That's an excellent point, and the reason why there are software programs dedicated to manuscripts. A good system will provide for diffs and revision control. Which you can do outside the program, but it's probably better to have it integrated.
Word is a word processor, if you want to just get text into a computer, you've got better choices. Both vi and emacs would suffice. As would notepad, wordpad or any number of other text editors.
Word has for quite some time now been about WYSIWYG which involves a whole lot more than just getting text into a computer.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but ever since sometime in the mid 90s, a word processor has been used for page layout as well. Much of the complaining about Word is the failure to properly lay the pages out in a way that works between word processors.
Right now that's the way that it should be. Until there's real evidence to base the decision on, the status quo should remain. Now when the evidence is there to make a proper decision, that's the time to start talking about legalization. Do we just decriminalize and what is the age limit we want to put on it or do we retain the ban as jusified.
California lacks the authority to override a federal statute. Sure they can have their law enforcement officers look the other way, but that doesn't stop the DEA from doing something about it.
Given the budget problems that CA is having right now, I'd suggest that they would probably be better off focusing on that, than pot.
The only problem there, is that we don't really have the research on hand to make a reasonable decision. We know pretty reliably that crack, crystal meth and heroine, for instance, shouldn't be legalized because they can't be done responsibly. But we lack the necessary data on pot, coke and a lot of the newer "herbal" replacements.
The main reason why prohibition didn't work, and that tobacco has been so hard to eliminate is that it was allowed to gain a social acceptance before the information was in.
Changing the legal status really requires a certain amount of research to make such decisions. If it weren't for the violence that ensued last time, alcohol probably ought to be banned on the basis of the amount of death and misery it cause. If it were restricted to the user, that would probably be different.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that pot users, and really drug users in general, are people that are comfortable subsidizing the crimes against humanity being committed in Mexico and other regions with drug related violence.
I'm not sure I really understand why it is that this makes the prohibitionists bad and the users good. Strikes me that perhaps it's a little more equal in nature.
You might have a point, if the research on pot was completed. At this point, the idea that it's harmless is naive to say the least, it does have an impact on the rest of society, and we just don't know how bad yet.
It might be limited to lack of efficiency due to sleep problems, or it could be more serious problems like increased rates of mental illness. It's naive to say the least to assume that because we haven't answered the question that the answer is minimal harm.
But, what you fail to recognize is that what makes something a criminal act is legislative and judicial in nature. It isn't the same thing as saying that it should be, just that it is.
That's probably because conservatives in the US are fascists. It's beyond puerile to get upset about being called out on it. Xenophobia, check. Fear mongering, check. Corporatism, check. Ultra-nationalism, check. Obsession with stomping out socialism, that's a big check. Relying heavily upon tribalism, check. Using the aforementioned to get people to vote against their own self interest, check.
Seems to me that if conservatives are going to whine about being called fascist, that it might make sense to adopt a platform that differs in some significant and substantial way from the prototypical fascism one. But then again, if you're even making that complaint you're not going to admit that you're full of it.
If by showbiz types you mean most people in the movie going public, then yes. Showbiz types like certain endings, because they test well in focus groups, and people go to see them. In this day and age, I doubt very much that Casablanca would've been made. Same goes for Shakespeare, if he hadn't long ago earned his reputation.
I mean, just look at the Disneyfied versions of old tales. They frequently change the ending to something more upbeat so that people will want to go.
That depends upon how they set it up. More likely they're storing the actual record information for the person in that DB with the location data for the person's record in a separate DB. The reason I say that is that, space issues aside, a DB being run like you suggest would be slower than hell, and be a PITA to keep optimized.
Whereas you'd have plenty of room to store the data if the person has their own DB for the location. You'd have something like 68 years to work with. That's fairly close to an entire lifetime.
You got that backwards. They went from signed to unsigned, giving them roughly double the space. But, what they're going to have to do is remove old records from the primary database, and put them into a secondary one after they're no longer tracking them. Because at the very least, it slows things down and increases the likelihood that a server crash will lead to a prolonged outage of service.
Therein lies the problem, the BIAW was just fined a half million dollars for campaign finance violations in an election which, IIRC, was in 2008, making it a worthwhile gamble to try and weasel around the requirements.
Because that's illegal under the same provision. It's just as illegal as if you misrepresent the material as belonging to you, whether you pretend it belongs to you, or you pretend to represent whomever it is that owns the material.
Sure you can. Depending upon the state there's something as "willful" violations of various laws. For instance here in WA, if you're setting up traffic control devices and you can't tell the inspector why you're not in compliance, that's a willful violation right there. As opposed to if you tell them the rational, then they'll either go along with it or issue you a much smaller fine. Probably even let you fix the problem without being cited.
I don't see any reason why that couldn't or shouldn't be done in other areas, like campaign advertisements.
That was just what I was thinking. Perhaps we need to rethink the notion that fixed sums of money are representative of equality rather than fixed percentages of ones income.
Indeed, and by the time they actually get to court, the campaign has been over for some time. Which has been a problem around here. The BIAW has been violating campaign finance laws in WA state for some time, but by the time they get to the point where there being fined, it's an off year for elections and the people forget about it by the next election cycle.
It's primarily an issue of cost. The technology has been there for some time, it's just a matter of figuring out how to do it cost effectively. The driver's head doesn't move that much during the course of driving, I suspect the way they'd do that would be similar to the rear view mirror.
I think that if this technology is considered OK for military pilots, I think that it's OK for people driving. But it all depends upon what it's used for and what's permitted. Having it show navigation information and possibly highlight signs for you would probably increase safety significantly.
And I'm sure that in the future they'll have it so that it highlights the lane markets and gives you an indication where you are in the lane.
Beyond that, I think that when they figure out how to have it tell you how far away the next car is and possibly the one behind you as well, that definitely will save lives.
As opposed to now, when the actual answer is drugs, mental illness or weather balloon? Seriously, considering that the UFO phenomenon was purely a cover for balloons used to spy on the USSR back before satellites could, it's amazing how long this paranoia has gone on for.
That wouldn't be smart. If he did that, he'd probably get taken to court for slander, and if he didn't have evidence that the individual said that, he could very easily lose. Given the content of the quote, I rather suspect that the individual wouldn't have the scruples to look the other way if it is an accurate quote.
Or, better yet, call 911 and report a suspicious device attached to your car. Given what I saw in the picture, that would've been my first step. The device itself isn't easily distinguishable from a bomb. It's clearly got at least 3 of the components necessary, and I personally wouldn't go screwing around with something that has that many components without a robot to do it for me.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an excellent point, and the reason why there are software programs dedicated to manuscripts. A good system will provide for diffs and revision control. Which you can do outside the program, but it's probably better to have it integrated.
Word is a word processor, if you want to just get text into a computer, you've got better choices. Both vi and emacs would suffice. As would notepad, wordpad or any number of other text editors.
Word has for quite some time now been about WYSIWYG which involves a whole lot more than just getting text into a computer.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but ever since sometime in the mid 90s, a word processor has been used for page layout as well. Much of the complaining about Word is the failure to properly lay the pages out in a way that works between word processors.
Right now that's the way that it should be. Until there's real evidence to base the decision on, the status quo should remain. Now when the evidence is there to make a proper decision, that's the time to start talking about legalization. Do we just decriminalize and what is the age limit we want to put on it or do we retain the ban as jusified.
California lacks the authority to override a federal statute. Sure they can have their law enforcement officers look the other way, but that doesn't stop the DEA from doing something about it.
Given the budget problems that CA is having right now, I'd suggest that they would probably be better off focusing on that, than pot.
The only problem there, is that we don't really have the research on hand to make a reasonable decision. We know pretty reliably that crack, crystal meth and heroine, for instance, shouldn't be legalized because they can't be done responsibly. But we lack the necessary data on pot, coke and a lot of the newer "herbal" replacements.
The main reason why prohibition didn't work, and that tobacco has been so hard to eliminate is that it was allowed to gain a social acceptance before the information was in.
Changing the legal status really requires a certain amount of research to make such decisions. If it weren't for the violence that ensued last time, alcohol probably ought to be banned on the basis of the amount of death and misery it cause. If it were restricted to the user, that would probably be different.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that pot users, and really drug users in general, are people that are comfortable subsidizing the crimes against humanity being committed in Mexico and other regions with drug related violence.
I'm not sure I really understand why it is that this makes the prohibitionists bad and the users good. Strikes me that perhaps it's a little more equal in nature.
You might have a point, if the research on pot was completed. At this point, the idea that it's harmless is naive to say the least, it does have an impact on the rest of society, and we just don't know how bad yet.
It might be limited to lack of efficiency due to sleep problems, or it could be more serious problems like increased rates of mental illness. It's naive to say the least to assume that because we haven't answered the question that the answer is minimal harm.
But, what you fail to recognize is that what makes something a criminal act is legislative and judicial in nature. It isn't the same thing as saying that it should be, just that it is.
That's probably because conservatives in the US are fascists. It's beyond puerile to get upset about being called out on it. Xenophobia, check. Fear mongering, check. Corporatism, check. Ultra-nationalism, check. Obsession with stomping out socialism, that's a big check. Relying heavily upon tribalism, check. Using the aforementioned to get people to vote against their own self interest, check.
Seems to me that if conservatives are going to whine about being called fascist, that it might make sense to adopt a platform that differs in some significant and substantial way from the prototypical fascism one. But then again, if you're even making that complaint you're not going to admit that you're full of it.
Probably because "Philip K Dic" is particularly hard to spell.
If by showbiz types you mean most people in the movie going public, then yes. Showbiz types like certain endings, because they test well in focus groups, and people go to see them. In this day and age, I doubt very much that Casablanca would've been made. Same goes for Shakespeare, if he hadn't long ago earned his reputation.
I mean, just look at the Disneyfied versions of old tales. They frequently change the ending to something more upbeat so that people will want to go.
Homer? Didn't they only make 1 Simpsons movie?
That depends upon how they set it up. More likely they're storing the actual record information for the person in that DB with the location data for the person's record in a separate DB. The reason I say that is that, space issues aside, a DB being run like you suggest would be slower than hell, and be a PITA to keep optimized.
Whereas you'd have plenty of room to store the data if the person has their own DB for the location. You'd have something like 68 years to work with. That's fairly close to an entire lifetime.
You got that backwards. They went from signed to unsigned, giving them roughly double the space. But, what they're going to have to do is remove old records from the primary database, and put them into a secondary one after they're no longer tracking them. Because at the very least, it slows things down and increases the likelihood that a server crash will lead to a prolonged outage of service.
ONCE AND FOR ALL
Therein lies the problem, the BIAW was just fined a half million dollars for campaign finance violations in an election which, IIRC, was in 2008, making it a worthwhile gamble to try and weasel around the requirements.
Because that's illegal under the same provision. It's just as illegal as if you misrepresent the material as belonging to you, whether you pretend it belongs to you, or you pretend to represent whomever it is that owns the material.
Sure you can. Depending upon the state there's something as "willful" violations of various laws. For instance here in WA, if you're setting up traffic control devices and you can't tell the inspector why you're not in compliance, that's a willful violation right there. As opposed to if you tell them the rational, then they'll either go along with it or issue you a much smaller fine. Probably even let you fix the problem without being cited.
I don't see any reason why that couldn't or shouldn't be done in other areas, like campaign advertisements.
That was just what I was thinking. Perhaps we need to rethink the notion that fixed sums of money are representative of equality rather than fixed percentages of ones income.
Indeed, and by the time they actually get to court, the campaign has been over for some time. Which has been a problem around here. The BIAW has been violating campaign finance laws in WA state for some time, but by the time they get to the point where there being fined, it's an off year for elections and the people forget about it by the next election cycle.
Just a thought, you'd probably be better off getting one which talks to you. And only looking at it while parked or at a red light to adjust it.
It's primarily an issue of cost. The technology has been there for some time, it's just a matter of figuring out how to do it cost effectively. The driver's head doesn't move that much during the course of driving, I suspect the way they'd do that would be similar to the rear view mirror.
I think that if this technology is considered OK for military pilots, I think that it's OK for people driving. But it all depends upon what it's used for and what's permitted. Having it show navigation information and possibly highlight signs for you would probably increase safety significantly.
And I'm sure that in the future they'll have it so that it highlights the lane markets and gives you an indication where you are in the lane.
Beyond that, I think that when they figure out how to have it tell you how far away the next car is and possibly the one behind you as well, that definitely will save lives.
As opposed to now, when the actual answer is drugs, mental illness or weather balloon? Seriously, considering that the UFO phenomenon was purely a cover for balloons used to spy on the USSR back before satellites could, it's amazing how long this paranoia has gone on for.
That wouldn't be smart. If he did that, he'd probably get taken to court for slander, and if he didn't have evidence that the individual said that, he could very easily lose. Given the content of the quote, I rather suspect that the individual wouldn't have the scruples to look the other way if it is an accurate quote.
Or, better yet, call 911 and report a suspicious device attached to your car. Given what I saw in the picture, that would've been my first step. The device itself isn't easily distinguishable from a bomb. It's clearly got at least 3 of the components necessary, and I personally wouldn't go screwing around with something that has that many components without a robot to do it for me.