Slashdot Mirror

Of course just because I couldn't find one in a five minute Google session doesn't mean it's not there at all. But although I didn't find anything from Mainland China besides a lot of advisory legislation rather than mandates, I did find a surprisingly large and apparently growing list of other countries which do have mandatory open source policies. Those policies might quite likely specify security issues that could effect sales of these double-secret tap-tap-no-black-magic stick-a-needle-in-your-eye Intel chips.

If you want to check it out, here's the URL for the Google cached HTML version of a PDF on the topic.

There's some interesting info in there. Surprsing how many countries are moving on this legislation. South America seems to be quite active in this area as well as parts of Europe.

something like that?

A guy from UK who does IT support was at Microsoft Shared Source(developers) conference in Ukraine? Sounds fishy to me.

In addition to "correlation does not imply causality", you also have to consider the sample space. How do they define "blokey jobs" and "caring jobs"? And why did they pick those categories (however they define them) to look at? There was a study that showed that Israeli Fighter Pilots had an 84% of having girl children (which, by the way, seems to contradict the current study). Here's a link to a PDF that discusses this case (among others), and, for the PDF-adverse, here's the Google HTMLization. The point is that "Israeli Fighter Pilots" was chosen as an "interesting" category because of this stand-out statistic.

From my link: "So going back to the Israeli fighter pilots--is it just random chance or is something else happening? To answer this, conventional statistics would set up the obvious sample space (children of fighter pilots), assign probabilities to boy and girl children, and calculate the chance of getting 84 per cent girls in a purely random trial. But this analysis ignores selective reporting. Why did anyone look at the sexes of Israeli fighter pilots' children in the first place? Presumably because a clump has already caught their attention."

Given that neither ABC News Australia nor Illuminating Science is exactly a reputable scientific journal, I would definitely hold off before reading too much into this. I also want to know how they explain the contradiction with the Israeli Fighter Pilot data. :)

I haven't seen anyone else mention it in this thread, but pouring water on burning lithium is an extremely Bad Idea. You'll get an effect similar to pouring gasoline on burning wood.

Most Slashdotters probably know not to pour water on an electrical fire, but I suspect far fewer know burning lithium can use water for a fuel source.

From a FAQ I found about how to handle a lithium fire (this is a google html version since the original was a .Doc file): "Use a graphite powder or a Lith-X (class D) extinguisher to extinguish burning lithium. Don't use water, sand, carbon tetrachloride, carbon dioxide, or soda acid extinguishers in lithium cell fires."

Google cached version

Here's the BBC with their coverage of the same story.

The only safeguard to this country, America, from being ussurped by its inferiors was common-law sense. Why do you entrust your law in the hands of those bankers devoid and bankrupt to morality?

This ussurpation on those arab countries is all justified. This video is your proof.

I'm swamped to read any other works of art and science outside the realm of common-law, energy, and networked computer software system administration; yet Sun Tzu does come to mind to have a few shadows of quotes impress upon my soul in the midst of War. I quote Sun Tzu, to wit; "All warfare is based on deception" as well "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."

There you have it. United States of America, being subservient and inferior to "America" because it is of America; is not to be trusted in any reports. I remember reading a couple military reports for the alleged Vietnam War in which a number of towns were massacred by the misplaced artillery; the deception erected along the basis of "area has been cleansed of opposition" no less.

And I think the anti-war people are no different than the the proponents to war. DON'T TRUST ANYTHING ANY MILITARY SAYS. ALL MILITARY PRODUCES ENOUGH TRUTH TO GAIN TRUST TO COVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LIES. Whoever said the oxymoron "Civil War" has ever concluded; did not the proponents to war not constitutionally declare peace?

To take away the ability to make war will only tempt the wicked to hide the war under another premise. One day, a man killing a man will be re-written to mean a farmer cutting grass; as equate in the Holy Bible.

Was United States ever at peace?

How can a "Federal" corporation known as "United States" make war without the state it was chartered within Columbia? Easy explanation; read the commercial codes; the adversary is redefined as a festering bottle of milk or spoiled bread, and the cost to pay a "person" to move the expired goods is about the same cost to fund that person aka "U.S. Army."

Most posts on Slashdot are yet to discern between "United States" and "United States of America" for fucking crying-out-loud.

Can someone respond, mod me up, or check my posting history for all the goods I have presented to this God-damned forum of vipers and asps?

The only safeguard to this country, America, from being ussurped by its inferiors was common-law sense. Why do you entrust your law in the hands of those bankers devoid and bankrupt to morality?

This ussurpation on those arab countries is all justified. This video is your proof.

I'm swamped to read any other works of art and science outside the realm of common-law, energy, and networked computer software system administration; yet Sun Tzu does come to mind to have a few shadows of quotes impress upon my soul in the midst of War. I quote Sun Tzu, to wit; "All warfare is based on deception" as well "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."

There you have it. United States of America, being subservient and inferior to "America" because it is of America; is not to be trusted in any reports. I remember reading a couple military reports for the alleged Vietnam War in which a number of towns were massacred by the misplaced artillery; the deception erected along the basis of "area has been cleansed of opposition" no less.

And I think the anti-war people are no different than the the proponents to war. DON'T TRUST ANYTHING ANY MILITARY SAYS. ALL MILITARY PRODUCES ENOUGH TRUTH TO GAIN TRUST TO COVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LIES. Whoever said the oxymoron "Civil War" has ever concluded; did not the proponents to war not constitutionally declare peace?

To take away the ability to make war will only tempt the wicked to hide the war under another premise. One day, a man killing a man will be re-written to mean a farmer cutting grass; as equate in the Holy Bible.

Was United States ever at peace?

How can a "Federal" corporation known as "United States" make war without the state it was chartered within Columbia? Easy explanation; read the commercial codes; the adversary is redefined as a festering bottle of milk or spoiled bread, and the cost to pay a "person" to move the expired goods is about the same cost to fund that person aka "U.S. Army."

Most posts on Slashdot are yet to discern between "United States" and "United States of America" for fucking crying-out-loud.

Can someone respond, mod me up, or check my posting history for all the goods I have presented to this God-damned forum of vipers and asps?

...But the real loss in the immediate sequels was the cantankerous sexual triangle of Han Solo, Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia that had given Star Wars a recognizable and genuinely compelling psychological frisson. This was partly a casting problem: Neither Mr. Ford nor Ms. Fisher seemed to take much interest in the later endeavors, and Mark Hamill couldn't carry the movies' ever-more attenuated storylines on his own. The problem stemmed from the fact that Mr. Lucas seemed all too aware that the big money was made not through ticket sales to adults or even teenagers, but through toy sales to children (his decision to forgo his director's salary on the first movie in exchange for a piece of merchandizing is one of Hollywood's fondest myths of its own beneficence)...

... is here. I can see why she was fired for this malicious piece of character assassination. I'm not sure why Dvorak sees fit to gloat about it, though, since it has nothing at all to do with Linux, as far as I can tell.

You don't have to worry about a Maureen O'Gara character coming after you and posting your private address and phone number

Maureen did not post a private phone number. Here's a comment from earlier in this story...

The only phone number in MOG's "story" was one that was published in a Medabiliti press release from 2003. I see no evidence that the number MOG did publish was a relative's number.

The MOG article is getting harder to find; it is effectively being deleted from the Internet. However here is a google cache copy. The only phone number in the article is 914-761-7423. If you google for that number you can find it in another google cache. The second cached copy is a press release submitted by Medabiliti to PR Newswire.

What MOG did was despicable - there's no doubt about that - but let's not start falsifying what she did. The facts condemn MOG enough as it is without having to make things up.

You're right about the private address though. That's irresponsible journalism; something I'd expect of Fox News or 60 Minutes.

You don't have to worry about a Maureen O'Gara character coming after you and posting your private address and phone number

Maureen did not post a private phone number. Here's a comment from earlier in this story...

The only phone number in MOG's "story" was one that was published in a Medabiliti press release from 2003. I see no evidence that the number MOG did publish was a relative's number.

The MOG article is getting harder to find; it is effectively being deleted from the Internet. However here is a google cache copy. The only phone number in the article is 914-761-7423. If you google for that number you can find it in another google cache. The second cached copy is a press release submitted by Medabiliti to PR Newswire.

What MOG did was despicable - there's no doubt about that - but let's not start falsifying what she did. The facts condemn MOG enough as it is without having to make things up.

You're right about the private address though. That's irresponsible journalism; something I'd expect of Fox News or 60 Minutes.

a) trespass in another person's home (as MOG all but admits she did in her article, commenting on how the interior of PJ's home looks, noting she was not home at the time),

MOG could have looked through a window. Sleazy I agree, but you're jumping to conclusions when you claim MOG trespassed.

b) list the addresses and telephone numbers of relatives

The only phone number in MOG's "story" was one that was published in a Medabiliti press release from 2003. I see no evidence that the number MOG did publish was a relative's number.

The MOG article is getting harder to find; it is effectively being deleted from the Internet. However here is a google cache copy. The only phone number in the article is 914-761-7423. If you google for that number you can find it in another google cache. The second cached copy is a press release submitted by Medabiliti to PR Newswire.

What MOG did was despicable - there's no doubt about that - but let's not start falsifying what she did. The facts condemn MOG enough as it is without having to make things up.

a) trespass in another person's home (as MOG all but admits she did in her article, commenting on how the interior of PJ's home looks, noting she was not home at the time),

MOG could have looked through a window. Sleazy I agree, but you're jumping to conclusions when you claim MOG trespassed.

b) list the addresses and telephone numbers of relatives

The only phone number in MOG's "story" was one that was published in a Medabiliti press release from 2003. I see no evidence that the number MOG did publish was a relative's number.

The MOG article is getting harder to find; it is effectively being deleted from the Internet. However here is a google cache copy. The only phone number in the article is 914-761-7423. If you google for that number you can find it in another google cache. The second cached copy is a press release submitted by Medabiliti to PR Newswire.

What MOG did was despicable - there's no doubt about that - but let's not start falsifying what she did. The facts condemn MOG enough as it is without having to make things up.

found one (in google cache) like it, but older and less efficient

similar idea, except you encrypt the user payload into text and pictures that seem, at first inspection, to be normal ebay ads.

Question Why is heavy water poisonous? Asked by: Unknown Answer That's a very interesting question. There have been no detailed studies carried out that I am aware of, but decades ago a crude experiment was done in which mice were given water which had various percentages of heavy water, which is water in which both hydrogen atoms were replaced by deuterium. Low percentages of heavy water didn't have noticeable effects, but more than 20% heavy water did have adverse health effects and mice given 80% heavy water died within days. In another experiment, bean plants grown from seed given increasing fractions of heavy water showed stunted growth compared with control plants given normal water. The reason for these adverse effects is that replacing hydrogen with its heavier isotope deuterium slows down the rate of any chemical reaction in which the chemical bond to the hydrogen atom is broken. This includes a great many chemical reactions occurring in biological systems, and not just those involving water; the hydrogen atoms from water end up in a number of other biomolecules, so any process involving these hydrogen atoms will also be slowed down. Thus the heavy water acts like a brake on a large number of metabolic processes. The amount by which an isotopic substitution like this slows down a chemical reaction is called a kinetic isotope effect. Such effects are a major tool in the study of chemical reactions, including enzymatic reactions. Deuterium isotope effects can be as large as 6 or 7, which means that the reaction rate is 6 or 7 times slower when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen. In rare cases where a quantum mechanical effect called tunneling occurs in the reaction, deuterium isotope effects of 20 or more have been observed. The major reason for the difference in the rates of the chemical reactions involving the two isotopes of hydrogen is the difference in their masses. Deuterium atoms have an atomic mass of 2, which is double that of normal hydrogen. Of course other atoms have isotopes also, and your comment that for isotopes of other elements these effects would not be present is perceptive but not quite completely correct. Isotope effects do occur with the heavier elements but they are much smaller. For instance if we replaced the oxygen of water (which is normally oxygen 16) with oxygen 18 we end up with a water molecule having the same mass as in the heavy water discussed above, but in which the isotope effects on its reactions would be very small. This is because changing the oxygen atom's mass from 16 to 18 is a much smaller fractional change than the doubling of mass of hydrogen when we go from hydrogen to deuterium. Oxygen-18 isotope effects are never more than about 1.07, or 7 % slower with the heavier isotope.

Well, both, but what really made everyone snap was that she began stalking Pamela Jones, taking photographs of her apartment from across the street, and dedicating her column to providing personal details of her life to the public. Here is a Google cache of the original article. It's rather sick.

Fortunately, it's possible to read the article by looking at the copy in Google's cache.

Considering Gravity as an emergent property may yield some interesting results.

Except that some people will buy the legit copy, but then purchase or download a cracked copy because they don't want to deal with the freaking annoying authentication. They still have a license to run Windows, so what's the problem? They have legit copies of XP Pro and XP Home, but only run the cracked copies to avoid the authentication crap.

unless you copy the wpa.dbl file to disk. no more activating required for your machine.

While its true that gallium appears to be not very toxic on its own, it is also true that extensive tests of gallium's toxicity on humans has not been done.

The real danger is releasing gallium that is then allowed to react with other chemicals which produce much more toxic, and sometimes explosive products.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:7YXh1XFpnngJ:ww w.aps.anl.gov/xfd/tech_bulletins/tb4/TB-4_Appendix _A.html+gallium+poison&hl=en&start=19

Did you notice that the company in the article never actually mentions what metal they are using anywhere on their website?

Virtual Reality changed all that!

Hell yes
Furthermore, google cache from the school newspaper
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:82YRIKNpUqUJ:ww w.statepress.com/issues/2002/09/27/campusnews/2839 62+asu+playboy+party&hl=en

J. Monod's book Chance and Necessity is an eye opening read, perhaps dated now, but stimulating in terms of the philosophy of science coming out or genetic research.

Another deeply studied life form Drosophila melanogaster, like e.coli, carries with it such a huge body of work that it, likewise, probably tends to attract and disseminate novel research.

that's cause you r n0t 733t.

There's a secret "hacker" tool called Google.com.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:SIuztravpJIJ:ww w.jellyslab.com/~bteo/hacker.htm+bitchchecker&hl=e n

enjoy.

doesn't stop the google cache of the article though. Ive added the google cache of the article at (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alph a.asp ) - http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Xs-TRcuf8L8J:ww w.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp++win supersite+reviews+longhorn&hl=en. View the page before the cache updates. Still visible at 28APR2005 @ 1200Hrs AEST.

He removed the screenshots from the screenshot page.... luckily google has a cache.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:JLQtqPZe9pYJ:de v.gentoo.org/~agaffney/gli/+&hl=en

``Excel'' and ``professional'' still don't go together, though it's getting better.

is here

That is a huge problem. I'd advise subsistance farmers to stay away from store-bought seeds.

They just don't grow.

You'd better hope they don't grow, because if they do grow, you have even worse problems. Just ask the Canadian farmers sued by Monsanto.

On Sept. 11 2001 about 3500 people died in New York. On that same day 44000 children died in Africa of hunger. Is there a war on hunger? NO.

If you folks would like us to invade, overthrow your dictators for you, colonize and Americanise you, just say the word and we'll put you on our list. The whole process might take 100 years or more, and if you don't whole-heartedly embrace the Americanisation part, it just won't work (e.g., the Phillipines). Be aware that the list is already very long, and there is just no way that you're going to get ahead of Iran and North Korea, who have already signed up for the ``get civilized or get dead'' package.

It might be quicker and easier for you to get rid of your Mugabes yourself.

So are they catching up to linux or far ahead? I found an announcement from april 12
here (google cache as html) about IBM's new linux based OpenPower series that can handle 64GB of memory, is ubuntu-64 or other distro already able to do what xp-64 can as far as the accessible memory/disk?

Not that we'll ever need it (hah hah).

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:nutrition.about .com/library/nutritionnotesfatmeasure.htm does a pretty good job at giving you an idea if you are overweight/obese/whatever or not.

The 200-mile limit is a "Exclusive Economic Zone".

Countries may claim a 200-mile territorial limit, but that's not recognized generally - IIRC from my days in the US Navy, most countries claim a 12-mile limit for territorial waters.

And the US Navy regularly drives warships through waters that countries claim as there's but where the US (and other countries with maritime industries) don't recognize the claim. IIRC those are called FON ops (Freedom Of Navigation).

And every now and then, the country whose claim is being rather rudely disputed responds. Somewhere in this html or PPT presentation is an instance where a Soviet ship actually rammed the USS Yorktown as it traversed what they claimed were their territorial waters. Since I was on another Navy ship also in the Mediterranean at that same time (USS Forrestal battle group), I actually got to see the video of that incident.

...can be found here.

Just from a budget stand point it's a no brainer,
10 Million per Soyuz http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:xdGkxgzMW9cJ:ww w.harcourtschool.com/activity/space_station/april2 8_2001.html+soyuz+mission+costs&hl=en
400 Million per STS flight

We'd need ~3 Soyuz for the 7 person crew, The question then becomes one of how fast can the soyuz be sent up from thier existing launch facility, Is ten days not long enough, stage them elsewhere then. At 10 million to build fuel and launch so what if transport costs another 10 million Thats still ~20 soyuz for the cost of one STS flight.

Hell the russian space agency budget is only 145 million, Why not contract them for 4-8 soyuz ready to launch with 1-2 weeks at 225 Million it'd be a sweet bargain. We get an nice rescue option they get to double thier budget or free up the money (hopefully for humanitairian efforts).

How big is the ESA space port, contract a new soyuz facility there the fuel savings alone of reaching normal orbits could make that a very economical solution. (And now i doubt my knowledge of whos cloestest to the equator)

A quick precoursery study of turn around time vs production increase costs.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:h-EdN4DSr_8J:ww w.starsem.com/soyuz/introduction.htm+soyuz+product ion&hl=en
They currently produce 10-15 per year, and as many as 60 per year in the 80's.
In practice they can produce as many as 5 per month, by design they can assemble 4 at a time on thier current facilities in about a month. For the cost of two STS launches It's not un reasoable to picture 20-40 Soyuz sitting in ICBM launch bunkers ready for use in under two years.

I say NASA really dropped the ball on this one, this whole if we don't spend our whole budget we'll never get anymore crap should have been stomped when it started. What you got or needed last year has nobearing on what you need or get this year nor what you will need or get next year. Whatever happened to NASA getting whatever money, man and brain power it needed. Some might say, "Well the wall came down.", to which I repeat the question and point out the real divergance started after the moon landings. Ask any avid space gamer and they could tell you the steps to space exploration and colonisation. If you really think the actual rocket scientists don't know these steps, your lieing to yourself, but if you ask them why they aren't progressing thru these stages they'll all dance around "bad-mouthing" the higher ups, be it NASA admins or congress. Bushs mandate for a man on mars (or whatever) should never of been needed, they already know the stages.

The whole space travel should be a comercial project I believe to be the stumbling point, The government has a stupid non-competative rule with capitalist entities. When it becomes reasonable to expect compatition they have to bow out, This is the basis of the muni-telco-isp crap we've been seeing lately. I mean would we contract out the Secret Services dutys to your local mall rent-a-cop, or maybe the ATF to Brinks, following that same thought should we shut down nasa and contract Branson Spaceways(or whomever), of course not they're not the best equiped to handle the job, and honestly it's not like the big three wanted to go that route they're quite happy on the backend suppling designs and parts even though they have the money and facilities.

Just from a budget stand point it's a no brainer,
10 Million per Soyuz http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:xdGkxgzMW9cJ:ww w.harcourtschool.com/activity/space_station/april2 8_2001.html+soyuz+mission+costs&hl=en
400 Million per STS flight

We'd need ~3 Soyuz for the 7 person crew, The question then becomes one of how fast can the soyuz be sent up from thier existing launch facility, Is ten days not long enough, stage them elsewhere then. At 10 million to build fuel and launch so what if transport costs another 10 million Thats still ~20 soyuz for the cost of one STS flight.

Hell the russian space agency budget is only 145 million, Why not contract them for 4-8 soyuz ready to launch with 1-2 weeks at 225 Million it'd be a sweet bargain. We get an nice rescue option they get to double thier budget or free up the money (hopefully for humanitairian efforts).

How big is the ESA space port, contract a new soyuz facility there the fuel savings alone of reaching normal orbits could make that a very economical solution. (And now i doubt my knowledge of whos cloestest to the equator)

A quick precoursery study of turn around time vs production increase costs.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:h-EdN4DSr_8J:ww w.starsem.com/soyuz/introduction.htm+soyuz+product ion&hl=en
They currently produce 10-15 per year, and as many as 60 per year in the 80's.
In practice they can produce as many as 5 per month, by design they can assemble 4 at a time on thier current facilities in about a month. For the cost of two STS launches It's not un reasoable to picture 20-40 Soyuz sitting in ICBM launch bunkers ready for use in under two years.

I say NASA really dropped the ball on this one, this whole if we don't spend our whole budget we'll never get anymore crap should have been stomped when it started. What you got or needed last year has nobearing on what you need or get this year nor what you will need or get next year. Whatever happened to NASA getting whatever money, man and brain power it needed. Some might say, "Well the wall came down.", to which I repeat the question and point out the real divergance started after the moon landings. Ask any avid space gamer and they could tell you the steps to space exploration and colonisation. If you really think the actual rocket scientists don't know these steps, your lieing to yourself, but if you ask them why they aren't progressing thru these stages they'll all dance around "bad-mouthing" the higher ups, be it NASA admins or congress. Bushs mandate for a man on mars (or whatever) should never of been needed, they already know the stages.

The whole space travel should be a comercial project I believe to be the stumbling point, The government has a stupid non-competative rule with capitalist entities. When it becomes reasonable to expect compatition they have to bow out, This is the basis of the muni-telco-isp crap we've been seeing lately. I mean would we contract out the Secret Services dutys to your local mall rent-a-cop, or maybe the ATF to Brinks, following that same thought should we shut down nasa and contract Branson Spaceways(or whomever), of course not they're not the best equiped to handle the job, and honestly it's not like the big three wanted to go that route they're quite happy on the backend suppling designs and parts even though they have the money and facilities.

This was a perfectly moral and reasonable act and parallels what Tridge did to make Samba compatible with Windows file and printer sharing.

Indeed, and without Compaq's reverse engineering efforts, "commodity PC" wouldn't be a familiar phrase and "Linux" would probably be missing from our vocabulary.

Oh crud. I think I just agreed with Bruce.

-h-

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:fxd3mUYIrzAJ:ww w.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scigen/+&hl=en

Half of the patents granted to IBM are software patents
They are lobbying the EU FOR software patents

They have patented such novel invention like:
Caps lock notification (granted 2004)
And Web page templates (submitted 1998)

Face it.. as much as you want to praise IBM.. they are a company, and are just doing what's in their best interest -- including patenting some ridiculous crap.

Here is a man, who for some reason or another, seems to have devoted a large proportion of the last twenty years of his life to the veneration of the works of Douglas Adams.

Look at his CV in the Google Cache (since the original site's down), the guy looks more like a fanboy than an objective biographer: one of those people who becomes the "guy everyone ends up interviewing" in the fan community, but who doesn't have any real connection to Adams beyond his fandom.

Of course the review is going to be bad. He's devoted far too much of his life to a belief in the genius of one man. To believe that anyone else could match that man's vision by bringing Adams' work to the screen in his absence would be far too much cognitive dissonance for him to handle.

Plenty of links to positive reviews have been posted in other threads - I'll wait for the Rotten Tomatoes verdict, I think.

Charles

Agreed. Perhaps many Slashdot readers don't really understand what the DMZ is like. In the 1980s and 90s, live ambushes were a fact of life along the DMZ (they may still be, but I'm no longer in the Army so I don't have inside info about it). The North Koreans for decades have poked and prodded the border: They've sent infiltrators into South Korea, have created elaborate tunnel systems below the DMZ, and attempted to assassinate the South Korean president, among other provocations. Troops stationed along the DMZ for good reason keep an extraordinarily high state of readiness. Over 100 Americans have died along the DMZ since the armstice (I don't have figures for South Korean soldiers).

So while from the comfort of Ft. Livingroom, it's easy to say that using armed robots to patrol the DMZ is a bad idea, the soldiers on the ground are probably pretty happy about the notion. That's not to say that the robots will work as advertised, or that they should replace existing defenses. The South Korean government may be motivated by cost considerations, but if the end result is that fewer South Korean soldiers are likely to die in the line of duty, it seems worth trying out some form of automated defense.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:IYt6OxzGghYJ:ww w.mofed.org/Fried_KFC.htm+peta+kfc+%22fake+blood%2 2&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:CeHAJqPY0sUJ:ww w.leftist.org/haightspeech/archives/000158.html+pe ta+kfc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Rrv7BJw_ujYJ:ww w.peta.org.uk/at/summer2004/Summer04p10-11.pdf+pet a+kfc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:M6HTwcKo6SgJ:ww w.peta.org/feat/AT-Spring2004/Page16-17.pdf+peta+k fc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?sto ry=84143&ran=196910

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:IYt6OxzGghYJ:ww w.mofed.org/Fried_KFC.htm+peta+kfc+%22fake+blood%2 2&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:CeHAJqPY0sUJ:ww w.leftist.org/haightspeech/archives/000158.html+pe ta+kfc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Rrv7BJw_ujYJ:ww w.peta.org.uk/at/summer2004/Summer04p10-11.pdf+pet a+kfc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:M6HTwcKo6SgJ:ww w.peta.org/feat/AT-Spring2004/Page16-17.pdf+peta+k fc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?sto ry=84143&ran=196910

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:IYt6OxzGghYJ:ww w.mofed.org/Fried_KFC.htm+peta+kfc+%22fake+blood%2 2&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:CeHAJqPY0sUJ:ww w.leftist.org/haightspeech/archives/000158.html+pe ta+kfc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Rrv7BJw_ujYJ:ww w.peta.org.uk/at/summer2004/Summer04p10-11.pdf+pet a+kfc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:M6HTwcKo6SgJ:ww w.peta.org/feat/AT-Spring2004/Page16-17.pdf+peta+k fc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?sto ry=84143&ran=196910

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:IYt6OxzGghYJ:ww w.mofed.org/Fried_KFC.htm+peta+kfc+%22fake+blood%2 2&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:CeHAJqPY0sUJ:ww w.leftist.org/haightspeech/archives/000158.html+pe ta+kfc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Rrv7BJw_ujYJ:ww w.peta.org.uk/at/summer2004/Summer04p10-11.pdf+pet a+kfc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:M6HTwcKo6SgJ:ww w.peta.org/feat/AT-Spring2004/Page16-17.pdf+peta+k fc+%22fake+blood%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?sto ry=84143&ran=196910

500mA and 2.5W as can be seen here. Your point is still relevant though.

Thus the great Economist article a while ago: Theres's a word for that (and we want it back).

The other wierd thing is that in Australia and to a lesser extent elsewhere the word "liberal" is being badly distorted in the opposite direction, as the Liberal party becomes a Tory party.

I think the grandparent was pretty silly describing it as a right-wing rag, but even if they were thinking of only economic matters it's not particularly accurate. They're moderately free-market but not ultracorporatist.

You forgot to say "First Psot!!11!!", troll.

Anyway, for convenience, here's the HTML version from Google's cache: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:tr5oNAnL7nIJ:ww w.baller.com/pdfs/baller_proposed_state_barriers.p df+baller_proposed_state_barriers&hl=en

If you're going to cut-and-paste for karma, please CITE YOUR REFERENCES!

The page you snipped this from is cached here:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ChC8gBE_LsEJ:ww w.tomsnetworking.com/Sections-print-article111.php +%22definite+improvement+over+WEP+in+providing+wir eless+security%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ikpkIo53mrMJ:ww w.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200 404/040405Photoshop.html+photoshop+cs2+mac&hl=en&c lient=safari