Slashdot Mirror

The fuel filter on my car requires a $70 tool in order to remove it.

If it's a Ford, the tool is supposed to be included with the car. That's nothing, to change the battery in a Chrysler Seabring, you have to remove the front driver's side wheel. That's just bad engineering.

Some computer manufacturers are guilty of that too. I remember in the 90's it was almost impossible to get the cover off of my computer. A friend of mine told me to buy a Dell because they are easier to take apart, and the parts are more standardized. Eventually the whole market went that way.

Most people don't work on their own cars, so why should they care about how difficult it is to repair? People who do work on their own cars, tend to lean towards the ones that are easy to work on. Ever wonder why so many kids modify Honda Civics? They tend to be easy to work on. (that's just my personal observation)

IIRC, an infant has maybe two tablespoons of blood total

one order of magnitude too low.

"I don't think people are of the understanding that this type of conduct is a crime," said Scott Christie, a former federal prosecutor who headed up the computer hacking and intellectual property section at the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey.

The other FA goes on to state that the reporter being charged accessed his coworker's email over 500 times ! So IMO it is really not possible to "go too far" punishing someone with that level of utter disregard for the rights of others. According to wiki.answers:
"The deliberate withholding and/or opening of US mail that is addressed to another party is a violation of federal law. The penalty for tampering with US mail is a maximum of 5 years in a federal facility and/or a $250,000 fine."
Sounds reasonable to me. The thing I find incredible is that people aren't making that correlation between email snooping and tampering with the mail? Oh well, ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for violating it. Maybe after a few people get big sentences and fines for their asshattery everyone will know it is illegal.

Are you sure you understand what a tree is?

If we're going to be pedantic about 'tree,' I'll point out that they grow in soil, or sod. Not dirt.

Maybe you have only seen pictures of them in books?

There are a few in the rainforest I live in.

The noun RAM disk has one meaning: Meaning #1: (computer science) a virtual drive that is created by setting aside part of the random-access memory to use as if it were a group of sectors

I agree this guy was a complete selfish asshole, but you're treading on dangerous ground here. There aren't two different types of people: "criminals" and "non-criminals". Someone being a criminal doesn't make them morally corrupt and somehow more able to commit murder/suicide.

Have you read Confessions of a Former Spammer? These assholes do things like scrape emails from support websites for recovering gambling addicts and then send them invitations to online gambling sites. This is more than just fraud or theft. They prey on the weak and vulnerable for their own profit. And they do it in the most cowardly way possible, where they never even have to meet or see their victims.

You're correct in that these types of generalizations aren't really productive, but I think it's a rather safe assumption that anyone who has made millions off of spam aren't just a thief but truly a sociopath. They know that they're ruining the lives of others; they just don't care.

Your analogy of console systems is almost right, but MS(Xbox) and Sony don't allow you to just download their SDK. They don't offer a 'store' where you can give away your certified creations either. I'm not sure about Sony, but with the XBOX you actually need a special XBOX to work with the SDK. But most importantly, the SDK's are not publicized.

Your analogy of the TI's is a lot closer to the mark, but I'll bet they allowed users to talk to one another about the calculator without the threat of a lawsuit.

TI-99: My fist computer, I know it's not what you were talking about but you made me feel really nostalgic just then. I even had the voice synthesizer module, a rather large 'box' that plugged into the left side of the machine, and I played Alpiner like that damn bear was my nemesis, if my burnt out husk of a brain serves me well "Danger! Falling rocks!".

That's fine, but you can understand how a lot of people might not think too highly of King James. When you read about his life and consider the implications of relying on a "translation" that was written at the direction of a man who believed that, as a king, he had divine capabilities, it's not exactly a huge mental leap to reach a place of significant distrust in the "translation's" accuracy.

...that every single time they use the argument that a pirated* copy does not equate a lost sale because they wouldn't have purchased it anyway - that they are primarily defending cheap fuck douchebags who simply want the game without having to pay for it**.

* piss off with your definition of 'pirates' being yo-ho-ho bottle of rum-on-a-ship -only. If you don't like that definition, timetravel to the past and prevent it from being added to the dictionaries. http://www.answers.com/pirates&r=67

** unless they're pirating the game for purposes of:
- not having to go through insane-o copy protection BS
- wanting to try the game before buying it***, seeing as the developer/distributor decided against releasing a demo
If you are one of the above: congratulations, you are officially part of a minority.

*** 'try before you buy' does not mean 'play the entire game through, play multiplayer online for several months, then decide you didn't like it that much and therefore won't be buying it, not even from the bargain bin where it's available for $9.99 now.'

If you already know you would never pay for the game anyway, then don't be an ass in downloading it anyway. Go find a game that you do like enough to pay for. Or, you know, pick up a free**** game. TAGAP is pretty good fun for a platformer, and it's free!

**** as in beer. Though what beer is free?

The USA is the only Western democracy that murders its own citizens.

Ya know, I have an issue with the death penalty too -- mainly the concern that you can't really reverse a wrongful conviction after the sentence has been carried out -- but calling it 'murder' is absurd.

Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of one human by another". If you try to break into my house and I blow you away it's not murder. If the state takes your life after a jury of your peers found you guilty and decided that the crime warrants the death penalty then it's not murder either.

And the SCOTUS ruling on this was just plain retarded. You can only use the death penalty for a crime that results in the death of the victim? Personally I think the death penalty should be an option for treason and/or espionage. Hell I'd rather see it used for those crimes then for your run of the mill murderers and rapists. Someone who sells out their country places all three hundred million of us at risk and the ultimate punishment should at least be an option for them (if for no other reason than to encourage them to talk and cut a deal).

I thought Wall.E really caught the appearance of an 1970's sci-fi. A cross between V.I.N.CENT from "The Black Hole", E.T. , and the two robots from Logan's Run, and Short Circuit (not really 1970's though

I highly doubt Apple just "ignored" the situation..

A little light reading on Mitigation of Damages
http://www.answers.com/topic/mitigation-of-damages?cat=biz-fin

Under the mitigation of damages doctrine, a person who has suffered an injury or loss should take reasonable action, where possible, to avoid additional injury or loss. The failure of a plaintiff to take protective steps after suffering an injury or loss can reduce the amount of the plaintiff's recovery. The mitigation of damages doctrine is sometimes called minimization of damages or the doctrine of avoidable consequences.

"Bzzt, you can build your own right now, because the cells are out there and readily purchasable by anyone."
But you can not buy them in a car right now. You sure couldn't buy them in a car last year.

What sort of world do you live in where new car lines are created that fast? Bringing a new series of car to market takes years -- which is why I've continually mentioned "the next few years" as the timeframe for when a whole bunch of EVs/PHEVs with automotive li-ions will be coming out.

"Did I give a discount on insurance in the above numbers? Nope, try again."
No but you didn't include it.

That's because I was computing *savings*. If the price of something is the same on both an EV and an ICE, its net savings is $0. It doesn't affect the calculation of savings.

You put down how much repairs and insurance was as a cost and wrote all of it off for an EV.

I distinctly did not. I credited EVs with $200 of electricity expenses, -$2000 of gasoline expenses, and -$500 of maintenance expenses. I gave them zero advantage over gasoline cars when it comes to insurance.

I did have a $500 repair on my Mazda 3. I was stopped at a red light and got rear ended. I don't count that in my calculation since it was in pay way a failure of the car. Those numbers don't seperate fender benders and such.

What, the census numbers? No, they don't. But accident repair costs are almost always dwarfed by accumulated maintenance costs -- every timing belt, pulley, pump, etc. An EV drivetrain has roughly 10% the moving parts. Doesn't even need oil changes. Heck, doesn't even have a transmission (have you seen how much a transmission failure will run you?). Even things unrelated to the drivetrain tend to wear less, such as the brakes (most braking work being done regeneratively).

And no we still have not seen the the first generation of mass market EVs yet. Notice the mass market part of that statment.

You apparently ignored what I wrote about the first generation. Electrics were initially the prime competition to gasoline cars in the early 1900s. In 1900, at the Paris exposition, there were 176 gasoline models, 40 electric, and 21 steam. By 1911, the Anderson Electric Car Company offered 21 different EV models -- and they were just one of dozens of EV carmakers. For example, in 1914, the Milburn Wagon Co sold 3400 EVs. Anderson sold 6,772 that same year. EVs were very popular among women, as at the time, gasoline cars had to be crank started. When Ford started mass-producing the Model T on modern assembly lines in 1913 (lower volume production began in 1908; between 1908 and 1910, Ford had only sold 12,000 cars), they had been losing market share to the electric runabouts. Their massive increase in production, advancing ICE tech, a stagnation in batteries, and the advent of the electric starter motor doomed EVs up until the 90s.

Even though the second gen was proportionally small compared to how many gasoline cars were on the market, it still involved thousands of EVs driven for years, racking up hundreds of millions of drive miles.

The indisputable fact is that you can not buy a good moderate priced EV today.

True! The ones remaining from the CARB ZEV era are generally so beloved that they sell for over double their purchase price; yet they're technological dinosaurs compared to what's being developed today. Which is part of why there's such a huge rush by virtually every automaker to bring more onto the market. GM alone plans to produce 10k Volts their first year, 60k their second year, and ramp up from there.

And the reason that you can not is the technology wasn't available three or so years ago.

Actually, it was. LiPs have been on the market for over half a decade. There wasn't as much of a demand, though, and companies weren't as willing to accept the risk on what was then a much newer product. Even Tesla wasn't; that's why they went with conventional laptop cells, despite their inferior properties for automotive applications.

For those of you who aren't on top of the latest internet slang those crazy kids come up with: rickrolled

v.tr.9:

http://www.answers.com/called

Ugh, your clarifications aren't any better than the original.

As regards #2, they have to be held to the fire, otherwise they'll let inventory drops and other lame excuses cause lots of pain for people that really need their phones as they have no landlines

Then their required turn-around should be the same as with faulty lineline phones, which, I can guarantee you, is not currently same-day or overnight. Not unless you're an emergency room or disaster shelter.

As regards #3, there are bogus moisture detectors on phones. Google it.

Ok, assume there are... so what? What makes them "bogus?" Do you mean phone companies install fake moisture detectors? What would a fake moisture even be, just a sticker reading "LOOK THIS IS A MOISTURE DETECTOR!" on the casing somewhere? What would the point of a phone company doing that be?

Why are fake moisture detectors an issue? Would real ones be better? In short, what exactly is point number 3, again?

As regards #10, locking and bricking are the same things. Remote locks are important to prevent bogus use charges and the black market for hot phones.

No they aren't; bricking would permanently destroy the data on the phone. Bricking would be writing garbage into the phone's Flash/storage to make it completely unusable. If you mean locking, say locking-- don't say "bricking".

(Locking would simply be encrypting all the data on the phone, making it inaccessible to anybody except the original owner. The difference is that a bricked phone couldn't be re-sold, as it would just be a useless chunk of plastic, while a locked phone could potentially be wiped and re-sold by the thief.)

As regards #14, treble means triple damages for carrier slamming and other inter-carrier FUs.

1) No it doesn't: http://www.answers.com/treble&r=67
2) Now I don't know what an FU is. It doesn't help to "explain" a term by giving an even more confusing term.
3) While we're at it, I have no clue what "carrier slamming" is.

Predatory conversions of phones ought to additionally entail jail time for the CEO.

What is "predatory conversion of phones?"

You'd do a much better job of convincing people if you showed some capacity for speaking plain English. You can't sell your points when you can't even *explain* your points clearly.

And where did the other $226 go?...the rest to cover cost of labor and materials, neither of which goes to the US.

It went to the guy who ran the cash register where you bought it, and to the guy who stocked it on the shelf, and to the guy who drove it there. Not to mention the guy who supplies electricity to that store, and takes its taxes, and spends its taxes, and earns its profit, much less the guys who come up with the marketing campaigns, and print them in magazines, and...

And all of those guys are in the US (assuming your store is, of course).

Your numbers are completely made up. The situation for an iPod is probably roughly similar to the situation for a CD, which has the overwhelming majority of the purchase price accounted for by local expenses (retail overhead, label=Apple overhead, retail profit, label=Apple profit, marketing, distribution).

The large majority of money from an iPod bought in the US stays in the US.

Some to cover product design done in the US (assuming that isn't part of the $70 profit, which it actually probably is)

You may want to review the definition of the word "profit"; it comes after expenses have been deducted.

That's not the definition of unbiased. Perhaps the word you're looking for is unsolicited. Also you didn't call your review unbiased. You called it objective but your review is actually subjective. For future reference, objective = facts, subjective = opinions.

You appear to be ignorant of the principle of implied consent

It is not "Stealing" nor "Theft of services" nor "Unauthorized use of a computer" nor "Computer trespass" according to New York Law, for one example.

Perhaps you'd like a scholarly article on why we should not make your assumptions (and get indignant about it, I might add) from George Washington University - Law School

In fact, I had already given you examples of use which are not stealing, and you are choosing to ignore them so you can't redundantly say stealing is stealing. On the off chance that you blacked out, the examples were anonymous FTP and a web server sharing files. P2P is another situation where you could be sharing files by mistake, but it's reasonable to assume that it is not by mistake - and downloaders use more of your computer resources than someone sending data through your router.

It takes all of one minute to turn on security. You do *not* have to be a hacker - what a canard that is. I won't claim that there isn't anyone who wouldn't be able to do it, but society cannot always limit itself to what the least of us can do. There is no victim in this scenario, just someone who has shared their network, so deserve has nothing to do with it. I was merely suggesting that being lazy and ignorant usually means you are to blame when you do something you did not intend.

Enough of your feeble attempts to claim I will take other people's physical property if it's not bolted down. You are obviously having trouble recognizing the difference between a car parked in your garage and a service that you are broadcasting onto my property which advertises itself as non-private and explicitly authorizes me to join the network.

Is it possible that reasonable people can reach this conclusion? Or am I the only asocial moron with a toddler's mentality?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060227-6272.html
http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2006/02/26/20060226-H2-03.html
http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_its_ok_to_steal_wi_fi
http://zovirl.com/2006/07/27/you-cant-steal-wifi/
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1179938755.shtml

You may not agree, but you should not continue to pretend that all people who hold this view think it's OK to steal. Try to learn that much.

Two myths I want to debunk right off the bat.

Great! I love to see myths debunked.

the spectrum that your microwave uses happens to cause water molecules to resonate. These microwaves are of a different spectrum, and while they can be deadly, they are not the same.

... unfortunately, that's one of them. The 2.4GHz spectrum was not chosen because water molecules somehow resonate better - and there's no real difference between 2.4GHz and various mobile frequencies around 1.8-1.9GHz with that in mind.

http://www.answers.com/topic/microwave-1?cat=technology

http://www.answers.com/decimation&r=67 Decimate originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions. Today this meaning is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a group.

Try living in the 21st century. Stupid language nazis.

Do you defy the mighty Caesar? I'll have you crucified for insolence!

http://www.answers.com/decimation&r=67 Decimate originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions. Today this meaning is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a group.

Try living in the 21st century. Stupid language nazis.

Dude, almost all credit card companies take 3-4 weeks to process refunds. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_the_credit_card_refund_process_work . Check with your credit card company's terms of service if you aren't sure, but pretty much every credit card issuer has that policy.

Why is he referencing Ballmer directly after management?

The second definition of management on answers.com: The person or persons who control or direct a business or other enterprise.

So when he says "in terms of management", he's saying, "in terms of who's running the company". Hence, Ballmer.

Since you are new to English and made quite a few errors, I thought I would help you out.

Yes, I can already hear a collective groan from Slashdot purists about the idea. But let's face it, web pages are going to get more and more application-like and less page-like, and I doubt there is anything you can do to stop it. Now as developers we will need to either keep hacking and making more and more tricks for the existing HTML and CSS to get it to display correctly or bite the bullet and create optimized features that will make web browsers a good source for application development.

1. Standardized Vector Graphics. Why download graphics to display a line graph where if all browsers had vector graphics SVG or whatever just as long it was standardized. (I can't fix this sentence, it's too broken.) For some cases having XY co-ordinates will save on bandwidth and server load time.

2. Secure Bytecode Javascript. Open Source is all good and great however not all developers are keen on how the web interface works, sometimes putting too much of the security checking in JavaScript. Having JavaScript in an encrypted bytecode format where you are not just a view source away for finding a backdoor (This sentence is incomplete.). Yes, you can say people who make these mistakes are stupid and get what they deserve, however, it doesn't fix the problem, and the stupid person who coded the page could be working for your bank, with his code between the internet and your money.

3. Better Debugging: Firefox is OK. IE with Visual Studio - when it works (a big when) - is OK. But I would love to be able to debug JavaScript and HTML, put a break on an HTML (on an HTML what?), or change the CSS after it loaded and try different variants until I get it right.

4. HTML elements to have a visible property. (They do.)

5. Easier way to use the ID name vs. getElementbyId.

Yes, I know I will get a bunch of hate messages and a lot of my requests require new HTML/JavaScript standards first or they are already there and nobody has implemented them, or (there is something missing here) just hate using HTML for applications. However I see HTML as the new VT100, used as a standard for displaying information from my application, not just a text formatting option.

Since you are new to English and made quite a few errors, I thought I would help you out.

Yes, I can already hear a collective groan from Slashdot purists about the idea. But let's face it, web pages are going to get more and more application-like and less page-like, and I doubt there is anything you can do to stop it. Now as developers we will need to either keep hacking and making more and more tricks for the existing HTML and CSS to get it to display correctly or bite the bullet and create optimized features that will make web browsers a good source for application development.

1. Standardized Vector Graphics. Why download graphics to display a line graph where if all browsers had vector graphics SVG or whatever just as long it was standardized. (I can't fix this sentence, it's too broken.) For some cases having XY co-ordinates will save on bandwidth and server load time.

2. Secure Bytecode Javascript. Open Source is all good and great however not all developers are keen on how the web interface works, sometimes putting too much of the security checking in JavaScript. Having JavaScript in an encrypted bytecode format where you are not just a view source away for finding a backdoor (This sentence is incomplete.). Yes, you can say people who make these mistakes are stupid and get what they deserve, however, it doesn't fix the problem, and the stupid person who coded the page could be working for your bank, with his code between the internet and your money.

3. Better Debugging: Firefox is OK. IE with Visual Studio - when it works (a big when) - is OK. But I would love to be able to debug JavaScript and HTML, put a break on an HTML (on an HTML what?), or change the CSS after it loaded and try different variants until I get it right.

4. HTML elements to have a visible property. (They do.)

5. Easier way to use the ID name vs. getElementbyId.

Yes, I know I will get a bunch of hate messages and a lot of my requests require new HTML/JavaScript standards first or they are already there and nobody has implemented them, or (there is something missing here) just hate using HTML for applications. However I see HTML as the new VT100, used as a standard for displaying information from my application, not just a text formatting option.

Since you are new to English and made quite a few errors, I thought I would help you out.

Yes, I can already hear a collective groan from Slashdot purists about the idea. But let's face it, web pages are going to get more and more application-like and less page-like, and I doubt there is anything you can do to stop it. Now as developers we will need to either keep hacking and making more and more tricks for the existing HTML and CSS to get it to display correctly or bite the bullet and create optimized features that will make web browsers a good source for application development.

1. Standardized Vector Graphics. Why download graphics to display a line graph where if all browsers had vector graphics SVG or whatever just as long it was standardized. (I can't fix this sentence, it's too broken.) For some cases having XY co-ordinates will save on bandwidth and server load time.

2. Secure Bytecode Javascript. Open Source is all good and great however not all developers are keen on how the web interface works, sometimes putting too much of the security checking in JavaScript. Having JavaScript in an encrypted bytecode format where you are not just a view source away for finding a backdoor (This sentence is incomplete.). Yes, you can say people who make these mistakes are stupid and get what they deserve, however, it doesn't fix the problem, and the stupid person who coded the page could be working for your bank, with his code between the internet and your money.

3. Better Debugging: Firefox is OK. IE with Visual Studio - when it works (a big when) - is OK. But I would love to be able to debug JavaScript and HTML, put a break on an HTML (on an HTML what?), or change the CSS after it loaded and try different variants until I get it right.

4. HTML elements to have a visible property. (They do.)

5. Easier way to use the ID name vs. getElementbyId.

Yes, I know I will get a bunch of hate messages and a lot of my requests require new HTML/JavaScript standards first or they are already there and nobody has implemented them, or (there is something missing here) just hate using HTML for applications. However I see HTML as the new VT100, used as a standard for displaying information from my application, not just a text formatting option.

Since you are new to English and made quite a few errors, I thought I would help you out.

Yes, I can already hear a collective groan from Slashdot purists about the idea. But let's face it, web pages are going to get more and more application-like and less page-like, and I doubt there is anything you can do to stop it. Now as developers we will need to either keep hacking and making more and more tricks for the existing HTML and CSS to get it to display correctly or bite the bullet and create optimized features that will make web browsers a good source for application development.

1. Standardized Vector Graphics. Why download graphics to display a line graph where if all browsers had vector graphics SVG or whatever just as long it was standardized. (I can't fix this sentence, it's too broken.) For some cases having XY co-ordinates will save on bandwidth and server load time.

2. Secure Bytecode Javascript. Open Source is all good and great however not all developers are keen on how the web interface works, sometimes putting too much of the security checking in JavaScript. Having JavaScript in an encrypted bytecode format where you are not just a view source away for finding a backdoor (This sentence is incomplete.). Yes, you can say people who make these mistakes are stupid and get what they deserve, however, it doesn't fix the problem, and the stupid person who coded the page could be working for your bank, with his code between the internet and your money.

3. Better Debugging: Firefox is OK. IE with Visual Studio - when it works (a big when) - is OK. But I would love to be able to debug JavaScript and HTML, put a break on an HTML (on an HTML what?), or change the CSS after it loaded and try different variants until I get it right.

4. HTML elements to have a visible property. (They do.)

5. Easier way to use the ID name vs. getElementbyId.

Yes, I know I will get a bunch of hate messages and a lot of my requests require new HTML/JavaScript standards first or they are already there and nobody has implemented them, or (there is something missing here) just hate using HTML for applications. However I see HTML as the new VT100, used as a standard for displaying information from my application, not just a text formatting option.

What you seem to neglect is that in the interveneing time, GB lost many of it's colonies around the world.

Actually, it was the cost of WWII that caused the decline of the UK (not Great Britain, Great Britain hasn't been the name of a country for over two centuries).

My understanding of both World Wars indicates that the United States entered both wars once it was felt that there was no other option.

Then your implication that France helping the USA in the war of independence was a cause/motivating factor for the USA coming to France's aid in WWII is something you yourself disagree with. Please make your mind up.

With the Second World War, The United States only declared war (on Japan) after a surprise attack on our soil (Pearl Harbor). Had that not happened, we would not have enetered that war at that time. Also note: We did not initially declare war on Germany; we declared war against Japan and Germany declared war against US.

You do not seem to have fully thought out your point -- that had the war for independance failed, we would have fought in the World Wars anyway.

You seem to have gotten mixed up now. You seem to be claiming my point as your own and assuming I said the opposite.

World politcs is too complex a sport to assume that the failure of any one action (the American Revolution) would not cause a later (and similar) action to succeed.

That was precisely my point, and the reason why I disagreed with your earlier comment.

What you seem to neglect is that in the interveneing time, GB lost many of it's colonies around the world.

Actually, it was the cost of WWII that caused the decline of the UK (not Great Britain, Great Britain hasn't been the name of a country for over two centuries).

My understanding of both World Wars indicates that the United States entered both wars once it was felt that there was no other option.

Then your implication that France helping the USA in the war of independence was a cause/motivating factor for the USA coming to France's aid in WWII is something you yourself disagree with. Please make your mind up.

With the Second World War, The United States only declared war (on Japan) after a surprise attack on our soil (Pearl Harbor). Had that not happened, we would not have enetered that war at that time. Also note: We did not initially declare war on Germany; we declared war against Japan and Germany declared war against US.

You do not seem to have fully thought out your point -- that had the war for independance failed, we would have fought in the World Wars anyway.

You seem to have gotten mixed up now. You seem to be claiming my point as your own and assuming I said the opposite.

World politcs is too complex a sport to assume that the failure of any one action (the American Revolution) would not cause a later (and similar) action to succeed.

That was precisely my point, and the reason why I disagreed with your earlier comment.

What you seem to neglect is that in the interveneing time, GB lost many of it's colonies around the world.

Actually, it was the cost of WWII that caused the decline of the UK (not Great Britain, Great Britain hasn't been the name of a country for over two centuries).

My understanding of both World Wars indicates that the United States entered both wars once it was felt that there was no other option.

Then your implication that France helping the USA in the war of independence was a cause/motivating factor for the USA coming to France's aid in WWII is something you yourself disagree with. Please make your mind up.

With the Second World War, The United States only declared war (on Japan) after a surprise attack on our soil (Pearl Harbor). Had that not happened, we would not have enetered that war at that time. Also note: We did not initially declare war on Germany; we declared war against Japan and Germany declared war against US.

You do not seem to have fully thought out your point -- that had the war for independance failed, we would have fought in the World Wars anyway.

You seem to have gotten mixed up now. You seem to be claiming my point as your own and assuming I said the opposite.

World politcs is too complex a sport to assume that the failure of any one action (the American Revolution) would not cause a later (and similar) action to succeed.

That was precisely my point, and the reason why I disagreed with your earlier comment.

What you seem to neglect is that in the interveneing time, GB lost many of it's colonies around the world.

Actually, it was the cost of WWII that caused the decline of the UK (not Great Britain, Great Britain hasn't been the name of a country for over two centuries).

My understanding of both World Wars indicates that the United States entered both wars once it was felt that there was no other option.

Then your implication that France helping the USA in the war of independence was a cause/motivating factor for the USA coming to France's aid in WWII is something you yourself disagree with. Please make your mind up.

With the Second World War, The United States only declared war (on Japan) after a surprise attack on our soil (Pearl Harbor). Had that not happened, we would not have enetered that war at that time. Also note: We did not initially declare war on Germany; we declared war against Japan and Germany declared war against US.

You do not seem to have fully thought out your point -- that had the war for independance failed, we would have fought in the World Wars anyway.

You seem to have gotten mixed up now. You seem to be claiming my point as your own and assuming I said the opposite.

World politcs is too complex a sport to assume that the failure of any one action (the American Revolution) would not cause a later (and similar) action to succeed.

That was precisely my point, and the reason why I disagreed with your earlier comment.

What you seem to neglect is that in the interveneing time, GB lost many of it's colonies around the world.

Actually, it was the cost of WWII that caused the decline of the UK (not Great Britain, Great Britain hasn't been the name of a country for over two centuries).

My understanding of both World Wars indicates that the United States entered both wars once it was felt that there was no other option.

Then your implication that France helping the USA in the war of independence was a cause/motivating factor for the USA coming to France's aid in WWII is something you yourself disagree with. Please make your mind up.

With the Second World War, The United States only declared war (on Japan) after a surprise attack on our soil (Pearl Harbor). Had that not happened, we would not have enetered that war at that time. Also note: We did not initially declare war on Germany; we declared war against Japan and Germany declared war against US.

You do not seem to have fully thought out your point -- that had the war for independance failed, we would have fought in the World Wars anyway.

You seem to have gotten mixed up now. You seem to be claiming my point as your own and assuming I said the opposite.

World politcs is too complex a sport to assume that the failure of any one action (the American Revolution) would not cause a later (and similar) action to succeed.

That was precisely my point, and the reason why I disagreed with your earlier comment.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_saying_'all_intents_and_purposes'_or_'all_intense_purposes'

Fix your sig.

So, should ALL the people in the link I just provided, including Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and the oracle himself, Al Gore all be tried for treason?

Do you think they should?

Origins: All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S.

If so, on what grounds? No, they did not say "THE EXACT SAME THING." They made similar statements, when discussing the real dangers of Iraq, but they did not ignore contradictory facts and they did not run a publicity campaign for the purpose of waging a war of aggression in Iraq.

First, nothing from the Huffington Post can be used as a source... EVER. It is opinions posted by the most ignorant of Americans, celebrities. If anything, having something said in the Huffington post should be used as COUTNER-evidence to whatever was said.

In my opinion, discarding any one article merely because it appears in the Huffington Post [or any other source] would be to subscribe to the premise of guilt by association, which I do not. Heh, I held my nose and read the article you posted from snopes. You're entitled to your opinions. Everybody else is equally entitled to our opinions, and that includes everybody who disagrees. That's life. The subject at hand is not difference of opinion, but irresponsible and dishonest representation of fact in the pursuit of others' opinions, voters' opinions, in one of the gravest of all political matters, declaration of war. To dismiss a fact merely because it's expressed by a person, or in a journal, with which you have a difference of opinion is to make the very same type of error as we are discussing.

However, I did notice that there was no mention of Sandy Berger, the Clinton security advisor stealing top secret documents and cutting them up with scissors during the 9-11 investigation. I guess that was no big deal, what with Bush lying and all.

That's a disgrace, no doubt about it and no argument, but it is not currently "news." It was not omitted from that article because of Democratic bias. That was the correct professional journalistic decision.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.

Vladimir Putin, no matter how friendly he may be nor how pure his soul, is primarily responsible for advancing the interests of Russia, not of the United States. As those tend to overlap these days, it is wise to be receptive to any tips he offers, to take them seriously. But because he is primarily responsible not to us but to a foreign power, the correct next step is to validate what he says independently, with U.S. intelligence assets and never take him, nor any other foreign power, on feith. "Russian President Vladimir Putin said" is not relevant rebuttal to the findings of the U.S. Congress, for this U.S. citizen.

Granted, Saddam Hussein was not in full compliance with terms of treaties he signed. It is also worth noting, however, that his invasion of Kuwait was in response to diagonal oil drilling from Kuwait into Earth under Iraq and that oil was as much a motive for the defense of Kuwait against Iraq as it was a motive for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, so the U.S., and especially t

...high rates of obesity (soul food), diabetes (sweet tea), and heart disease....

Having just moved from there, to the Bay Area, Ca....
Yes, Ga is unhealthy. Alot of the blame can also be put on the government of the state, which continues to push for more and wider highways (as if 16 lanes isnt enough), continue to allow and support the majority of power plants running on fossil fuels, mainly coal and including 3 of the dirtiest in the US, with two in the top 3 of that list. This, combined with naturally high humidity, ultra high pollen counts and high temperatures makes the air quality suck, putting Atlanta in 4th for most challenging place to live with asthma and consistently in the Top Ten smoggiest cities. This keeps people inside. Going anywhere basically means driving there as sprawl and the resulting proliferation of more roads without increased mass transit or even bike lanes(again, gvmt sponsored), reckless drivers in large vehicles thanks to (previously, and relatively) cheap gas and the whole "southern/redneck" bit that leans towards F250s with 12"lift on mud tires, and the horrid air make it difficult to impossible to walk or bike anywhere (outside of Down/Mid Town Atl) for fear of your life. So people tend to sit on their fat asses in their offices all day and eat at one of about 20 McDonads or Waffle Houses in the 2mi radius of their home (after driving there of course)... not that I miss having a 24h eatery nearby (I miss my WaHo and Marietta Diner!). Add to all that that NASCAR is a "Sport" in Ga, and as such, "exercising" consists of sitting in bleachers (or on the sofa), smoking, drinking budweiser and eating chilli cheese dogs while watching cars go in circles.

Alot of this could be fixed by improving mass-transit, curbing Sprawl (which is what really caused the drought) and improving Atlanta's Bikability. Generally getting people out of their cars and walking or biking places. MARTA's subway line only goes to about 3 useful places: the airport, downtown, and perimeter mall, while a majority of people live in Cobb County, which rejected having anything to do with a Marta rail line (think: "It will bring in the colored people to steal our TV's!").

Ga is way behind in most rankings of things as well: the Gov'ner has repeatedly struck down attempts to allow Sunday sales of any alcoholic beverage (outside of a restaurant), the most recent time saying it would teach "better time management," thus keeping Georgia one of 3 states still having such arcane blue laws. The state is kept in the past though laws like this, as well as the control the churches have over it and its citizens, which al

Breakdown of the Federal budget in 2007:
17% defense
21% Social Security
14% Medicare
13% Unemployment & Welfare
10% Medicaid.

You can see a nice pretty pie chart that even an idiot like you can read here:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/d/dd/Fbs_us_fy2007.png

But I'll sum it up for you. 10+13+14+21 = 58% of the budget going to transfer payments while 17% of the budget goes to defense spending, so no, the majority of the Federal budget isn't going to the big bad evil Military Industrial Complex.

Tape has guarantee (real guarantee) over 50 years and it will be there for decades thanks to the organisations using it like Banks, Govt., Military

http://www.answers.com/tape+drive?cat=technology

Everything is open, documented and it is designed for reliability.

Put the videos in their native format (Dv etc.), put it into a bank safe or a safe.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Bill_Gates_Jewish Good G-d! Don't you people know this yet? You goyim are so stupid. http://www.slate.com/id/2177228/ Debate. If you dare...

3 phase consists of 3 power leads each 120 degrees out of phase with each other. By switching any two leads, you will reverse the direction of the phase rotation, which will make the motor turn the other way.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes. Any treaty signed by the President and ratified by the Senate carries the full force of law. The U.S. is a member of the U.N., created by a multinational treaty signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. Any action the U.N. takes in accordance with that treaty carries the weight of U.S. law (but of course this is only relevant in the U.S.).

This is NOT correct. Treaties and Federal laws are subordinate to the Constitution and are not equal. No treaty can take away your rights as granted by the US constitution. The phrase "supreme law of the land" is referring to Federal Law and ratified treaties being supreme to state law. For an education on this, try this page: http://www.answers.com/topic/supremacy-clause?cat=biz-fin

http://www.answers.com/topic/hawthorne-effect?cat=health/

"This behavior was documented by a research team led by Elton Mayo in the 1920s at the Western Electric Company Hawthorne plant. In studying the effect of lighting on productivity, the researchers found that, regardless of the lighting conditions introduced, productivity improved."

Bullshit Snopes article; bananas aren't a "fruit", they're properly a form of soft gravel.

First off, copyright infringement in America has already equated piracy with theft. For the sake of this argument, I will therefore assume copyright infringement is theft.

If you possess stolen goods you are guilty whether you knew they were stolen or not. It is a popular misconception that if you are not aware the goods are stolen you are not at fault. See receiving stolen property, particularly the part about Defenses. This being said, you can be arrested and punished for stealing, even if you didn't know you possessed the stolen goods. The good news is the punishment is usually just seizing the property - to get more severe punishments such as "receipt of stolen property" the government needs to prove you knowingly and willingly did it.

What I want to know is how they are going to deal with the variances of copyright, such as life + 120 years in the United States (thanks to the Mickey Mouse law), life + 50 years in countries like Canada (if included), and life + 70 in most of Europe. I'm too lazy to read the proposal itself, but knowing the US, they didn't think of that at all and just assumed everyone uses US law.

In case it was more than a typo, you probably mean lord(verb):

http://www.answers.com/laud
http://www.answers.com/lord

In case it was more than a typo, you probably mean lord(verb):

http://www.answers.com/laud
http://www.answers.com/lord

Just wanted to get it out there in case the U.K. wants to bring me up on charges. Come on you authoritarian assholes, I dare you. Scientology is a cult. Mormonism is a cult. Christianity is a cult. Islam is a cult. (and by leaving them out, my intent is that followers of Judaism feel insulted for being excluded (chosen at random) (and yes, they too are a cult))

Aside from the heinous idea that a person feeling insulted should be sufficient to inhibit free speech, how about the anthropological (as opposed to bullshit media bigotted "big means good, small means bad") definition of cult:

cult

In anthropology, an organization for the conduct of ritual, magical, or other religious observances. Many so-called primitive tribes, for example, have ancestor cults, in which dead ancestors are considered divine and activities are organized to respect their memory and invoke their aid. A cult is also a religious group held together by a dominant, often charismatic individual, or by the worship of a divinity, an idol, or some other object. (See animism, fetish, and totemism.)

Thank you, Houghton Mifflin Science Dictionary. Here's a quick note: they're all cults. They all engage in brainwashing too. Look up the definition, then tell me what those repetitive chants and rituals are. If you can come up with a consistent definition of brainwashing that does not include the ritual repetitive chanting at Sunday morning services, I will concede the point. Feeling insulted by the truth is all real sad and everything, but, um, tough shit. Stop being a cult and I'll stop calling you a cult.

And blow me, England. Hey, there's an idea! What say The Queen blows me? She's got a purty mouth. No, I'm not talking about Charles. I would never use queen as a derogatory term for a poofter - being a poofter like Prince Charles is a personal choice and I fully support his lifestyle (though I am not sure I support his closeting of it).

And with that, a little bow. Thank you for playing, England.

Neither am I an expert, but my knowledge of clearinghouses says that they need to do things like move checks, money transfers, and whatnot. I don't think just "storing information" qualifies, unfortunately.

Regardless of my personal views I think that is rather harsh. While I have witnessed many religious groups slowly become cults there is a glaring difference of note.

Cults are absent of the betterment of the individual person but rather than leader only. Cults try to subvert the human will with total and complete obedience to the leader of a group or sect.

Any religious group can become a cult if it elevates an individual over the greater good of the group but that doesn't make every religion a cult.

BTW, if you can read this thank a religious monk.