Slashdot Mirror

As it happens, I was reading this just last night.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/07/business/talking-management-with-john-cleese-soldier-convention-agent-change-rebuff.html

A bottle rocket is one of two things: an energetic talent seeking alignment between aptitude and ambition, or deicing the wings with discount Vodka.

As far as being a jet is concerned, the direct flight from Gander to Boise is highly overrated.

I'm not really sure why you think that China is better equipped than Europe, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#Member_States.27_military_spending You'll see Europe's military spending dwarfs that of Chinas with only the US above it. Similarly the number of active troops in Europe is 8 million vs. China's active 2 million. When you combine those two figures and realise that not only does Europe have 4 times the active military personnel of China, they're also far, far better equipped due to having 6 times the budget (~$300bn US vs. China's ~$50bn US). First, 1 dollar spent here in the US or EU is NOT the same as one dollar in China. 1 million spent in China goes MUCH further than 1 million to here. That is a major issue with such reports.
Second that is what is reported. ALL of US and EU put their TOTAL budget out on the front. We have black sections, but we know top of what we spend and deficits. OTH, china does not. For example, it is now known that China is spending more than 2x on their space program for the last several years, than what they report. Their reported budget would not even cover their manned program, let alone their current unmanned work.
It is also thought that their military spending is upwards of 10X their current reported. In fact, their reported budget would cover ONLY their local budget for LOCAL control. It does not begin to take in account for their subs, and other new ships, their new sub base.
A better look is to see what their forces currently are, AND where are they building. China has double the size of our armed forces, even though we are in 2 wars. Not surprising considering that they use many locally.
THe problem is when a nation is building up MUCH faster than any other nation has in previous history. For example, they have built 60 new ships over the last 8 years. If these were cruisers, not a big deal. But, it is not. They are currently putting together 2-4 new nukes PER YEAR. If they stay at that pace, in another 4 years, they will surpase US's (and we assume that they are only starting that few; we no longer know PUBLICALLY since they are building in a "hidden" base on Hainan island).
btw, where do you get 8 million for EU active troops? According to that link, it was 2.8 mi (which included turkey's .5 mil, serbia, croatia, etc who are NOT part of EU). OTH, China DOES have 2.25 million active troops.

As to the count of warheads, China is still actively building new warheads and they are neutrons, not regular H2 bombs. The real problem is that nobody publically knows how much CHina really has. They will not show or announce it. The west and even Russia do announce theirs, and have been shown to be fairly accurate over the decades.

Decades behind EU in space? You kidding? Eu has still not launched a person. They have a decent non-manned system up there, but China is focused heavily on a space system devoted not to science or civilian expansion, but to their military. That is an issue.

Like I said about the base, I am not surprised that China is trying to put a base in the gulf. W/neo-cons were trying to locate our core nuke platforms to Texas, which makes it a VERY target.

I think that if CHina were to invade another nation that is not connected to us via agreement that we could NOT do anything. Basically, we are now finacially strapped and unable to handle a war with any major nation without resorting to nukes. That is why when Russia did the georgia job, we sat back. McCain made a big deal of it, but even W had enough sense to keep quiet. Basically, with our deficit and being in 2 wars (one of which was insane), we no longer have the ability to do another. EU has learned that wars ALWAYS come with major costs, so they would sit aside as long as it is not one of their bases.

What quality? Toyota has had to buy back cars because they were rusted beyond repair, and now they're covering up recalls. Hell, Chrysler actually has the fewest recalls out of all major manufacturers, not Toyota or Honda.

The former is absolutely necessary in my mind. Execs should be fired, not given bonuses. As for non-bailout companies, it is attacking the very real wealth disparity problem, but I agree it is a misguided approach to it. It is much more of a "looks good" solution to appease the people than a real, workable solution. I'm not worried about us becoming less capitalist though, as we've swung too far towards extreme capitalism in the last decade.

That's so ridiculously untrue I literally LOLed. There's more government interference now than there's ever been before in the U.S - even before all of Obama's new bullshit. I can hardly even believe someone could say something like that.

The reality is, some level of government interference is necessary for a stable economy. It was moving away from that that destabilized our economy in the first place. We need to restore it to sane levels and methods of interference, primarily taxation and social safety nets.

No, what "destabalized" the economy was the government fucking around with financial markets trying to provide a "social safety net" for poor people by encouraging banks to make bad loans. See this, for example.

Also, providing a "social safety net" isn't really the government's job.

Mostly, I'm hoping we move back to sane levels of taxation at the high end and redirect that in sane ways to prevent the lower economic classes from growing any more, the middle class from vanishing, and the ultra-wealthy from gaining ever larger shares.

Maybe the "lower economic classes" should do the rest of us a favor and take responsibility for themselves?

I suspect the switch to IPv6 will take about as long as the switch from DC to AC electricity. IPv4 is so ingrained in hardware and software that it will take decades after the last IPv4 only hardware has been produced for the switch to occur. Additionally, the cost of IPv4 addresses is going to need to rise above the couple of dollars a year it currently is at. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/off-goes-the-power-current-started-by-thomas-edison/

"While connecting the dots to infer something may not make it so, Russia has a rich history of cyber attacks against enemies. Isn't it prudent to consider their history when looking at the evidence?"

What evidence a report that claims that Stopgeorgia.ru is hosted by an ISP that's in the same street as GRU headquarters. Like, given the history of the KGB, do you think they would be that stupid.

'* The StopGeorgia.ru forum was part of a bulletproofed network that relied on shell companies and false WHOIS data to (a) prevent its closure through Terms of Service violations, and (b) to maks the involvement of the Russian FSB/GRU. By mimicking the structure of the Russian Business Network, a cyber criminal enterprise, it created plausible deniability that it is a Kremlin-funded Information Operation (IO)'

Why set up a traceable organization when you can instruct your own agents in the real organizations to carry out such blackops. I mean that's the one thing spy organizations are designed to do, infiltrate conventional organizations with their own secret agents. And given the nature of DDOS attacks, it wouldn't take that much organization. Cases in point being the Conficker worm and the BBCs bought in botnet. Are we supposed to take this 'report' at face value, given its timing and its source, a front organization with ties to the US intelligence community.

Before someone replies with the usual "this has been disproven time and again so stop bringing it up" I thought I'd just paraphrase some of NYT's writing on this. NYT should be plenty liberal to be listened to on this matter by all. They saw it coming nearly 10 years ago.

From NY Times (Sept 30th 1999) by By STEVEN A. HOLMES.

Original links here and here.

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. [personal side note: it's indirectly Bush's fault, too, for not fixing the problem]

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

It appears these were sweetheart contracts far more generous than the industry standard retention contracts. An interesting article on this is available here.

At face value? no. but they have been dissected.

They got a sweet deal.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/dissecting-the-aig-bonus-contract/?em

Call it the Hope particle.

call it Black Hole particle

I believe the New York Times review takes a fairly objective view of the racism complaint.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/arts/16evil.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=resident%20evil&st=cse

That is true. Excessive CO2 can actually hurt plants.

A not-insignificant number of Americans use wood for heat, and pay for gasoline. I'm sure many more Canadians and Europeans do as well. I know of two households that are on the grid, and still use a wood stove as their primary heat source. I wonder whether this could be made small enough to convince them to get a heat pump and an ethanol-fueled vehicle.

In 1993, 3.1 million homes used wood for heat; the number dropped to 2 million in 2001

To what point and purpose? I'm all for heat pumps, but what is wrong with using firewood for heat? It's (mostly) carbon neutral, and uses a resource that isn't useful for much else. Well, at least until this "bug" (I presume it's a bacteria) can convert it into fuel.

A not-insignificant number of Americans use wood for heat, and pay for gasoline. I'm sure many more Canadians and Europeans do as well. I know of two households that are on the grid, and still use a wood stove as their primary heat source. I wonder whether this could be made small enough to convince them to get a heat pump and an ethanol-fueled vehicle.

In 1993, 3.1 million homes used wood for heat; the number dropped to 2 million in 2001

Some cities decided to shorten the yellow phase to have more violators and therefore more profit from those cameras. It's just too tempting. See reports here http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ and here http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/trolling-for-trouble-in-the-red-light-district/

I don't think it would pull a good remake.

Actually,Russia filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov has just released a remake.

Like the original, the story is about the personalities in the room, with the Russina take centering how the men are a cross section of Soviet/Post-Soviet society.

How about an updated version from russia?
http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/movies/04twel.html

If you read this NY Times article, they make a reference to the BSG prequel, calling it "Capricia". I really, really hope that's a mere typo by some uninformed editor who got the correct name wrong -- "Caprica" -- rather than a name change. Did Sci-Fi hire the Fab 5 for a makeover, or what?

Well, by 1996, chernobyl Voles who have only an annual breeding rate were showing adaption to radiation and proliferating in large numbers.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7D61439F934A35756C0A960958260

And then there is the fungus that uses radiation like plants use sunlight.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070422222547data_trunc_sys.shtml

Then there are the innumerable plants and grasses that *require* a major fire in order to reproduce.

--

So, no. It's more like saying ".1% survived some kind of interaction with the laser system long enough to reproduce". Those descendants almost all have that factor and may now tune it with each generation to be stronger. It could be they were at the fringe of the laser, or extreme range, or as others pointed out they fool the targeting system.

I thought I was being clear that you can't develop resistance if you have 100% fatality. But I'm certain that some of the survivors of hiroshima that reproduced survived because they were slightly more resistant to radiation-- just like the Voles above.

• Laid-Off Foreigners Flee as Dubai Spirals Down
• More on Dubai
• Goodbye Dubai

If you had taken the time to read about the Japanese lost decade you should have realized that their problem wasn't government building roads and bridges but insolvable banks that were kept alive just as AGI, Citi and others are kept alive now.

Actually they did both. The New York Times says "In total, Japan spent $6.3 trillion on construction-related public investment between 1991 and September of last year, according to the Cabinet Office." This was in a country whose GDP was about 1/3rd of the US.

Neither worked. Only being willing to close down the zombie banks worked.

Massive public investment didn't work because the banks were zombies. Economy recovery works when a country has a solid banking system, in which people trust. This wasn't the case of Japan, they kept dicking around with zombie banks and they lost 10 years. Had they taken the path of Sweden (quick nationalizations, cleanup and re-privatization), they would have recovered from their slump.

Unless you're suggesting that the government run all ISPs then the ISPs still have to make a profit.

No, he's pointing out the billions of taxpayer dollars gifted to ISPs over the years to "help build infrastructure".

The ISPs pocket the money, then turn around and complain about "heavy downloaders" so they can implement caps and make bundles on "overages".

At this point there are only a few options.

        * The government steps in and socializes broadband completely, which I'm not a huge fan of.

Do billions in taxpayer grants count? Because that's where we are.
Obama has tossed another few billion on the fire recently too. (aka "Broadband Technology Opportunities Program")

I do find it interesting that many private schools have an annual tuition that's less than the average amount we are paying per student for public schools and manage to turn out higher test scores and better educated/adjusted students.

Private schools produce better students? I'm not so sure about that. Can you find someone who has refuted the study referenced by either of these articles? They may refer to the same study, I can't tell.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670063,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/opinion/19wed2.html
I haven't done sufficient research to say for sure that private schools are not better, but I'm happy to send my children to public school when the time comes (my oldest is 2, so it's not all that far away).

Google around for papers by Dr. Eleanor Adair. She was an expert on RF exposure, and has done thousands of Simian and Human exposure tests as described in this NY Times Article. She claims to have personally tried every test before using it on her subjects, with no ill effects, ever. I tend to believe it, since the frequencies involved are 10^6 times lower than ionizing radiation that is proven dangerous.

If you had taken the time to read about the Japanese lost decade you should have realized that their problem wasn't government building roads and bridges but insolvable banks that were kept alive just as AGI, Citi and others are kept alive now.

Actually they did both. The New York Times says "In total, Japan spent $6.3 trillion on construction-related public investment between 1991 and September of last year, according to the Cabinet Office." This was in a country whose GDP was about 1/3rd of the US.

Neither worked. Only being willing to close down the zombie banks worked.

It is easy to misunderstand Swiss banking secrecy as some kind of dodgy way of assisting rich foreigners with tax fraud/evasion.

Especially considering that UBS, one of the biggest Swiss banks, has admitted to having sent representatives to the US for exactly that purpose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/business/20tax.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2009-02-19-ubs-tax-evaders-irs_N.htm

Yes, it's possible that UBS was an isolated case (though, given UBS's size, it's hard to call anything it does "isolated.") and that other banks weren't being so blatant in their flouting of other countries' laws. It's also very likely that UBS's actions were completely in line with Swiss law and traditions.

Back in July '08 the New York Times ran an article on the possibilities of science being "Titled Nined" because congress and women's groups seemed to like the idea (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15tier.html).

What studies have found though is that even among mathematically inclined girls at younger ages, they still tend to prefer the "softer" sciences or other fields. I think that this study shows the natural extension of that.

In the end, the NYTimes article states that, in the end, the mathematically inclined girls they followed and surveyed as career-adults were just as content with their careers and did not have a pay difference from men.

No. Microsoft didn't "develop" NT. Microsoft "hired" NT. Microsoft has only "developed" Windows 1-3 (partially - stole the gui and bought DOS), Office (partially - pilfered access), a version (IMHO the better of them) of basic, and Bob. I know I'm going to get flamed for adding Office to that but the lines on Office are very thin. Technically, Bill Gates wrote what became Word and Excel for embedded systems (TRS-80 EEPROM).

Regarding Cutler, he wasn't alone.

Two years ago, Microsoft hired a team of researchers who had left the Digital Equipment Corporation after that company canceled plans to market an advanced computer. The team, led by David Cutler, a veteran software designer, is now producing a new version of Microsoft's OS/2 operating system called NT.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE2DF1430F936A3575AC0A967958260

Everything about that has to be said to be only rumor so.. wink wink nudge nudge

Rumor has it, there was already a relationship between Cutler and Microsoft.

Rumor has it, Cutler already had developed an OS for some advanced computer system but didn't add a GUI to it until after moving to Microsoft.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/02/03/washington/AP-Obama-Killefer.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/opinion/03tue1.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/politics/05richardson.html

That is four appointees tied to corruption issues, so the CIO would be the fifth if that were the case.

Then, there is the Blagojevich scandal, which the media was adamant from day 1 that Obama had no knowledge about, and zero possible connection. The media can't know that for certain. Obama may very well be innocent there, but there is a perception of stigma regardless.

Now Obama's replacement, Burris may be charged with perjury and there are calls for him to resign.

Again, Obama probably doesn't know Burris very well, and had no control over whether or not Burris perjured himself, but none of this is good PR.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/02/03/washington/AP-Obama-Killefer.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/opinion/03tue1.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/politics/05richardson.html

That is four appointees tied to corruption issues, so the CIO would be the fifth if that were the case.

Then, there is the Blagojevich scandal, which the media was adamant from day 1 that Obama had no knowledge about, and zero possible connection. The media can't know that for certain. Obama may very well be innocent there, but there is a perception of stigma regardless.

Now Obama's replacement, Burris may be charged with perjury and there are calls for him to resign.

Again, Obama probably doesn't know Burris very well, and had no control over whether or not Burris perjured himself, but none of this is good PR.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/02/03/washington/AP-Obama-Killefer.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/opinion/03tue1.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/politics/05richardson.html

That is four appointees tied to corruption issues, so the CIO would be the fifth if that were the case.

Then, there is the Blagojevich scandal, which the media was adamant from day 1 that Obama had no knowledge about, and zero possible connection. The media can't know that for certain. Obama may very well be innocent there, but there is a perception of stigma regardless.

Now Obama's replacement, Burris may be charged with perjury and there are calls for him to resign.

Again, Obama probably doesn't know Burris very well, and had no control over whether or not Burris perjured himself, but none of this is good PR.

This is why Madoff will never see a day in jail.

Considering that he just pled guilty and had his bail revoked, that will be interesting to see ;)

I like the NYTimes blind vodka review, of top shelf stuff, with a bottle of Smirnof thrown in for fun. Smirnof came out on top. By absenting the price/brand response, they got an unexpected result.

I don't know how it rolls in Australia. In America it's good practice to "sir" the police officers (or other people who have power over you, love it, and have no empathy) because if you don't they kill you.

Even when you are being nice and polite, you'll be lucky if you just get ticketed, no matter whether it's deserved or not, as the alternative is being jailed, with usually some Rodney King style arrest procedures.

I don't know if you've ever seen the television show "Cops", but these are our BEST cops doing massive propoganda in order to look civilized, as they pile 12 guys on a teenager and light him up with tazers and pepper spray, and that's the "good" cops doing it.

Remember, we make sure that our police officers aren't the best and brightest, they may have some sympathy or conflicting philosophy so we must make sure we keep bullys and idiots to beat our citizens http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E2DB143DF93AA3575AC0A96F958260

Yes indeed! In fact, Google's now in the VoIP business!

How great is that? I mean, to have Google knowing all about your phone calls, on top of your web-browsing and the contents of your e-mail! I'm sure we'll all be getting some really great new advertising!

Now, if only Google had my DNA information, too! That would be perfect.

I mean, since they're all not evil and stuff, what could possibly go wrong?

Yes indeed! In fact, Google's now in the VoIP business!

How great is that? I mean, to have Google knowing all about your phone calls, on top of your web-browsing and the contents of your e-mail! I'm sure we'll all be getting some really great new advertising!

Now, if only Google had my DNA information, too! That would be perfect.

I mean, since they're all not evil and stuff, what could possibly go wrong?

Maybe he hasn't "evolved" to the stage where he believes he needs to kill his problems yet. Give him some time :P

You've got a lot to learn. Killing your problems is only a human condition if you're a foolish liberal. Chimps are intensly territorial, and there have even been documented incidents of chimp communities going to war with one another, to the extent that the larger group will hunt down and kill every member of the smaller group. The behavior isn't confined to chimps. Some species of ants actually enslave others.

The queen of an established slavemaking colony will produce new queens who leave the colony to develop their own colony. The young slavemaking queen will wait outside of the colony she is leaving and follow a group of raiding slave makers into her new colony. As the worker slavemakers raid this colony for eggs, the queen takes advantage of the battle by using it to sneak into the colony. Once it finds the queen, it kills her and takes her place. The new queen mimics the old queen by consuming pheromones from her body and releasing them to the attending ants. This new queen having mated with a slavemaking male earlier begins to produce new slave makers. Other variations on these hostile takeovers include one South American species whose workers secrete a chemical on a host colony that causes the ants of the host colony to evacuate the nest. In their haste to leave, pupae will be left behind. These developing ants are then taken back to the slave maker nest. Another variation is in a European species that attacks ants that are significantly larger in size. The queen invades a nest by clinging on the rightful queen and slowly chokes her to death.

This promotes cheap medicines. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0D7113AF932A0575BC0A961948260 No patent term extension can extend the term of a patent for a pharmaceutical beyond 14 years from the receipt of Food and Drug Administration approval to commence marketing. ... The bottom line is that the period of marketing exclusivity provided by a patent for a pharmaceutical can never exceed 17 years

I thought TFA was a bit rabid, like a lot of you.

Then I saw this NYTimes article about how WalMart will be feeding at the stimulus trough by selling a Microsoft-based EMR system.

That's both scary and ironic. The ironic part is how WalMart will continue to not provide health insurance coverage for the poor minions it pays minimum wage to install this stuff.

I had the same thought. More time outside the home also exposes the child to more dirt, more bacteria, and more of the tiny little worms out there. The beneficial effect of this exposure is known as the hygiene hypothesis. Kids who grow up on farms and poor people living off the land don't get asthma and a whole host of immune system disorders. There was a recent article by Jane Brody in the New York Times about the hygiene hypothesis.

Basically, a little dirt is good for you.

Microsoft delivers what businesses want: Reliability. Long. Term.

I'm sorry, and I honestly am not trying to troll here, but are you fucking kidding me???

Long term? Linux supports pretty much the whole POSIX API and, for graphics, X11. Those were mature before Steve Ballmer threw his first chair. Many serious, graphical programs written 20 years ago for Unix still build and run no problem on Linux. And it's a pretty damn good bet that it I write clean Linux code today, it will build in 2019 version of Linux or its successor. Tried running a Win16 program lately? Or tried lately accessing a web page written in their proprietary dialects of HTML from back in the browser war days? Good luck being able to use those web applications with the browsers that are available in 20 years.

Reliability? Windows servers have historically needed a period reboot, just because. The DoD recently disallowed USB thumbdrives on any of their computers. Hint: it wasn't because of the Linux computers. And what would you rather hook up to the open internet for 24 hours after installing the operating system: Windows XP, or Linux?

Or maybe you're referring to their steadfast trustworthiness as a company. Surely we can trust their products because as a company they're so wise, right? Like their decision to encourage web page designers to include ActiveX controls on the web pages? Or how many apps broke when Vista was rolled out?

I must concede, though, that Linux might just not be ready for mission critical deployments.

But you go with Apple, or Linux and what do you get? Every five years, maybe ten if you're lucky, you have to rebuild and redesign everything to make it work with the latest and greatest.

I can't speak about Apple stuff, but for Linux, who cares if the people shipping a distribution needed to re-compile 50% of the apps when preparing a release, because of some library ABI change? When you have the source code to the apps, and someone else (the distro maintainers) recompile everything for you anyway, it. just. doesn't. matter.

Look at McCain: he violated multiple copyrights with his ads, claimed that there should be a special exemption to the DMCA laws he voted for just for politicians, and once the campaign was over, everyone completely forgot about it except Jackson Browne, who is still pursuing a lawsuit against McCain, although it's generally considered wildly unlikely that'll go to trial (or that McCain will be fined $3000 for every case of infringement.)

WB: strike one?

SONY: strike one?

FOX: strike one?

VIACOM: strike one?

DISNEY: strike one?

MPAA: strike one?

(let's not forget politicians)

SEN ORIN HATCH: strike one?

Will you still say that America showed wisdom by electing Obama if he invades Pakistan? Is he ending our fascination with missle strikes?

-Peter

If you gave up all your worldly possessions and gave them to charity to feed the hungry you could save hundreds of lives.

MURDERER!

This wouldn't constitute murder because there is no intent to kill. Nonetheless, I think the larger point you are driving at is essentially correct. Peter Singer has an excellent NYT essay on this subject. If you really want to read a philosopher's in-depth analysis, see Peter Unger's book Living High and Letting Die.

Oh please. Be a little more dramatic oh put-upon one. The original complaint is valid, a book review should talk about the contents of the book. It's not the proper place to try and debunk the author's statement of fact. About as far as a reviewer should go is say something like "...although some of the claims in the book may not stand up to close scrutiny...". Only when a statement by the author is completely proven as false should you mention it and one time is enough, for example the statement about the attack on the Liberty.

Here's a good example of someone reviewing a book full of complete crap and yet they manage to only call out the author once at the very end of the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/books/16masli.html

How about shooting at the South Korean Navy in the Yellow Sea?. Or beating the crap out of UN personnel for chopping down trees?Or various other cross border skirmishes provoked by the North?

If you seriously think NK isn't aggressive than you're either too lazy to use Google or just plain ignorant.

Just dropping in to say that both you and the grandparent poster might find a recent New York Times article interesting, titled, "A Haven for Spare Parts Lives on in Silicon Valley."

Truthfully though, that particular store is just hanging on. It seems to me that fewer Americans than ever are interested in starting (or as in my case, able to start) much of an electronics project these days.

Okay....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/health/21canc.html
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12202589
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080409130711.htm
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/02/18/embryonic-stem-cell-therapy-causes-cancer-in-teenage-boy/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4465717.stm

However, new information was released this week. There are scientists who think they've found a way around the cancer problem with stem cells:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/virusfreeips.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13384-stem-cell-breakthrough-may-reduce-cancer-risk.html

A computer science expert from Princeton University says he has done what the Microsoft Corporation insists is impossible