you are not blocked from anything on your PC, on the internet, or even from install other items from windows update.)
That "optional" makes all the difference.
In some ways it'd be stupid not to include a kill switch.
Ah. So you think Microsoft should include it in Windows update?
Or perhaps it should be a feature of the Debian or Ubuntu repositories so the distro maintainer can blacklist an app, and anyone who previously installed it via apt-get can have it forcibly removed on them? And its ok, because you can always just download the tar.gz or perhaps even compile it from source yourself?
So, yeah, it'd be be stupid not to include a kill switch, right?... So why haven't we done it yet? The increasing power of computers means we'll be soon seeing rogue applications on linux...
Hmmm...
Bottom line, the kill switch on android is just as bad as the one Apple has. Android may have an advantage in being able to load apps through other mechanisms that aren't subject to the switch, but that's a separate issue that really has no bearing on this conversation.
It takes time to get full control of your dream world, but it can be done bit by bit. And if you are the imaginative type, it can be quite rewarding.
You can even play WoW without a monthly fee... playing both sides on one server, without gold farmer spam.
The death penalty is a power too big for government to hold, but under no cases can it be even remotely defined as "murder".
Unless its another country doing it? That was sort of my point.
When Pakistan or Afghanistan or other $evil governments do it we (or at least our media) call it murder without hesitation. What is the fundamental difference when we do it?
We've freed some dozen death row inmates in the recent past due to -volunteer- efforts to exonerate them... the 'system' failed. If we execute an innocent man, how is that anything but murder? Especially when it comes out that the police deliberately buried the evidence on men they knew were innocent?
Not to mention the secret prisons, torture, suspension of habeus corpus and so on we've got going on...
Or our handling of Saddam Hussein. We deliberately set him up to get executed by having him tried in that kangaroo court in Iraq. Had he been tried here, he'd still be alive, perhaps on death row, but there is no way he'd have gone from captured to executed as quickly here.
Or we could talk about the Salem witch trials...
My point isn't to say that death row in the US is the equivalent of a serial killer. Its categorically not the same.
But the veneer of civilization and due process and fail safes that are supposed to ensure that it isn't is not as solid as we like to pretend.
my responsibility is not to go out in a blaze of ineffective glory, but to do my best to make things better.
Ah. So Tibet and Taiwan should should just peacefully and quietly cede to China instead of resisting? Georgia should have just peacefully ceded to Russia? And I guess Palestine to Israel? When Iraq invaded Kuwait they shouldn't have resisted either? When Germany attacked its neighbors they should have just rolled over?
Get real.
Even the French, whom its popular to mock as a surrendering nation, is famous for its resistance efforts after 'surrendering' to germany.
If there is a military coup in this country, or we abandon democracy and go to martial law
That is really a completely different topic.
You were right, right up until the "leave" part. Where the hell would you go would be the first thing on many's minds. The second would be executions if you tried to pass a border, most likely.
The invading force leaves, because it has not stake in being there, not the residents.
You seriously lack perspective. Look again...with an open mind...
In response to items like:
"10/15/2008 Afghanistan Lashkar Gah 6 0 Six local police are taken out in a brutal Taliban ambush on their checkpoint."
I suggest:
US strike kills 9 al Qaeda and Taliban in North Wazirstan
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/us_strike_kills_9_al.php
US kills 6 in strike in Baitullah Mehsud's territory
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/us_kills_6_in_strike.php
US Kills al Qaeda in Iraq's deputy commander
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/us_kills_6_in_strike.php
When we do it, its framed as a 'strike against $evil_people' not as an invasion force killing people in their homes, like when they fight back.
In response to something like:
"10/14/2008 Afghanistan Uruzgan 9 6 Two children are among nine civilians murdered when Taliban bombers target a minibus."
how about:
Unmanned US drone kills school children...
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php?sid=403793
What do you think would be written if it had been their unmanned drone and our children?
And as for this:
"10/13/2008 Pakistan Murid Wal 1 0 A young man is forced by honor to kill his mother when she refuses to break off an 'illicit' relationship."
Gee that sounds awful.. but doesn't REALLY sound much different than this:
"An 18 year old boy, Sean Powell, was shot to death in his car outside the home of the married teacher he had been having an affair with. Local police have arrested the woman's husband, Eric Mclean, in the shooting."
Same motivation, Same result, same difference. Oh wait... you mean to say it was a state sanctioned murder? gotcha...luckily we have those too...
"Kevin Watts, 27, was pronounced dead on Thursday at 6:17 pm Texas time (2317 GMT), spokeswoman Michelle Lyons told AFP.
It was Texas' tenth execution since the start of the year, and the second execution to take place this week. Ten more inmates are scheduled to be killed in Texas by the end of November."
Granted we don't do it for adultry... but on the other hand, we don't exactly have the best track record for even properly ensuring our victims are guilty...
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall97/deathpen.html
Plus they have the religeous fanaticism to stand against an overwhelming force that gives them the totally false hope of defeating us. Any sane group would have given up.
If they had invaded your country with an overwhelming force, would you have given up?
It doesn't take religious fanaticism to relentlessly resist an unwanted invader; a strong sense of principles and willingness to fight for them is all it takes. These traits are in ample supply in populations throughout the world.
Plus they don't have to "defeat you" they just have to sap your will to fight, and your homelands will to fund the fight for perpetuity. Since you have no real stake in being there; you WILL eventually be worn down; you WILL eventually leave.
Please link to some news stories of Christian suicide bombings.
1) Christians have one-upped suicide bombings. We have the "proxy bomb" which are even worse.
That's where Christians(*) kidnapped an innocent family and then coerced the father to drive a car bomb into a target to save his hostage family.
Not only does it have all the terror of being bombed, but now you have the added terror of having your family kidnapped and being coerced into doing the bombing yourself.
2) Christian tenets, even extreme fundamentalist ones, don't put suicide on a pedestal as a path to glory in heaven, so there aren't many Christian suicide bombers. But there are LOTs of regular bombers who place the bomb and then leave... I fail to see how that is morally or ethically any better? In some respects its actually worse... a Christian bomber lives to bomb again, and again, and again.
(*) Proxy bombs were used by the IRA in the 90's for a short time. The IRA was predominantly Catholic, but also had many Protestant members -- either of course qualify as Christians.
so aside from the chassis they're two completely different machines. i'm sure the Elise handles much better, but the Tesla Roadster is more of a luxury sports car.
Try sitting in one. There is nothing you can do to an Elise that will make it a "luxury sports car". :)
Not that I'm complaining, I love the elise, but the entry/exit characteristics, seat position, and legroom situation ensure that 'luxury' is not an adjective that should be applied.
its got crazy performance and handling, and its insanely fun... but adding power windows and air conditioning isn't going to make this a luxury car.
FireWire 800 is even better than FireWire 400 for most anything and it is backward compatible.
But FW800 wasn't on the macbooks so it really isn't an issue.
Seems like it would just be a lot cheaper to just add a FireWire CardBus 54 (PCIe) notebook controller card?
Too bad the Macbook doesn't have an expresscard 54; nor an expresscard 34 for that matter.
For me the big loss with firewire is the ability to boot in firewire target mode. Do you have any idea how handy it is to just boot your computer up as an external hard drive for another unit. Makes all kinds of stuff completely painless.
I also prefer firewire to usb2 for external drives, although I've always bought dual or even tri mode (eSata) enclosures because I value being able to use fw/esata where available, and being able to fall back to usb when its not.
The macbook not having a fw port isn't a deal breaker for me, but seriously, it would have added less than $2 bucks to the cost; there is really no good reason for it not to be there.
Please, except for Nimoy, all actors in Star Trek TOS were just plain bad actors.
Nobody said Shatner was a good actor. But he IS Captain Kirk.
They could choose anyone at random from the street and there's a high chance he would still do a better job than Shatner.
At being a space captain, sure, even Kevin Sorbo who is painfully bad was about as good at it as Shatner. But only a truly great actor would be able to convincingly play "William Shatner playing Captain Kirk" without having the whole thing degenerate into a complete farce.
You cant do that because FF != F^2 since the first F is for Fire and the second is for Fox.
You can't have two variables bound to different values within the same scope, given we have from the OP that FF3 x 5 = IE8, we can assume for all F in the equation: F=F.
I suppose you could argue that implies Fire = Fox as a corollary. :)
Clearly, there are better ways to keep you playing their game than charging you for things that should have been in the release.
Your mistake is thinking that EA wants you to happily play spore for years, unless there is a recurring revenue stream of course.
I'm intrigued, why does Google Calculator not agree?
A dumb mistake plus a typo. I forgot to actually multiply by e at the end when I evaluated it.
sqrt(8/15)*sqrt(1/sqrt(2)) = 0.516
sqrt(8e/15)*sqrt(1/sqrt(2)) = 0.851
The 2nd term also was off because of a parenthesis mismatch. It should have been:
sqrt(8e/15)(1/sqrt(2)) + (sqrt(8e/15)((1/sqrt(2))i))
which evaluates to:
0.851 + 0.851i
-cheers