I never had the Amiga but this was their fault (and I share some accountability). I had, and still have, a working PET and a VIC-20 (with several extra power supply bricks) but never went to the Amiga. See, the Amiga was mostly marketed as a game system. It was compared with the Atari of the day. At this time I was now needing something bigger (I thought) and something more business specific. I had an Apple at home, there were some in the lab at school as well, but I decided to take the plunge and go with Trash 80s. Commodore went out of business not too long after and I suppose I made the right choice at the time.
However, this is not really all that surprising, I mentioned that I still have a variety of working older computers. I keep them, some of them, setup in my basement. Old hardware is just as capable as it was when you purchased it. If your compute needs have not changed then they are still as suitable for the tasks they were originally used for.
As an aside, it is a bit amusing to see the RISC chip design returning to/gaining popularity in the consumer market.
At least your are consistent. So many complain when the US does and then complain when the US doesn't. You are, at least, willing to hold a position. I, personally, would prefer a more active and efficient UN.
You have all these complaints, enough to be foul about it, and yet still utilize their services. We are to believe that this, something in addition to all your woes, is the straw that breaks your proverbial camel's back? I do not believe you.
(there may be some modern-day humans still around, in something like a historical wildlife preserve.....those will be the children of people who can't let go of their familiar reference points in order to reach for something better. In order to fly, the bird must first release the branch.....you cowards who white-knuckle it can live in a zoo and fling poo at tourists).
What makes you think that we are not doing that now?
Umm... They do on mine? I get notices in the upper-right telling me about messages, I read those messages, and in those messages I get comments from the ACs. Otherwise I would never know when they replied and I would be unlikely to reply to them - and I do.
I will watch it when it is something like Predators with Hellfire Missiles. Note: This should be in video and out in the middle of nowhere - not in a stadium, though that would add some more amusement for spectators at home. Also we should be allowed to bet on it.
I have not been to Amsterdam in a very long time (the weed selection was not so good but I did buy some heroin off the street - it was very good) and my time there was short but I did get a long-winded verbal essay about the variations of canals (and the verbiage) in the area. Isn't what you are saying a lot like saying that a truck is not a vehicle? I was under the impression that they were all kanaals but that they were all different types. So, even with the word car, we can have sports car, compact car, station wagon, sedan, coupe, convertible, and more. (Anything less than a car analogy is no good.)
Any new car that I have purchased has had a manual transmission. You must, I have found, be willing to order it and wait for it. I have not found one on the lot that met my needs in many years.
It should have been hyphenated. However, we would have just joked about how you put the hyphen in the wrong spot and that it should be in between jerk and reaction.
Real programming is done in actual binary with a small magnet to manual flip the bits into ones and zeros on the disk itself. If you do not or can not do that then you should be restricted to the markup languages.
Marriage is not a civil right. I am not attempting to argue with you, really, but I am expanding on your statement(s) for some clarity and to opine on the subject. I actually agree with you but am a bit concerned that my reply may be misunderstood and the assumption made that I am taking an opposing view. This is not true. I may be taking an alternate view but it is not one that is in opposition to your statements. The topic is complex (to some) but I will attempt brevity, though I fear a novella... You have been warned.:-)
On civil rights; There have been numerous cases where marriage has been prohibited due to the mental disabilities on the part of one or both of the involved parties. I, personally, believe that the easiest way to get around the whole marriage debate is to simply prohibit government involvement with marriages. From the time such a law (civil unions) is enacted all further relationships of a permanent status will be contractually based. Currently marriage is not a civil right and I do not think that it has to be, specifically, if we want to achieve civil rights and equality status for all.
Concerning efficacy; I think that such unions can even involve needing active steps to continue after a certain time has passed, account for multiple partners, and include any other lawful stipulations. Those who wish to have a religious ceremony can have that ceremony performed at a willing church, or by the person(s), they feel most comfortable with. Churches would not be obligated to perform any such ceremonies nor would they be prohibited from engaging in such theatrical events. Any ceremony, or certificates/papers, from such a place would have no legal basis beyond the spoken word types of legal protections already creating binding contracts. Additionally, for legal protection, those engaging in matrimonial theater would likely be in a limbo state (and get no/little benefit) without having an actual legally binding civil union. We could go so far as to define those ceremonies as theater and disallow any further court action based on it. We can not even do 'for better or worse' and 'until death do us part' is almost laughable today.
Marriages from before the enacting of such legislation should be grandfathered and treated as contract law in the eyes of the court or for awarding any extra (if any) liberties. My thinking is that this would absolve the government from having any impact on the religious practice and that the removal of marriage, an antiquated idea - at best, would take away any (il)logical arguments against same-sex-marriages from the fundamentalists. They, the people they oppose, are not getting 'married,' but are signing legal contracts that have nothing to do with religion. Those wishing to engage in the marriage for ceremonial purposes are free to do so however they choose (lawful actions only, obviously) and nobody is forced to perform any ceremony that they do not wish to perform.
I am sure that there will still be some vocal, read: loud, complaints but they would have no legal justification to prevent or change anything. This would be an application of the law that actually provided for equal civil liberties. (The government can only take away freedoms, it can not give them. The government provides a mechanism to exchange liberties. Liberties and freedoms are very different things.) As I see it, the biggest problems with providing equality in marriage is the complaints of religious fundamentalists and the politicians who enable or encourage such.
A sort-of-TL;DR closure:
My only real complaint is the seeming implication (and that is my impression - I could EASILY be mistaken) that it is a civil right, the rest is just expanding on idea that this should be a civil right. As it is not currently enforced civilly (applying to all equally) it is not currently a civil right. We can argue that it *should* be but to state that it is (something you did not do), currently, would incorrect and this is not a mere technicality b
I drove/rode around the country at complete random (as much as is humanly possible, at any rate) the vast majority of the time. We would cross a state line and get off the nearest exit. Our spartan itinerary meant that we could do what we wanted for however long we wanted with regards to our lack of destination. Sometimes we would camp in a hotel for days and just explore an area that looked interesting. (For instance, Florida is a bit like a car wreck - you have to stare.) Anyhow, the appropriate site is http://www.dumblaws.com/ and you should always try to break at least one of those laws in every state that you go through.
My local favorite is that men of a certain age, in Maine, must carry a shotgun to church on Sunday in case the Native Americans attack. There was a blue law (which is what many of these laws are) that was in Portland, ME; If you saw two or more Native Americans on horseback then you could shoot them. I figured I would go down to the Memorial Day parade and bring a shotgun. However, it was a post-9/11 world and I figured that my bringing a shotgun would almost certainly result in my being shot - I am a little brown so it seemed doubly likely. The law no longer appears on the Dumb Laws site (linked above) so I surmise that it has been removed.
PA has a State law that is easy enough to break - I never witnessed anybody comply with the law in Amish or Mennonite areas. This is a quote from the site, I have not read the law, itself, to check the verbiage:
Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass.
So, even aside from legitimate laws like the PATRIOT ACT, there are plenty of stupid ideas. The important thing to remember, or one of the important things to remember - I suppose, is that these laws were often created retroactively because someone was being that stupid which is why there are laws that do things like disallow alligators being leashed to fire hydrants.
Finally, NY has some interesting laws. Anonymous (the so-called hactivist group) demonstrations might be illegal as congregating with folks wearing masks is illegal. The text and reasoning is here: http://www.dumblaws.com/law/19... The remainder of NY's listed dumb laws are here: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/u... - If you have not visited the site before then you may find it a bit of a time-waster. I consider breaking many of these laws to be patriotic. I strongly recommend reviewing these laws before (or during) any road trips.
There was a turtle, his name was Bert, and Bert the turtle was very alert.
Ah, the fear mongering of my youth. Chances are pretty good that if someone chucks a nuke that the results will not be nearly as bad as the results shown in made-for-television-movies. It is likely to be fairly low yield so even an atmospheric explosion is not going to do that much.
That and, well, the EMP is not going to be all that large (baring high yield and a fairly decent altitude - even then, not so bad as to take out a whole country with just a couple) and there will be centralized issues and transformers will pop down the line for a little ways. My understanding is that on of the biggest problems will be that we do not make any new transformers here in the United States.
Anyhow, are we actually certain that NK has nukes? The last I knew, The Hermit Kingdom was only suspected of having them and then people suddenly started claiming it as factual. Even Wikipedia declines making it an authoritative statement and couch it with the word 'probably.' Probably and certainty are quite different though the end result may be the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I never had the Amiga but this was their fault (and I share some accountability). I had, and still have, a working PET and a VIC-20 (with several extra power supply bricks) but never went to the Amiga. See, the Amiga was mostly marketed as a game system. It was compared with the Atari of the day. At this time I was now needing something bigger (I thought) and something more business specific. I had an Apple at home, there were some in the lab at school as well, but I decided to take the plunge and go with Trash 80s. Commodore went out of business not too long after and I suppose I made the right choice at the time.
However, this is not really all that surprising, I mentioned that I still have a variety of working older computers. I keep them, some of them, setup in my basement. Old hardware is just as capable as it was when you purchased it. If your compute needs have not changed then they are still as suitable for the tasks they were originally used for.
As an aside, it is a bit amusing to see the RISC chip design returning to/gaining popularity in the consumer market.
Wait. What? Are you seriously going to try to apply logic as a response to that post?
At least your are consistent. So many complain when the US does and then complain when the US doesn't. You are, at least, willing to hold a position. I, personally, would prefer a more active and efficient UN.
You have all these complaints, enough to be foul about it, and yet still utilize their services. We are to believe that this, something in addition to all your woes, is the straw that breaks your proverbial camel's back? I do not believe you.
Do you want the US to be the World Police or do you not?
(there may be some modern-day humans still around, in something like a historical wildlife preserve.....those will be the children of people who can't let go of their familiar reference points in order to reach for something better. In order to fly, the bird must first release the branch.....you cowards who white-knuckle it can live in a zoo and fling poo at tourists).
What makes you think that we are not doing that now?
Umm... They do on mine? I get notices in the upper-right telling me about messages, I read those messages, and in those messages I get comments from the ACs. Otherwise I would never know when they replied and I would be unlikely to reply to them - and I do.
I will watch it when it is something like Predators with Hellfire Missiles. Note: This should be in video and out in the middle of nowhere - not in a stadium, though that would add some more amusement for spectators at home. Also we should be allowed to bet on it.
We would be the first country to 3D print a bridge to nowhere. And we would be proud of it.
I have not been to Amsterdam in a very long time (the weed selection was not so good but I did buy some heroin off the street - it was very good) and my time there was short but I did get a long-winded verbal essay about the variations of canals (and the verbiage) in the area. Isn't what you are saying a lot like saying that a truck is not a vehicle? I was under the impression that they were all kanaals but that they were all different types. So, even with the word car, we can have sports car, compact car, station wagon, sedan, coupe, convertible, and more. (Anything less than a car analogy is no good.)
Any new car that I have purchased has had a manual transmission. You must, I have found, be willing to order it and wait for it. I have not found one on the lot that met my needs in many years.
Or you can use this URL:
http://developers.slashdot.org...
How many of those are a programming language (or scripting language or non-compiled language if you prefer)?
It should have been hyphenated. However, we would have just joked about how you put the hyphen in the wrong spot and that it should be in between jerk and reaction.
Real programming is done in actual binary with a small magnet to manual flip the bits into ones and zeros on the disk itself. If you do not or can not do that then you should be restricted to the markup languages.
There ought to be a law against that.
As you fail to capitalize the first letter of your first sentence... Black pots shouldn't throw glass stones at houses.
Many laws do, in fact, legislate morality. Laws such as theft, murder, rape, etc... Those laws may ring a bell.
Marriage is not a civil right. I am not attempting to argue with you, really, but I am expanding on your statement(s) for some clarity and to opine on the subject. I actually agree with you but am a bit concerned that my reply may be misunderstood and the assumption made that I am taking an opposing view. This is not true. I may be taking an alternate view but it is not one that is in opposition to your statements. The topic is complex (to some) but I will attempt brevity, though I fear a novella... You have been warned. :-)
On civil rights; There have been numerous cases where marriage has been prohibited due to the mental disabilities on the part of one or both of the involved parties. I, personally, believe that the easiest way to get around the whole marriage debate is to simply prohibit government involvement with marriages. From the time such a law (civil unions) is enacted all further relationships of a permanent status will be contractually based. Currently marriage is not a civil right and I do not think that it has to be, specifically, if we want to achieve civil rights and equality status for all.
Concerning efficacy; I think that such unions can even involve needing active steps to continue after a certain time has passed, account for multiple partners, and include any other lawful stipulations. Those who wish to have a religious ceremony can have that ceremony performed at a willing church, or by the person(s), they feel most comfortable with. Churches would not be obligated to perform any such ceremonies nor would they be prohibited from engaging in such theatrical events. Any ceremony, or certificates/papers, from such a place would have no legal basis beyond the spoken word types of legal protections already creating binding contracts. Additionally, for legal protection, those engaging in matrimonial theater would likely be in a limbo state (and get no/little benefit) without having an actual legally binding civil union. We could go so far as to define those ceremonies as theater and disallow any further court action based on it. We can not even do 'for better or worse' and 'until death do us part' is almost laughable today.
Marriages from before the enacting of such legislation should be grandfathered and treated as contract law in the eyes of the court or for awarding any extra (if any) liberties. My thinking is that this would absolve the government from having any impact on the religious practice and that the removal of marriage, an antiquated idea - at best, would take away any (il)logical arguments against same-sex-marriages from the fundamentalists. They, the people they oppose, are not getting 'married,' but are signing legal contracts that have nothing to do with religion. Those wishing to engage in the marriage for ceremonial purposes are free to do so however they choose (lawful actions only, obviously) and nobody is forced to perform any ceremony that they do not wish to perform.
I am sure that there will still be some vocal, read: loud, complaints but they would have no legal justification to prevent or change anything. This would be an application of the law that actually provided for equal civil liberties. (The government can only take away freedoms, it can not give them. The government provides a mechanism to exchange liberties. Liberties and freedoms are very different things.) As I see it, the biggest problems with providing equality in marriage is the complaints of religious fundamentalists and the politicians who enable or encourage such.
A sort-of-TL;DR closure:
My only real complaint is the seeming implication (and that is my impression - I could EASILY be mistaken) that it is a civil right, the rest is just expanding on idea that this should be a civil right. As it is not currently enforced civilly (applying to all equally) it is not currently a civil right. We can argue that it *should* be but to state that it is (something you did not do), currently, would incorrect and this is not a mere technicality b
I drove/rode around the country at complete random (as much as is humanly possible, at any rate) the vast majority of the time. We would cross a state line and get off the nearest exit. Our spartan itinerary meant that we could do what we wanted for however long we wanted with regards to our lack of destination. Sometimes we would camp in a hotel for days and just explore an area that looked interesting. (For instance, Florida is a bit like a car wreck - you have to stare.) Anyhow, the appropriate site is http://www.dumblaws.com/ and you should always try to break at least one of those laws in every state that you go through.
My local favorite is that men of a certain age, in Maine, must carry a shotgun to church on Sunday in case the Native Americans attack. There was a blue law (which is what many of these laws are) that was in Portland, ME; If you saw two or more Native Americans on horseback then you could shoot them. I figured I would go down to the Memorial Day parade and bring a shotgun. However, it was a post-9/11 world and I figured that my bringing a shotgun would almost certainly result in my being shot - I am a little brown so it seemed doubly likely. The law no longer appears on the Dumb Laws site (linked above) so I surmise that it has been removed.
PA has a State law that is easy enough to break - I never witnessed anybody comply with the law in Amish or Mennonite areas. This is a quote from the site, I have not read the law, itself, to check the verbiage:
Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass.
So, even aside from legitimate laws like the PATRIOT ACT, there are plenty of stupid ideas. The important thing to remember, or one of the important things to remember - I suppose, is that these laws were often created retroactively because someone was being that stupid which is why there are laws that do things like disallow alligators being leashed to fire hydrants.
Finally, NY has some interesting laws. Anonymous (the so-called hactivist group) demonstrations might be illegal as congregating with folks wearing masks is illegal. The text and reasoning is here: http://www.dumblaws.com/law/19... The remainder of NY's listed dumb laws are here: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/u... - If you have not visited the site before then you may find it a bit of a time-waster. I consider breaking many of these laws to be patriotic. I strongly recommend reviewing these laws before (or during) any road trips.
No, no. You mean stones. That is what they measure human weight in over there. *nods*
including duck and cover
There was a turtle, his name was Bert,
and Bert the turtle was very alert.
Ah, the fear mongering of my youth. Chances are pretty good that if someone chucks a nuke that the results will not be nearly as bad as the results shown in made-for-television-movies. It is likely to be fairly low yield so even an atmospheric explosion is not going to do that much.
That and, well, the EMP is not going to be all that large (baring high yield and a fairly decent altitude - even then, not so bad as to take out a whole country with just a couple) and there will be centralized issues and transformers will pop down the line for a little ways. My understanding is that on of the biggest problems will be that we do not make any new transformers here in the United States.
Anyhow, are we actually certain that NK has nukes? The last I knew, The Hermit Kingdom was only suspected of having them and then people suddenly started claiming it as factual. Even Wikipedia declines making it an authoritative statement and couch it with the word 'probably.' Probably and certainty are quite different though the end result may be the same.
I kind of figured it was something like that. I have done the same, more than once...
They did not hack it. They were given access. The difference is huge.
That makes more sense. Thank you.