Slashdot Mirror

Employees can clearly expect no protection from M$'s 56 billion dollars. From the NYT article:

Using some of Microsoft's $56 billion in cash to maintain worker benefits, Mr. Ballmer explained, is not an option. "The cash is the shareholders' money," he wrote, "so we need to either invest in new opportunities or return it to them."

Whack! Who would think that the company that has screwed it's investors, partners and customers would turn around and screw their employees?

Last year's hiring binge is over and the Microsoft game is very close to over. Speculation is that up to $40 billion will be used in a stock buyback to keep the options from tanking. That will leave them with about two or three quarters of operating expenses in the bank. Good riddance, IT will be a much better place without them.

Golfing Mongolia: A 2.3-Million-Yard Par 11,880 (free NYTimes reg. required)

That's virtual camp, not cave.

I would challenge the notion that there is a distinct category of books that are self-published. To some extent the categories of publisher and self-publisher are anachronistic.

I've made the argument that there is no such thing as self-publishing in more detail elsewhere, but to summarize:

• Many independent publishers publish the work of a small number of writers.

• Many writers establish "publishing companies" to distribute their own work.

• And at this point, technologies like Lulu.com make publishing accessible to anyone and everyone.

The real difference, insomuch as there is a difference, is in the branding. O'Reilly, for example, has a brand that information seekers trust. So an O'Reilly book by an author you've never heard of is probably more appealing than a Lulu.com book by an author you've never heard of. But what if an author develops his own brand?

Along those lines, last week I found myself in the middle of a back-and-forth with a prominent tech journalist. His position was in essence that most of what is written is crap and that the editorial control exercised by publishers is essential. Fair enough. Most of what's written is crap, (although that doesn't seem to stop people from buying it when it's put out by major publishers).

But the dilemma you allude to, as I see it, is comparable to the dilemma presented by the emergence of the World Wide Web itself. "If anyone can put up anything on the Web," railed skeptics, "the whole thing is going to be useless. If you can't find the worthwhile information in the mountains of rotten information, what good will it be?"

Venerable institutions like the New York Times (justifiably) shuddered that individual sites--Matt Drudge's, for example--could compete with their own as sources for information. And yet, it has come to be. The Internet provides the means by which authors can develop their own brands. Matt Basham (the CISCO prof), for example, is in the process of developing his.

<grouse>

Amen.

Every ./ user should be using bugmenot by now. And every person who whines about subscription required should be using and promoting bugmenot! I don't think there's anything wrong with the NYTimes asking for registration. I think it's wrong that you slackers are complaining about it, rather than showing them the futility of trying to gather information this way.

It's similar to people who protests against copyright laws, but aren't actively distributing copyrighted material. The only way to beat the system is to BREAK it. If you aren't being civily disobediant, you are supporting the law.

</grouse>

Finally, as regards the article itself:

But the politics surrounding open-source software do not always fit neatly into party categories. The people who work on software like the Linux operating system, the Apache Web server and others are an eclectic bunch of technologists. "You'll find gun nuts along with total lefties," Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, said in an e-mail message.

So the real point here is that support of open source has nothing to do with political ideology?

"It may be that the populist-versus-establishment dynamic plays out as Democrat versus Republican in this election," Mr. Weitzner said. "But the open-source movement is a populist phenomenon, enabled by the Internet, and not a partisan force in any traditional sense of politics."

So, the article says CLEARLY that open source is not a stricly republican or democrat favorite.

Eric Raymond, a leading open-source advocate, writing in his online "Jargon File," described the politics of the archetypal open-source programmer, whom he calls J. Random Hacker, as "vaguely liberal-moderate, except for the strong libertarian contingent, which rejects conventional left-right politics entirely."

And of course Libertarians are further right on the political line graph than republicans, and they are big supporters of OSS. So OSS views actually have NOTHING to do with your political party?

This story is pure and simple propoganda. The headline and opening paragraphs make it seem like republicans are against open source. It would be like saying Democrats are against gay marriage just because John Kerry is The reality is that politics, like OSS decisions are all about choice. In this case, one person chose their platform of choice. For example, This Repbulican introduced legislation in Texas which seeks to ensure that free/open-source software is given a level playing field when competing with proprietary products in state agencies There was a /. article about it a year ago, but damned if I can find it now.

That doesn't mean all republicans are pro OSS either. It just means that

OSS is prefered by everyone who gets to know it

the NYTimes is pro-Kerry

if you must read the Times, read the whole article.

Sometimes (pun intended) the reporting is good, but the headlines are rarely written by the reporters who know the story. Editors write headlines, and they write the headline that will get the most people to buy the paper. They slant them as per their personal choice and perception as to wh

<grouse>

Amen.

Every ./ user should be using bugmenot by now. And every person who whines about subscription required should be using and promoting bugmenot! I don't think there's anything wrong with the NYTimes asking for registration. I think it's wrong that you slackers are complaining about it, rather than showing them the futility of trying to gather information this way.

It's similar to people who protests against copyright laws, but aren't actively distributing copyrighted material. The only way to beat the system is to BREAK it. If you aren't being civily disobediant, you are supporting the law.

</grouse>

Finally, as regards the article itself:

But the politics surrounding open-source software do not always fit neatly into party categories. The people who work on software like the Linux operating system, the Apache Web server and others are an eclectic bunch of technologists. "You'll find gun nuts along with total lefties," Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, said in an e-mail message.

So the real point here is that support of open source has nothing to do with political ideology?

"It may be that the populist-versus-establishment dynamic plays out as Democrat versus Republican in this election," Mr. Weitzner said. "But the open-source movement is a populist phenomenon, enabled by the Internet, and not a partisan force in any traditional sense of politics."

So, the article says CLEARLY that open source is not a stricly republican or democrat favorite.

Eric Raymond, a leading open-source advocate, writing in his online "Jargon File," described the politics of the archetypal open-source programmer, whom he calls J. Random Hacker, as "vaguely liberal-moderate, except for the strong libertarian contingent, which rejects conventional left-right politics entirely."

And of course Libertarians are further right on the political line graph than republicans, and they are big supporters of OSS. So OSS views actually have NOTHING to do with your political party?

This story is pure and simple propoganda. The headline and opening paragraphs make it seem like republicans are against open source. It would be like saying Democrats are against gay marriage just because John Kerry is The reality is that politics, like OSS decisions are all about choice. In this case, one person chose their platform of choice. For example, This Repbulican introduced legislation in Texas which seeks to ensure that free/open-source software is given a level playing field when competing with proprietary products in state agencies There was a /. article about it a year ago, but damned if I can find it now.

That doesn't mean all republicans are pro OSS either. It just means that

OSS is prefered by everyone who gets to know it

the NYTimes is pro-Kerry

if you must read the Times, read the whole article.

Sometimes (pun intended) the reporting is good, but the headlines are rarely written by the reporters who know the story. Editors write headlines, and they write the headline that will get the most people to buy the paper. They slant them as per their personal choice and perception as to wh

You only copied the first page of the two-page article. Why don't you just go read it for yourself (no reg. required).

No registration link

To add to SmallFurryCreature's great response, I'd say that as a person with family in India I'd love to see an economically successful Pakistan, not an economically/socially dependent Pakistan. Why? Because a) the average poor Pakistani would be much less likely to be swayed by Jihad-mongering terrorists and their promises of virgins in paradise if he had good jobs and access to a decent lifestyle and b) Pakistani generals would be much more wary of nuclear posturing and aiding the Taliban when their business community would tell them to back off. (This already happened in India when the country's IT biz told the govt to tone down war rhetoric because their customers were getting upset -- Friedman had a great piece on it in the NYT (paid-for link) called India, Pakistan and GE (free copy))

The same is true for the Arab world vis-a-vis the West btw.

Sorry to state the obvious, but even main stream media outlets like the New York Times (reg. req.) are aware "over 100 independent television stations streaming over the Internet, covering almost every imaginable interest."

I really think the amount of content and diversity continues to increase... just not on television as we knew it.

This wasn't interesting enough for the slash editors to publish. Go figure. My opinion, as a internet TV operator is that all TV will move to the internet, just as rabbit ear television moved to cable. Nuff said.

Even though its got more than a million people, it is far more homogenous than the USSR or Yugoslavia (proportionate to their populations).

Yeah, and with a disproportionate number of men in the population, it's getting to be even more homogenous.

Perhaps China is doing it wrong, maybe they could keep their population pacified if they imported more vaginas as there seems to be a shortage in China. This will probably lead to more danger than any SMS message ever could.

Broadband and computers will get cheaper, and the home experience will rival that of the cafe one.

Internet Cafe's have the same exact problem as the arcades of the 80's and 90's. They will need to think "outside the box" in order to get people to continue to pump money into them. Arcades did it by offering experiences that just could not be brought back into the home, i.e. slick interfaces (DDR) or cockpits that truly immerse the player into the experience.

I've watched 2 Lan Centers (places to play q3a, CS, ect) close down this year. I looked into starting my own lan center once, but the cost of the competition, plus the costs of hardware, leases, insurance, and monthly licensing for the games themselves came out to about a 2k profit per month, hardly more than I make now and definetly not worth the risk.

Lan centers, and internet cafe's need to be more than just a place where one can browse the web, get a cup of joe, and eat a cheese danish. In order to survive, they need to offer an experience that cannot be replicated in the home.

(Shameless plug warning) The karaoke bar I work for is doing it right. We were even featured in the New York Times yesterday. This month i'm ordering a few kiosks for the place. It offers more than just web access, what we offer is a social experience that will never be duplicated in the home. I'm not saying internet cafe's should offer video streaming of people singing karaoke, but rather they need too offer their clients a way to communicate and participate with people around the globe in more than a "point and click" fashion.

Or this even!

A real link to the article (registration, blah blah)

New York Times Link

Atlantic Monthly They regularly link to past stories in order to give better historical reference to current news items. I think the earliest story they have that mentions Saddam Hussein is from the late 1950's.

Harpers Yet another independantly owned journal that's not afraid to piss off thier advertisers.

The New Yorker Not independant, but has a long tradition of actually checking their facts. Great comics (understated, yet twisted, humor).

I also read my hometown newspaper every day, plus the New York Times on Sundays, and I scan BBC News, Google News, and The Guardian world news online daily. Plastic is good for getting an idea of what (somewhat educated) people think of the goings on in the world, and B3TA is a somewhat effective cure fore too much awareness of world events.

I also get The National Security Archive newsletter in my email about once a week or so.

For tech, I mostly read Linux Journal, SysAdmin, and occasionally Doctor Dobbs Journal.

Of course I always read The Debian Weekly News and /..

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I have thought a bit about rationality question too, and the way I almost invariably put it together is this. People mostly do what makes sense to them at the time. For people with what society calls poor judgement, this can be disastrous, while for others, it generally works out in the wash - i.e., you may not have maximized your happiness with the choice you made at a particular time, but you kept moving in that general direction.

From the little I know of behavioral economics, its premise is not to take the step of trying for a rigid quantitative definition of "utility", but rather sticking with fuzzier (and often more subtle) ideas like what makes sense and how you feel. This seems very sensible to me - don't even bother trying to get quantitative until you have a deeper intuitive grasp of something.

The NYT magazine from the weekend before last had a fascinating article (now in the paid archive) on the notion that generally happy people are less nice to others than sad people. One particular passage observed that we in the States have an obsession with being happy - it's in our very Constitution. Perhaps, the author wordlessly suggests, the pursuit of happiness is to single-minded a goal? Worth thinking about when considering people's utility functions or their rationality.

(By the way... You do notice the date lines on your sources before you post them, right? I noticed just now that one link of yours to USA Today is from March, before the UN found anything in Jordan. Although this does not necessarily discredit this information, it may have been superceeded by other information. Of course, having read it, I wonder: if Iraq did not have WMDs, what did they do with their work into the matter? Surely, one doesn't spend the time and money into researching this sort of weaponry, just to stop and say, "Yeah. That was interesting. What's next on our plate?")

"May have been superceeded"? No, the findings of weapons inspectors in Iraq have not been superseded. The SA-2 rocket parts discovered as scrap metal in Jordan weren't exactly a big surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. I haven't yet heard anyone make the case that this finding contradicts the massive and detailed 13+ years of evidence assembled by weapons inspectors in Iraq. If you are trying to make that case, then you'll have to be quite a bit more specific than the vague statement "Although this does not necessarily discredit this information, it may have been superceeded by other information (what other information?)." Personally, I look to the Bush administration to make this case as it is their integrity which is on the line. I haven't heard them even attempt to do so, have you?

Regarding your second point about Iraq researching WMD and voluntarily ceasing such activity, please point out where I or any of the numerous sources I have linked to ever made such a claim. The point made by David Kay and the other weapons inspectors was that the inspection program had worked and was continuing to work - not that Iraq voluntarily gave up the pursuit of WMD. Let me be frank, do you think the weapons inspectors are complete idiots? Do you believe that your observation that Saddam wouldn't voluntarily decide to give up the pursuit of WMD represents the kind of original thinking of which U.N. weapons inspectors, or anyone with a high school diploma for that matter, are incapable? There's a word for that type of broadside attack on the critical thinking abilities of "everyone else", it's hubris.

You asked about Rwanda. All I can say is that this happened under Bill Clinton, and (according to one of your articles that I am reading now) he realized his mistake. Should something have been done? Certainly. All I can do is guess why Clinton didn't try, so I won't go into that here. For Sudan, I think that the UN needs to get off their duff and do something about the problem there, before it's too late. From the article at the SundayTimes (that you quoted):

Well, you did "go into it" and managed to weaken your position by betraying a highly partisan opinion (e.g. "All I can do is guess why Clinton didn't try" - gee, maybe he was getting a blow job, or busy being the victim of a Republican witch hunt, or just an evil, Godless man. Your "subtle" inference is blindingly clear). I could play the same game by saying that the U.N. should have done something about Rwanda while Bush is solely to blame for doing nothing in Sudan. But I'm not saying that or even suggesting it - just making a broader point. I brought up Rwanda and Sudan to support the fact that there exists no clear precedent for declaring war based on the prevention of human rights abuses. By contrast, the concept of preemptive war, as expressed by Bush, is a rational one IMO. The problem is that a preemptive war (this is according to the definition I'm familiar with and is in contrast to "preventive" war which entails embarking on military conflict just because you think something might happen - other people reverse the definitions, I have no idea which is "correct") is launched in response t

Another funny joke... read the picture caption

linky

information stored on hard drives?!? i'll never lose it again!!

To a NY Times article on the subject from this morning:

The big Linux vendors will ship Real Player 10 as part of the operating system, another step in trying to make Linux on the desktop a legitimate alternative to Windows.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/technology/28lin ux.html?ex=1089433511&ei=1&en=012b87883877ae0f

here. Free registration is, of course, required.

Both rape and torture are on the books, but it will some time before these investigations are finished.

And to put your torture/hazing thing into perspective, 10 of them died from it (Iraq and Afghanistan combined).

What kind of news do you read that you can think there were no accusations of rape or "Geneva Convention standards" torture?

You've got to be kidding. Look at the very page you linked to, willya? A documentary that was made for $6 million, marketed for $10 million, released to a relatively small 868 screens nationwide and has already drawn in $21 million DOMESTIC in box office receipts, selling out many showings, making it NUMBER 1 for the weekend, and you call that 'poor'?

Even if it isn't in a "theater after a couple or three weeks" as you wisely predict, that would be just fine as going by those numbers he'll have broken the $100 million dollar mark handily. It hasn't even gone into wide-release yet.

Oh yes, and to be clear, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A RATED-R DOCUMENTARY, NOT LORD OF THE RINGS. Let's put that into even more relevant perspective. Bowling for Columbine, Moore's previous documentary, Oscar winner (where Moore delivered his first shot across the bow of the current US administration), took in $21.6 million in its ENTIRE domestic run.

Look, I know you can't stand the guy, but the political will just wasn't there. It's sad - but if he had had perfect foresight, people would have accused him of total paranoia at ridiculous expense. And there would have been endless parades of "George Bush killed my husband/wife/child/friend". It's a terrible thing that it happened. It's even more of a travesty that the kind of simple steps - like giving cockpits armored doors that cannot be unlocked during flight - that would render these attacks impossible (though introducing new risks of their own) were not taken. But I don't think it's realistic to say that an Al Gore administration would have prevented the attacks from succeeding. And I would, honestly, have been surprised if a Gore administration took a terribly different approach than what Bush did. There would have probably been more foreign veto power over our actions, and press conferences would have been a lot duller without Rumsfeld and with Gore. But significantly different? Nah. Most Democrats are anti-war now for the same reason most Republicans opposed Bosnia - it makes the wrong guy look good.

Heh. Perhaps there is some truth to this. Steve Jobs donates heavily to the Democratic party and has long moved in Democratic circles. (Which should come as no surprise--he even dated Joan Baez!) An amusing quote from this Times article about political fundraising glibly paints "people like Steve Martin, Steven Spielberg, Demi Moore and Steve Jobs" all with the same brush.

Meanwhile, Microsoft's and Dell's leaders are well-known for supporting the Republican party, at least financially. It's all in the data from the FEC. And I find it telling that Moore doesn't hesitate to implicate Microsoft in Fahrenheit 911 for its eagerness to jump into Iraq's rebuilding.

So in my opinion, just another reason to use a Mac. And if you read the Times article, to live on the Upper West Side.

Everything I've seen appears to be quoting a May 5, 2004 story that appeared in the New York Times.

A search of the archives turned up:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40 B13FA35590C768CDDAC0894DC404482

Unfortunately, articles more than 5 days old are not available to free subscribers.

Searching Google, there appears to be a copy of the article available at:

http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_Disneyforb ids.html

The only quote mentioning tax breaks appears to come from Ari Emanuel, Michael Moore's agent. Everything else on the 'net appears to eventually point back to this article.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

So did Mr. Emanuel manufacture this controversy, or did Disney change their story? This is so twisted, I can't say. But I agree no reporter has ever gotten a quote from a Disney executive saying tax breaks were the reason.

I'm not sure why Disney cares, as every conservative should already be boycotting them for offering domestic partner benefits.

Before you make a knee-jerk reaction and moderate - read the entire post and following the links. You will might learn something you didn't know before.

Michael Moore does not just disagree with Bush Administration policies, he hates America and Americans generally. He actually thinks America's enemies are the good guys and Americans are the bad guys (or at best, Americans are idiots). Michael Moore has gone so far as to say that the terrorists who are car-bombing civilians and cutting off civilians' heads in Iraq are the moral equivalent of America's Founding Fathers. (See David Brooks' June 26 column in the NY Times )

There is a difference between government disagreeing with policies and treasonous behavior (i.e. working for a foreign enemy, adhering to them, and trying to advance their war aims). As noted in Reason (a libertarian and generally anti-war magazine) some Americans are gloating over the deaths of American soldiers because it discredits Bush. That is disgusting. Gloating over the deaths of your own country's soldiers to win political points is outrageous. Michael Moore has actually written on his own web-site that he wants more Americans to die as punishment. He said "I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.". It you think that is taken out of context , then read the whole message yourself and decide.

Moore goes beyond "loyal opposition" against failed polies. Disagreeing with Bush is *NOT* disloyal. Hoping that your own country's soldiers die, working to make your country loose a war by undermining morale, and overtly supporting its enemies *IS* disloyal and *IS* treason. Michael Moore is not a legitimate dissenting voice against the Bush Administration, he is a traitor against America.

I myself think that Bush & company have bungled the entire Iraq mess. But I'll never cross the line to hoping my own countrymen get butchered by our enemies.

Washington Post -- "Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election."

CNN International -- "Of course it isn't a fair and balanced look at its subject matter, but it is good filmmaking."

The Guardian (UK) -- "According to legend, Fahrenheit 9/11 was made to topple George W Bush and thereby save America from the grip of an evil tyrant."

New York Times -- "Mixing sober outrage with mischievous humor and blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery, Mr. Moore takes wholesale aim at the Bush administration, whose tenure has been distinguished, in his view, by unparalleled and unmitigated arrogance, mendacity and incompetence."

MTV -- "Are [the facts Moore presents] impenetrable on their own, or are they manicured to fit Moore's own motivations?"

Sure, he gave $25,000 to the families of every Palestinian suicide bomber.

Saddam hated Osama each other more than Bush hates either of them.

While Saddam and Osama may have hated each other, they did agree on attacking the Saudis.

We might be enjoying the benefits of Google, but are Google's employees themselves not content? Acoording to this link on NYT[reg. required, yada, yada], the top search for "out of touch management" in Google caused the search engine to list as its first result a page describing the company's top management.

Since you brought it up, this article, Old Search Engine, the Library, Tries to Fit Into a Google World is definitely worth a look.

google link here

Here is Google's link

I think it's worth giving a damn about, especially if our troops are being put at risk in Iraq. I think it's something many of the troops would give a damn about.

You are missing the point. We are at war with terrorism, not just al Qaeda or Bin Laden. Saddam supported terrorists, including Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the PKK, Abu Nidal, Hamas, and Ansar al Islam.. Iraq has been on our State Department's list of states that sponser terrorism for almost 20 years. The Clinton administration alledged Iraq/al Qaeda ties several times, including in this 1998 indictment. Even if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, they were very legitimate and important target in the War on Terrorism.

It's an interesting story, but I don't think it's too likely in the wake of the commisson's report. Got a (credible) link for me?

We haven't seen the commission's report yet. The interim report that created a stir of sensational headlines last week was not from the commission- it was from a runaway commission staff, and the report's broad conclusions about Iraq/Al Qaeda ties have since been denounced by both the Chair and Vice-Chair of the commission.

Oh- and the commission has just been made aware of the al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia that the parent mentioned.

Really? Then why can't we find any?

The fact that Saddam had proscribed weapons that he couldn't account for is not in dispute.

And why aren't we attacking other countries that possess WMD in violation of international law?

No other country is in violation of a dozen unanimous UN security council resolutions requiring them to disarm. Iraq was a very logical step in the war.

The NYTimes (reg. req'd) has a report about ongoing research on glucose-based fuel cells. Maybe instead using batteries, we'll soon just plug our laptops into our arms.

The NYTimes (reg. req'd) has a report about ongoing research on glucose-based fuel cells. Maybe instead using batteries, we'll soon just plug our laptops into our arms.

This is not nanotechnology. It's conventional technology. GM is still making materials that are made in reactors in batches that yield anywhere from pounds to tons of material. The only thing that is new here is that the reactions are guided by some systematic knowledge of how the molecular interactions improve the characteristics of the bulk.

Nanotechnology used to designate a field of enquiry concerned primarily with manipulating atoms and molecules. This is clearly not the case with what's reported here. The problem is that the definition of nanotechnology has been broadened so much that the term is almost meaningless. In fact, some investors have encouraged Eliot Spitzer to sue several financial corporations because the nanotechnology funds that these companies claim to manage contain no nanotechnology companies.

Nanocomposite is an accurate term because these new materials are engineered with the fundamental molecular interactions in mind. But this is not nanotechnology because the materials are not made one atom at a time!! They are still made pounds or tons at a time. Even the nanoparticles that are supposed to improve catalytic converters are made in bulk. They are incredibly small particles, but they are made in chemical reactions that involve anywhere from grams to pounds of material. The final converter is not assembled one nanoparticle at a time, either. What happens is that instead of depositing a layer of platinum either electrochemically or evaporatively, a layer of nanoparticles is deposited by passing a solution of the nanoparticles over the substrate.

To get an appreciation for what it means to manipulate molecules, try Mark Reed's or Paul McEuen's work.

right.

But up until the 70's the automotive industry claimed they never could make more fuel efficient cars, or that it would be too expensive, or whatever - I'm not sure of the specific, but no doubt there is a case where some treehugger thought there was too much polution. And who cared? But then the oil crisis forced the issue and the Japanese got better at it, and the American industry changed. No? Now look at the Prius. ...free passwrod bla bla.

When oil hits $40+ a gallon the automotive industry will make more fuel efficient cars.

When oil hits $200+ a gallon the auto industry will change the fuel type.

etc etc...this is why the parent questions the industry integrety, and why nobody trusts what the tobacco industry says, and why half the people in the country dont trust GW, and...

but hey, who wants to think?

(copy write notice: all spelling errors are the property of me.)

Reunite Church and State? UNCheck ... due to no links to supporting data

Hold citizens with[something missing ;-);-);-)] trial or bail? UNCheck ... due to no links to supporting data

Nation building without proper cause? UNCheck ... due to no links to supporting data

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? UNCheck ... due to no links to supporting data

Dismantle the EPA and let Corporations write Enviro Laws? UNCheck ... due to no links to supporting data

Create a Police State where you can spy on cizitens with impunity? Pending/already going on ??? no links to supporting data

Famous Phrase To Know and Love: "data talks and bullshit walks" ... Where are your links to data supporting your claims???

This nation has gone to Hell and the changes they are making and have already made are going to haunt us for the next 50 years. [childish expletive removed] ... Dude, you are like several decades/centuries late and an Euro short ... Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it:

Sedition Act of 1918

Sedition Act of 1798

A remembrance from "The Decade of Greed (1990s)" and its fun stock market bubble with its "White Stain of Courage"

Plus, there are still hundreds of unaccounted-for surface-to-air missles hiding somewhere.

I'd at least wait until the SAM caches are found and the CPA misinformation stops.

You can read the article here...

Waste and Fraud Besiege U.S. Program to Link Poor Schools to Internet

I sure hope you're being sarcastic and that's not a kneejerk reaction. The problem isn't companies, the problem is SCHOOLS being morons and taking all this "free money" and spending it on multi-million dollar solutions when a $100 switch and a box of cable would fit their needs.
The real problem is that this all paid for through a tax on your phone bill (think: Universal Service Fee, meaning most people never realize how much they pay for it) and the structuring of the program encourages waste. "Buy the biggest and best things that you can so we can get good PR for helping the children!" Meanwhile, anyone who questions the program's merits stands a chance of being labeled "against education" or even a racist, since the program (supposedly) exists to help poorer schools.

A better article on this can be found at the New York Times.

George Bush never claimed there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda" -- President Bush, as reported by the NY Times today, here.

gool link here

Anyways... I personally think this is stupid. As the age old /. battle continues, they need to work on making a better PHONE before working on the features OF THE phone. And besides... Who wants to play PC-type games on a small, cell-phone screen anyways? I think the basic 2D games that pass the time while waiting for your girlfriend to finish getting ready is just fine. However, I thought the majority of gamers want everything bigger and better?

The only good thing I found out of the article was that they are finding ways for it to use "less than a tenth of a watt for the power" of these games. Ingenious... Make use of this same technology to make the battery life of the phone in general, increase.

no registration required

"We helped the first group through it. We reassured most all of the second group with a strong privacy policy. The third group still doesn't like it and I presume many of them did not register with us," he said.

It seems like everyone likes to say that they have a strong privacy policy, but it is often the case that the claim of a strong privacy policy is just a bunch of reassuring words with no basis in reality (remember Toysmart? And from what I understand, not much has happened regarding attempts to create legislation.). As long as there are no laws in the US that regulate the use of personal data that are comperable to the laws in Europe, these newspapers could pretty much do whatever they want to with the data.

Now fine, I understand that these newspapers need to get advertisers' money in order to survive. But why not be straightforward about it? For example, if they asked readers to do anonymous surveys in order to help their advertisers, they would probably get far more favorable response than this register-all-your-personal-data-so-we-can-lie-to-y ou-about-not-selling-it-to advertisers bullshit they're doing now.

You do not need to be aware of any information sources not sanctioned by Big Media

Google has some pretty bright minds aboard

Yes they do, this is just one of the articles discussing this, here.

They have a much higher ratio of PhDs than Microsoft, or just about anyone short of a hospital. They also give their employees the freedom of spending 20% of their time working on any unrelated subject they choose, appearantly in the hopes that the outcome of this research will benefit Google, or at least will make the better PhD's with more than one iron in the fire, WANT to work for them.