Slashdot Mirror

Infamous Emails Don't Always Kill Careers

Episodes 1 through 12 are available free from the Guardian.

"I want to do a radio show where I can say what I want, when I want, for as long as I want and that's free for anybody who can be bothered to listen anywhere in the world."

Then again, maybe enough people really really like Ricky Gervais. But probably not.

People must like him somewhat, being as his podcast just got into the Guiness Book of World Records for being the most downloaded.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1703591, 00.html?gusrc=rss

Yet this, $7, is almost 4 times the cost of a television show. I could buy two hours of Galactica (or something more popular. ... Desperate Housewives, for the mainstream audience) for $3.98. Or I could pay double for the same amount of plain audio.

You can find his current Podcast website here (sponsored by The Guardian) to find out what the show is consisting of.

Israel has its own religious fanatics. The settlers in the West Bank (and formerly in Gaza) are religious fanatics bent on the creation of Greater Israel. Fortunately, the government of Israel is being far less indulgent to the settlers than they have in the past.

For the most part, there are no independent Israeli mass murders because their overwhelmingly powerful army does most of the killing. Their army kills and maims civilians near militant leaders by bombing apartment blocks and shooting missiles at cars on busy streets. The hatred is not one-way, though the despair and desperation that originates in collective punishment and leads people to conclude that blowing themselves up to take others with them is a good idea is truly uniquely Palestinian.

I'm not very fond of either side in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but the 3:1 Palestinians:Israelis body count ratio and the overwhelming difference in force strength really does leave Israel looking like the bully in the relationship.

Of course, a few minor spelling/grammer/punctuation mistakes *should* be tolerated

"From what I understand, the government asked for web search strings alone. No identifying information at all."

This is a trial run for the DOJ. If this works out, you can guarentee that personally identifyable information will be requested next. That request will come under a Patriot Act Secret Warrant, so you'll never hear about it. The goverment will use that data to secretely and warrantlessly tap your other communications, you'll be arrested and sent to a secret prison where you'll have no access to a lawyer or the red cross. Sure you may try to starve yourself or hang yourself from your bedsheets after 4 or 5 years, but the guards will make sure to tie you down and force feed you so that your misery can continue.

Yeah, Google's the bad guy here.

The western world - and china and india - should follow Japan's example:

"Japan, the world's second-largest economy, has no domestic sources of fossil fuel and, facing rising oil prices, has turned energy efficiency into an art form. Japan's oil consumption has remained steady since 1975, while world consumption has risen steadily. It has dramatically diversified its power sources over the years, becoming far less dependent on oil and cultivating a culture of conservation."

The real kicker:

"We recognise that there is an important environmental issue at stake, but economically it has also worked out for us," said Hiroshi Nakashima, a manager at Nippon Steel. "Improved energy efficiency means we need to buy less fuel, and that saves money. Otherwise, we never would have done it."

Save money == increased profits. You got to spend money to create it.

and not a sky elevator in sight.

.Text - !

Object reference not set to an instance of an object. .[ wyhw2002@hotmail.com]

That was the court case involving Clarence Willcox

Since the 1939 National Registration Act was repealed in 1951 after Clarence Willcox, the manager of a dry cleaning shop, challenged the principle that a policeman could demand to see his wartime identity card,

The Guardian: ID Cards

Here is a page of peaceful, middle-class English protesters who have been beaten bloody.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,1305225,00.h tml

Here is an article documenting their continued persecution, due to their daring to speak out against police brutality:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:ccgGv54ab-wJ: www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/article.ph p%3Faid%3D62246+Hunt+supporters+who+made+complaint s+against+the+police+officers'+behaviour+in+Parlia ment+Square+last+September+are+now+being+arrested+ for+public+order+offences&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Another example of police terrorizing their critics:

http://prisonerjw7874.blogspot.com/

Despite all the jokes about "McChimpyBushHitler", it is interesting to see how US critics of the US State get rich and famous, while critics of the British State get their heads bashed in...

Hopefully something will change before it is too late.

First of all, on a per-capita basis the U.S is more oppressive to its citizens then the Chinese government. An American is almost four times as likely to be imprisoned then a Chinese citizen. In fact, the US has more total people in jail then the Chinese, despite the fact that china has almost four times as many people as the US.

Perhaps that's b/c the Chinese government doesn't bother to jail people when they can just "disappear" them instead. The "disappeared" are conveniently not included the statistics you reference. Don't be so foolish, there's no comparison b/t a totalitarian Maoist Communist government and America.

Also explains why Bush hears voices in his head telling him to invade Iraq.

Furthermore, given that at least a third of Brits are already unwitting carriers (rising to about 80% in France and Germany), the effects are clearly less pronounced than some press reports earlier this week may have led you to believe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/thisweek/story/0,12 977,1048642,00.html

Dated Thursday September 25, 2003

Ive read that these parasited are more common in the UK or perhaps we only know of more cases there becuase people are looking harder. Im not exactly an expert on the topic but i know this has been "news" for years now.

Yes they did.

It doesn't seem to be working very well though.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1707190,00 .html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4700190.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/articl e344675.ece

In fact, Royal Mail is now so bad, that I now pay a private courier to deliver my letters for me rather than pay Royal Mail to lose them for me.

News organizations in America are encouraged to keep reporting on school shootings to an absolute minimum, otherwise, they encourage more of the same from those who perpetrate them. Israelis who enjoy shooting Palestinian children might be doing it just for the glory of killing kids since they know there are basically no consequences.

how can you say that this is proving that the crazies are not in minority??!!

1. the muslim population of the world is about 1.5 billion. tell me again, how many people in total, participated in violent demonstrations all over the muslim countries? i know in Iran's capital city (Tehran) with a population of about 12 million, there were only 400 people who participated in the violent protests. well sure, it says in the news headlines that the danish embassy in tehran was set on fire, but does it emphasize that a group of 400 people in a 12 million population did that?
of course i know in some other countries the numbers where much higher, up to the tens of thousands, but still that's FAR FAR away from the majority of the muslim population.

2. last wednesday and thursday (8 and 9th Feb) some reports were putting the number of protestors in the hundreds of thousands in some countries. that has nothing to do with the cartoons. there is a two day annual religous event called Ashoora which takes place at this time of the year; and of course on the sidelines of that event, some groups where chanting slogans about the cartoons too.

i hope i've been able to convince some of you that it is not fair to conclude that the majority of muslims are violent people.

I find it sad that shallow and crude anti-Muslim comments are getting moderated "insightful" in this discussion: that in itself indicates what a mess we are in.

The Danish journalist (Flemming Rose) who commissioned these cartoons knew exactly what he was doing: he has more or less stated as much. There was a calculated intention to provoke, and it was successful.

Why should he have wanted to do this? It's been pointed out that Flemming Rose is an associate of, and has written approving about Daniel Pipes, the notorious Zionist neo-conservative figure who is behind the organisation http://www.campus-watch.org/, which is attempting a McCarthy-type witch-hunt against people in US universities who don't share their views.

At a time when the United States is planning yet another war against a Muslim nation, the images of Muslims rioting over this matter have acted as powerful propaganda for that war.

See also: http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/02/danish-cartoo n-conspiracy.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1 703501,00.html for a description of how the same newspaper rejected cartoons lampooning Jesus Christ.

"Go right to hell" with Tony "Imperialist War-Monger" Blair.

Sincerely,
Hugo Chavez

P.S. Spreading freedom and democracy my ass.

It's not because cartoons were published depicting Mohammed as a terrorist, it's because cartoons were published. This is something that's completely forbidden in their Religion.
It doesn't matter if they depicted Mohammed as a peace-loving hippie, the reaction would have probably been the same.
Another big factor was the spread of fabricated cartoons and the incitement of violence through rumours spread via sms messages.
And of course, the fact that a few years ago Jyllands-Posten rejected Jesus cartoons on the grounds that their readers would find them offensive.

and his advice would have been more inspirational had he extended his invitation
to The World's Most Dangerous Leader

Courtesy of The Guardian

When Tony Blair left the Commons chamber after question time, he probably thought David Cameron's accusation that he was "flip-flopping" over school reform was the worst verbal jab he would face this week.

Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan president, had other ideas. In a characteristically forthright tirade, he described the prime minister as "a pawn of imperialism" and told him to "go right to hell".

Mr Chávez was inveighing against comments on Venezuela's attitude to democracy made by Mr Blair in the chamber. The prime minister's observation that Venezuela should abide by the rules of the international community if it wanted to be respected by it showed that he believed "we're still in times of imperialism and colonialism", Mr Chávez said.

Seditiously,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

I had no idea I was also "U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a Chief Deputy Democratic Whip" (as referenced in the GGP post), I guess it was me on my U.S. Representative web site that compiled that list of quotes from the administration. Otherwise, if I wasn't also Jan, then I wouldn't have been "The only person making inferences...". Nevermind the fact that I am also obviously slashdot user "NMerriam (15122)", as it was s/he who made the original comment. Damn, I must be schizophrenic. Thanks for the info!

You have inferred that Bush is just about the worst person on earth

Actually, no. I have simply inferred (to you and you alone I guess, as it was not my original intent) the W "is just about the worst [president] on earth". It that case, I'd have to agree with myself (but which myself? the Jan myself, or the NMerriam myself? Fuck, this is confusing).

which you know isn't true

Actually, none of the me's are positive about that point.

and you can't offer any support for that argument

(Neverminding the fact that that was not *my* argument) You are so right, I offered absolutely no support for that argument what-so-ever. Silly me, I thought we were talking about W's (and HIS administrations) references to the Iraqi's footing part of the bill. I apologize. Excellent use of the NeoCon-ish-ness "demean your critics, divert the debate and ignore the issues", well played!

I have showed you concrete numbers, yet the OBVIOUSNESS of everything still isn't getting into your skull.

To paraphrase W (and yes, I lived in Texas) - "There's an old saying in Tennessee... well, it's an old saying in Texas, I believe also in Tennessee. Actions [pauses] speak louder then [pauses] government documentation on a National Development Strategy authored more then 2 years after the invasion was 'complete'". Shouldn't that have been done BEFORE the invasion? Or at least very soon there after? Or am I a "dick" to assume some leadership in a war that "we" "choose".
Have there been elections? Yes. Have they represented the population? Depends on if your a Sunni, Kurd or Shiite. We've killed 30,000 of them (W's numbers, not mine), is that considered progress? Guess that depends on if your PWT, KKK, or NeoCon.

You're not even a very smart liberal man, why bother?

I enjoy a bit of intellectual masturbation every once in a while. Besides, since I don't go to church, I don't have a clergy thinking for me, so I guess that makes me more dumber two.

Some guys can hold their ground, but I've reduced you to this? Sad.

Let's take score, shall we?

You referenced 1 document authored by the Republic of Iraq, Iraqi Strategic Review Board, Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation to support your position.

I referenced the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Associated Press/Ex-President Jimmy Carter, The Washington Post, CNN, San Francisco Gate, and U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky's website (which itself references NYT, Reuters, The Washington Post, House Budget Committee, Congressional Testimony, CNBC, White House Press Briefings, House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplem

Of course, the rebuilding effort was never a high priority for W.

Bush (and by this I mean Rove) is very, VERY good at inference. Sentences for "...9/11...", "...Al-Qaeda..." and "...Saddam..." being back to back in countless speeches. Did he ever *SAY* they were connected? No. Did he repeatedly infer that they were, absol-fucking-lutly! But that's not the same as catching him in a lie, now is it? No, no it is not.

Funny, but Clinton's Iraq approach seems to have been much more effective (in hindsight). There were no WMDs, now were there? Saddam was completely isolated and more or less starved of funds (save the Aussies and their oil-for-wheat scandal going on right now).

More then anything, Bush has been a divider. Half the country hates him, half loves to re-elect him. He has started the first global holy war in more then a century. He has swelled the ranks of terrorists. He has burned thru all of the global pro-American sediment we enjoyed in the days following 9/11. He has stressed that we do not have to follow the Geneva conventions!? Freedom of speech has been limited during his tenure. Check and balances have been avoided (some, like former president Carter say illegally) at his explicate direction. He has lied (or changed his criteria, if you want to spin it that way). He has spent nearly a trillion (that's with a 'T') more then his predecessor ($400+ billion surpluses turned into $400+ billion deficits). By the time he leaves office, he will have added more then 3 trillion to the national debt (and that's being generous, it'll probably be nearly 4, or just about double when he started).

Now, this is a bit unfair as he was at the helm while America suffered one of it's most high profile disasters, and more money would have been spent by anyone in the office at the time. But for a man who comes from a party that believes in small government and smaller government spending, he has done most certainly the opposite (but Halliburton is up 10 fold).

This part of American history will be looked back upon in the same way the McCarthy trials are, with a moral disgust and the question of how in the hell could that have been let to happen. We used to make fun of the Russians for "papers please" for travel within their own country, and were appalled that this African dictator or that Eastern European police state were violating the Geneva conventions, and said "that would NEVER happen here" when news reports told of countries who lock up their own citizens without trial and without charge. That was 1980-1990's America, yet in America 2k...

America has lost her way.

This is war:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,100 7042,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93466,00.html

Mr President, we can not allow a Barge gap!

That is probably and optimistic figure, at least a according to Joseph Stiglitz:

The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.

This is from an article in the British newspaper The Guardian about a month ago.

We've had to stop buying dells, since Dell has their laptops about 2 weeks out of every months [...] I'm leaning toward a new macbook

Several recent Apple laptops have had reliability problems too. 73% failure in some cases!

So, yeah, don't assume Apple laptops are reliable just beause they come from Apple.

Michael

This has been rattling around various blogs for a couple of days now, even making an appearance in the Guardian. It's interesting that it seems to be being posted as "news", as there has been user level access to this stuff since around 1995 when digital networks started rolling out properly. I'm not sure what's going, presumably it's one of those meme things...

Oh yes. And we've blown it. Bacteria are developing resistance, and some researchers believe community-based MSRA could be widespread in our lifetimes.

well a floride coating is what natrually protects our teeth, thats why tap water, and toothpaste have this as an additive. Actually I just read that tooth decay is on the rise because many of us no longer drink tap water wwhich is forified with floride

Like many Americans my age, I grew up with a positive association to fluoride. Toothpaste commercials told me that fluoride helped prevent tooth decay and that I should brush my teeth with fluoride toothpaste, so I used it every day. The dentist gave me fluoride treatments for my teeth. Fluoride was also added to municipal water supplies, so drinking tap water (and anything made with it) gave me a daily dose of fluoride too. Like most other people, I assumed it must be healthy. Otherwise, why would people add it to toothpaste and water?

Fluoride is not added to the tap water to protect our teeth.

Firstly, the American Dental Association states that all ground and surface water in the United States contains some naturally occurring fluoride. There is no such thing as "fluoride-deficient" water. Furthermore, only calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water, and it has never been used for fluoridation. The chemicals used to fluoridate 90% of public drinking water are industrial grade hazardous wastes captured in the air pollution-control scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry, called silicofluorides. The most commonly used one is Hydrofluosilicic acid.
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/

The fluoride used for water fluoridation is considered by the FDA as an "unapproved drug". Research shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount.
http://www.nofluoride.com/

The FDA does not regulate tap water. The EPA does. Despite official government policy, the union of 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at the EPA opposes water fluoridation.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

As you probably already know, the fluoride used in tap water is a neurotoxin including cadium and mercury.
http://www.prn2.usm.my/mainsite/bulletin/nst/2001/ nst34.html

Fluoridated water has caused cancer in children. The increased cancer risks, identified in a newly available study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,690 3,1504672,00.html

Fluoridated water disrupts DNA enzyme repair. Fluoride affects fertility rates.
http://www.drkaslow.com/html/fluoride.html

The fluoride used in tap water causes genetic damage. One US Government report investigated 156 deaths over 3 years. They concluded that fluoride accumulates in body tissues and may eventually cause fatal illnesses.
http://www.health-science.com/fluoride_toxicity.ht ml

IF you stopped reading by now, your ADD is probably caused by water fluoridation. The fluoride used in tap water is linked to alzheimers, lower IQ rates in children, and dementia.
http://www.fluoridation.com/brain.htm

Japan, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Holland and Finland have all had mass fluoridation schemes and stopped them. France has never allowed it, and Belgium have gone a step further and banned the sale of fluoride tablets and chewing gum. Between 1990 and 2000, no less than 77 US and Canadian cities either rejected fluoridation or abandoned existing schemes, some after several deca

I think the correct term was "reins". But the screaming liberals decided it was inhumane or demeaning or something, and now you never see them being used.

Say what you like, but your (defenseless) kid can't walk off in shopping centres or run out into the path of the passing traffic.

Kids are kids, and they are not predictable or enlightened enough to run free in public places at that age.

And then there are a handful of us who majored in environmental science in college who think that computer models are as susceptible to subjective modelers as computer benchmarks are to industry types trying to sell you their latest processor. Large majority eh? Got any relevant links? I'm not going to pick on you specifically MightyMartian, because there are a lot of people here racking up +5's with nothing but rhetoric. Here's why I think this global warming business is a sham.

The soil releases an order of magnitude more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the fossil fuels burned each year combined. No till farming in America could take as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as taking half of all the cars in America off the road. A full 40% of the Earth's arable land is being used for agriculture and most of it is being severely degraded by tillage. Why aren't you people up in arms about that? Hey, burn the f'in farmers right? They're greedy evil bastards.

Studies have shown that fertilizing plankton with iron sulfate could significantly reduce atmospheric CO2. (IronEx II is a notable success.) "Oh teh Noes!!11oneone1eleventyone! After 500 years it wont teh wurk anymore!?ONE" Well gee, we'll be out of fossil fuels by then. So why aren't you guys who are belly aching about global warming doing it? Afraid you'll have egg on your face if CO2 drops and mean temps continue to rise? What you say? Your models might be flawed?

Wow, the Sun IS getting hotter, and Earth's temperature correlates directly with it.

And as for plastics, we can make most of that out of corn and it's more environmentally friendly. Most of the crowd around here loves parroting each other with this global warming chicken little horseshit, but I personally am sick to death of hearing it. Produce something besides a BBC article written in layman's terms that says the sky is falling, PLEASE! I thought this was news for nerds, not drama queens.

Would anyone like to provide a little evidence to the contrary that is not entirely based on a computer model?

I'm not trying to be profound, I'm just saying it's not as simple as you're suggesting.

For example, funnily enough, your proposal for publishing outcomes data has been taken up for heart surgery in the UK. See, for eg:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story /0,,1439210,00.html

The challenge is how to make sense of the data: most people are not going to be able to interpret that table. It's difficult to present the key data effectively to allow people to make an informed choice; it's hard enough for people to make effective choices between types of treatment (eg CABG vs other treatments), never mind assess where the best place is to have it.

But I'm glad it's straightforward and obvious to you.

Can you show me any short paragraphs or excerpts from your well documented evidence? Or will it be a link to a 5 page article full of vague accusations?

A few minutes with Google provides more than enough citations, even after excluding those from lefty publications:

CBS News says "Mr. Bush appreciates loyalty above all."

In Military Week, Lt. Col (ret) Karen Kwiatkowski lays it on the line: "George W. Bush and Dick Cheney habitually reward cowardice and incompetence. They continually place political loyalty above ethics and loyalty to country."

The British Guardian quotes Michael O'Hanlon saying "I certainly think Bush values loyalty above all else."

Time Magazine says "For a President known to prize loyalty above most else..."

The Washington Post says: "But on a matter of first-order significance to many conservatives, the president let personal loyalty override what had been a central tenet of his political strategy."

The St. Cloud Times says: "George W. Bush's particular brand of immoderation lies in the premium he places on trust and loyalty". It goes on to cite Alberto Gonzalez, Karen Hughes and Don Evans as examples. Of course we can add Harriet Meiers and Michael Brown to that list.

In a Newsday story, James Klurfield writes "What's going on here, folks, is that loyalty to the president is being rewarded above all other values, including competent performance."

The Council on Foreign Relations has an entire article called Loyalty as Foreign Policy

The New Republic says "...Moreover, both Johnson and Bush have been known to place a high premium on personal loyalty."

You can look at the whole of a Knight Ridder wire article entitled Bush's Loyalty Raises Doubts About His Political Judgment.

The British newspaper The Telegraph says "...Mr Tenet, who, like President Bush, prizes loyalty above most other virtues..."

I think I've made my point. You can find more for yourself with minimal effort if you care to.

There is an article in The Observer about some scenarios considered by Pentagon. One (?) of the scenarios deals with some dramatic changes in very short time scala:

            http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,1153513,00.html

See also greenpeace report:

            http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/world -bank-pentagon-warn-cli

There is an article in The Observer about some scenarios considered by Pentagon. One (?) of the scenarios deals with some dramatic changes in very short time scala:
      http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,1153513,00.html

[CastrTroy] -- It would be like having laws against murduring someone while wearing pants. If you wore pants when you murdered them, you'd get an extra 5 years.

Of course, then you'd be sending a message that crooks shouldn't wear pants. Well, that's already been tried:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,36 04,1502159,00.html/

And yet the Republicans claim that it was to free people from documented genocide. Is it fair to not accept that as their belief on the matter?

These people were suspected terrorists and will be given a fair trial eventually (I admit that making them wait years for it is very wrong)

Why single out Israel? You seem to have a hate brewing for that country for some reason.

Yet republicans won the election with a majority.

Us Americans have such a short term memory. This has been going on for a long time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,1509876,00.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/global_warming;_ylt=AjO PHgKyNMiA1zjvEt8quVSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHN lYwN0bQ-- http://www.nationalcenter.org/Climate-Gate.html And of course, the big one that made national news: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/19/scie ntists.bush.ap/ I could cut and paste all day. The fact is this administation tries to hide information from the public all the time because they are engaging in illegal and immoral activity. Bush said 'Jesus is my hero' once and that makes it all ok with most people. As long as he's against abortion, most people will follow him into hollow shell that was once the USA.

People forget that the Nazi's were Christians and that Hilter quoted the bible in most of his speeches. In fact the Nazi party mandated Christianity as their countries official religion.

From this link:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is _16_121/ai_n8702389

  MOST OF the Nazi leaders considered themselves not merely Christians but instruments of God's will, proclaims Richard Steigmann-Gall, a young Canadian historian. Many people think that if the Nazis had any religion it was derived from Wagner's operas and Teutonic mythology. Not so: the paganists were a minority, much derided by Hitler and Goebbels, who remained nominal Catholics and paid church taxes to the end.

The impression that Nazis despised Christianity derives from two factors: our revulsion at what the Nazis did, and statements near the end of the war by Nazi leaders, including Hitler, which seem to indicate bitter antipathy toward the church. These statements, however, reflect less an abandonment of what those Nazi leaders considered their own Christian values than disappointment with the Protestants of Germany, whom they believed had badly let them down.

--

The scary thing is how many reports of Bush saying the same thing about being the choosen of god.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,1075950,00.html

check out this article while 5 years old now is still relevant as to what happened the night before the launch.. astounding..that management should have been fired then.

There's an excellent article or two discussing Google past, present and future in today's Guardian, as well. The second one is the better.

There's an excellent article or two discussing Google past, present and future in today's Guardian, as well. The second one is the better.

Where will the money come from?

Here, among other sources...

"Google normally offers uncensored, clean information from which people can learn" Really? According to this guardian article, "There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust. In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred. And in the US, it assists the authorities' crackdown on copyright infringements."/em

The Guardian Gamesblog writes about a new Persuasive Games game called 'Disaffected'.

HTH, HAND.

The Guardian Gamesblog writes about a new Persuasive Games game called 'Disaffected'.

HTH, HAND.

Your hyperlink makes no sense at all. Didn't you even read taco's sermon?

Let's look at the text containing the link:

The Guardian Gamesblog writes of a new Persuasive Games game called 'Disaffected'.

Now, the article linked to is titled "Undermining the advertisers" and it is about a game titled "Disaffected". For ten points: Based on the above text, and the subject of the article, which is the appropriate linking style?

1. The Guardian Gamesblog writes of a new Persuasive Games game called 'Disaffected'.
2. The Guardian Gamesblog writes of a new Persuasive Games game called 'Disaffected'.
3. Profit!
4. The Guardian Gamesblog writes of a new Persuasive Games game called 'Disaffected'.

Hint: It's not #3. And it's not #1. The article is not about a new company called "Persuasive Games". It's about the game Disaffected (and to a lesser extent, Persuasive's founder.) The link should be descriptive of the content of the link. Thus, it's not #4 either. Doesn't leave much...

How can Taco hold users to a higher standard than the so-called editors?

End note: It would actually have been more proper to link the whole sentence than the text that actually got linked. It's descriptive. A minimalist link that I do not think would be appropriate for slashdot (because it is not very descriptive) would be "The Guardian Gamesblog writes" which would at least tell you what you were clicking.