Slashdot Mirror

It's interesting how your responses to my political arguments are completely devoid of any facts or any details.

Look at what oil prices did while Bush was in power. Look at the trillions of dollars he spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion. I was completely in favor of the first Iraq war. I actually was at first in favor of the 2nd Iraq war, but after I realized how the US went in without a plan for peace, it was very clear that Bush & gang didn't think it through. They didn't go in to achieve piece, but just to give their defense and oil buddies hundreds of billions in profits. That's the republican approach to war. Their approach always breeds more violence. Damn defense Hawks. The US defense dept should be renamed the War dept as it was up to the WWII times.

I don't hate the US people in general. As much as I don't hate the Iranian people even though I hate their regime. Hell, I don't hate the current US administration, even though I don't love them. But you seem hell bent on mixing it all up to make me look stupid. That attitude shows weaknesses on your argument.

Funny your response on Iran. Do you deny that the Shah was armed by the USA (they have F-14, F-5 aircraft for instance). Do you deny that the Shah ruthless treatment of the Iranian people didn't cause the revolution ?
Accepting responsibility over the Iranian political scenario (and many other countries) would go a long way towards restoring a good standing with the Middle East people. That doesn't mean the current Iranian regime is a good thing, I'm all for figuring a way to topple them peacefully, and going in with heavy airstrikes and special ops assaults if their nuclear threat becomes critical, but no invasion.

Do you deny that Fox News is a hate spreading organization, that manipulates their editorial content to spread hate and discontent ? Of course they make money doing that, but so does other media organizations, even those with far more balanced positions on news.
We used to get them in Brazil, but about 18 months ago, they were removed from both my local cable and Brazil Sky satellite TV. It was interesting the contrast between CNN International and Fox News. Brutal.

The rise in CO2 levels is a documented fact.
Look at:
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
From:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Same for global warming:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif
Have you seen this chart ???? It was measured in American soil (Hawaii), by the Mauna Loa observatory.

It's possible that scientists are over blowing the short term macro earth effects. There are extremists on both sides, just as there are those that say global warming doesn't exist at all, there are those on the global warming side that will exaggerate on their predictions. But that doesn't mean the effects aren't serious. It could be another 10 years, but when it really starts getting very serious, it might take another 10 years to bring things back under control and millions will die in between. Melting of the ice caps will happen with the current state of affairs.

The oceans are becoming more acid. That's because CO2 in contact with water becomes carbonic acid. This is killing seaborne species today.
I'm a fairly young guy (under 40), so I don't have a long term view of worldwide natural disasters, but has the fires in California and vicinity were that serious 30-40 years ago ?
This will be my last message. If you don't want to see anything documented as of happening TODAY about global warming as serious, then you won't be persuaded until it comes close enough to biting you in the ass.

Goodbye my Ostridge friend.

I still don't hate you. It's just that I can't agree to disagree on such a serious matters.

It's interesting how your responses to my political arguments are completely devoid of any facts or any details.

Look at what oil prices did while Bush was in power. Look at the trillions of dollars he spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion. I was completely in favor of the first Iraq war. I actually was at first in favor of the 2nd Iraq war, but after I realized how the US went in without a plan for peace, it was very clear that Bush & gang didn't think it through. They didn't go in to achieve piece, but just to give their defense and oil buddies hundreds of billions in profits. That's the republican approach to war. Their approach always breeds more violence. Damn defense Hawks. The US defense dept should be renamed the War dept as it was up to the WWII times.

I don't hate the US people in general. As much as I don't hate the Iranian people even though I hate their regime. Hell, I don't hate the current US administration, even though I don't love them. But you seem hell bent on mixing it all up to make me look stupid. That attitude shows weaknesses on your argument.

Funny your response on Iran. Do you deny that the Shah was armed by the USA (they have F-14, F-5 aircraft for instance). Do you deny that the Shah ruthless treatment of the Iranian people didn't cause the revolution ?
Accepting responsibility over the Iranian political scenario (and many other countries) would go a long way towards restoring a good standing with the Middle East people. That doesn't mean the current Iranian regime is a good thing, I'm all for figuring a way to topple them peacefully, and going in with heavy airstrikes and special ops assaults if their nuclear threat becomes critical, but no invasion.

Do you deny that Fox News is a hate spreading organization, that manipulates their editorial content to spread hate and discontent ? Of course they make money doing that, but so does other media organizations, even those with far more balanced positions on news.
We used to get them in Brazil, but about 18 months ago, they were removed from both my local cable and Brazil Sky satellite TV. It was interesting the contrast between CNN International and Fox News. Brutal.

The rise in CO2 levels is a documented fact.
Look at:
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
From:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Same for global warming:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif
Have you seen this chart ???? It was measured in American soil (Hawaii), by the Mauna Loa observatory.

It's possible that scientists are over blowing the short term macro earth effects. There are extremists on both sides, just as there are those that say global warming doesn't exist at all, there are those on the global warming side that will exaggerate on their predictions. But that doesn't mean the effects aren't serious. It could be another 10 years, but when it really starts getting very serious, it might take another 10 years to bring things back under control and millions will die in between. Melting of the ice caps will happen with the current state of affairs.

The oceans are becoming more acid. That's because CO2 in contact with water becomes carbonic acid. This is killing seaborne species today.
I'm a fairly young guy (under 40), so I don't have a long term view of worldwide natural disasters, but has the fires in California and vicinity were that serious 30-40 years ago ?
This will be my last message. If you don't want to see anything documented as of happening TODAY about global warming as serious, then you won't be persuaded until it comes close enough to biting you in the ass.

Goodbye my Ostridge friend.

I still don't hate you. It's just that I can't agree to disagree on such a serious matters.

One of the most important parts of libel, and one that you overlooked, is that libelous statements have to be believable.

Depends on jurisdiction. For Canadians, and likely many other Commonwealth nations, this is decidedly NOT true.

From https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law:

At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.[1] The perspective measuring the esteem is highly contextual, and depends on the view of the potential audience of the communication and their degree of background knowledge. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame.

How big of an issue does it need to be to be considered a big enough problem?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States

The way a society treats its least powerful and valued members, its enemies, and its critics is a measure of that society's strength and fitness. Unfortunately while "western" nations might score better on this type of scale than many other nations, we still have a lot of room for improvement.

While I agree we should be moving towards non-fossil fuel energy sources I suggest taking a look at the chart below.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/LLNL_US_Energy_Flow_2009.png

As can be seen from that chart in the USA only a tiny amount of oil goes to electricty generation (I believe the situation is similar here in europe but since this is a US site I used a US example). Over half of oil used in the US goes to transportation (with another large chunk going to insturial uses). Therefore nuclear power stations generating electricty won't directly do anything about the oil problem they will just displace natural gas and/or coal generation. Solving the oil problem will require at least one of the follwing

1: massive develpment of fischer tropsh and similar processes that can turn other energy sources into liquid fuel
2: a massive switch to electric transportation (not just cars but lorries, trains etc as well)
3: a massive reduction in the ammount of transportation services used (both of people and goods)

Not to mention a superstitious overreaction to ergot poisoning caused by eating infected rye grain.

His argument is that BC is more then just if I copy and paste this source code it will run programs already compiled. Its a given that CentOS and RHEL are BC because they are the same code base. BC is normally used to imply a design relation where as two different source bases can be run code compiled on either. Generally the two projects will be radically different.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Binary_code_compatibility

I also use it to describe updates to a code base that does not require projects dependent on it to recompile. In this case the implementation may be completely different but the interface is the same so the dynamic libs will still work. I guess this whole speech is that if you say CentOS and RHEL are BC your oversimplifying BC and you should default to there the same damn thing.

It is a sign of your political maturity to reach this realization. SCOTUS has always been the way it is now.

Can't say that "crash and burn" is a useful response--but politics and the law certainly need fundamental, substantial, and continual improving if they are to become fair to regular people. Pro-union Wisconsinites are trying to do this in the US, as is the guy who got arrested for informing the public about jury nullification.

Based on the number of visitors to Wikipedia, over 50% of all Linux desktop users use Ubuntu:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2011-01/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm

But more visitors use Android than Ubuntu.

And more people use Ubuntu than MacOS on PowerPC.

Many people run the Ubuntu LTS-version, but more run the latest stable.

This is from Japan, the same people that created the Chobits anime and manga series. I truly wonder if they are related. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Chobits

Rocket science is still a challenging science. Where is Werner von Braun when we need him?

Wernher von Braum currently resides at 2823 King St., Alexandria, Virginia, USA; however, he apparently has not been responding to correspondence or inquiries since at least Jun. 16, 1977.

The supreme court disagrees.

Silly rabbit, laws are only for plebs, not people/goverment with money/power.

The government will either go with:
A) State secret and demand that its dismissed.
B) State that the people who could defend it are too busy to go to court and their for it needs to be dismissed
C) Get a retroactive FISA warrant.

Enough to explore the idea of a sort of launch loop?

No.

Sincerely, Engineers.

Enough with malfunctioning rockets.

How many payloads have gone to waste because of rocket failures, and at what cost? Enough to explore the idea of a sort of launch loop?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/wiki/Lojban/Attitudinals

The Wikpedia official guidelines give some insight there. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability are both relevant.

As I understand it, the reasoning for deleting non-notable content is that it does not have enough sources to actually be verifiable and all information on Wikipedia should be verifiable, noting that Wikipedia explicitly aims to have its information be verifiable, not necessarily true.

The Wikpedia official guidelines give some insight there. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability are both relevant.

As I understand it, the reasoning for deleting non-notable content is that it does not have enough sources to actually be verifiable and all information on Wikipedia should be verifiable, noting that Wikipedia explicitly aims to have its information be verifiable, not necessarily true.

The numbers I have read indicate that more people will die of backscatter induced cancers each year than would die from a mid-scale Project Orion style single-stage-to-orbit launch. Now, which of those two things (scanning random people boarding airplanes vs getting multiple megatons of material into orbit) has a bigger benefit to humanity?

I find this section of the Deletion Review interesting:

Overturn. No relisting.. While AfD gives administrators a wide degree of latitude on interpreting the discussions - and I should know, having closed some corkers in my time - we should remain mindful that "interpreting the discussion" exists alongside the far older rough check guideline on deletion that it should only occur if 2/3 of the commenters or more are in favor of deletion. Interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of commenters are in favor of keeping the article as concluding in a consensus to debate is possible. But it requires extraordinary evidence that those arguing to keep are out of line with WIkipedia policy. The explanation presented by Lifebaka falls miles short of this bar. The article clearly does not prima faciae fail notability - it has numerous citations to reliable and independent sources. There is no evidence that the commenters on the original AfD were unaware of notability policy or of the content of the article, or that they were primarily blind meatpuppets gaming the system. Yes, the discussion attracted a lot of comments. That should probably tell us something, and that something should not be "Blimey, our readers really use articles like this, we'd better delete them." The contributors on the original AfD appear to have looked at both the policy and the article, and decided that the minimum bar for inclusion was cleared. End of discussion. There is just no way to reasonably argue that a consensus to delete was reached. I thus view Lifebaka's deletion as an abuse of his admin powers - interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of participants acknowledge your viewpoint and still disagree with you as supporting your viewpoint strains good faith to its breaking point. I further see no value in relisting - the discussion as it took place is a conclusive endorsement of the view that the article clears the minimum standards for inclusion. Barring a compelling new point about the article, any relisting would be a textbook example of the tendency to get articles deleted not out of actual policy grounds but just by asking enough other parents that eventually you get one to side with you. In other words, it's a shameless violation of WP:ADMINSHOP. Barring an actual new argument, attempts to relitigate the already settled discussion are disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer is a Wikipedia Administrator

I find this section of the Deletion Review interesting:

Overturn. No relisting.. While AfD gives administrators a wide degree of latitude on interpreting the discussions - and I should know, having closed some corkers in my time - we should remain mindful that "interpreting the discussion" exists alongside the far older rough check guideline on deletion that it should only occur if 2/3 of the commenters or more are in favor of deletion. Interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of commenters are in favor of keeping the article as concluding in a consensus to debate is possible. But it requires extraordinary evidence that those arguing to keep are out of line with WIkipedia policy. The explanation presented by Lifebaka falls miles short of this bar. The article clearly does not prima faciae fail notability - it has numerous citations to reliable and independent sources. There is no evidence that the commenters on the original AfD were unaware of notability policy or of the content of the article, or that they were primarily blind meatpuppets gaming the system. Yes, the discussion attracted a lot of comments. That should probably tell us something, and that something should not be "Blimey, our readers really use articles like this, we'd better delete them." The contributors on the original AfD appear to have looked at both the policy and the article, and decided that the minimum bar for inclusion was cleared. End of discussion. There is just no way to reasonably argue that a consensus to delete was reached. I thus view Lifebaka's deletion as an abuse of his admin powers - interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of participants acknowledge your viewpoint and still disagree with you as supporting your viewpoint strains good faith to its breaking point. I further see no value in relisting - the discussion as it took place is a conclusive endorsement of the view that the article clears the minimum standards for inclusion. Barring a compelling new point about the article, any relisting would be a textbook example of the tendency to get articles deleted not out of actual policy grounds but just by asking enough other parents that eventually you get one to side with you. In other words, it's a shameless violation of WP:ADMINSHOP. Barring an actual new argument, attempts to relitigate the already settled discussion are disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer is a Wikipedia Administrator

I find this section of the Deletion Review interesting:

Overturn. No relisting.. While AfD gives administrators a wide degree of latitude on interpreting the discussions - and I should know, having closed some corkers in my time - we should remain mindful that "interpreting the discussion" exists alongside the far older rough check guideline on deletion that it should only occur if 2/3 of the commenters or more are in favor of deletion. Interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of commenters are in favor of keeping the article as concluding in a consensus to debate is possible. But it requires extraordinary evidence that those arguing to keep are out of line with WIkipedia policy. The explanation presented by Lifebaka falls miles short of this bar. The article clearly does not prima faciae fail notability - it has numerous citations to reliable and independent sources. There is no evidence that the commenters on the original AfD were unaware of notability policy or of the content of the article, or that they were primarily blind meatpuppets gaming the system. Yes, the discussion attracted a lot of comments. That should probably tell us something, and that something should not be "Blimey, our readers really use articles like this, we'd better delete them." The contributors on the original AfD appear to have looked at both the policy and the article, and decided that the minimum bar for inclusion was cleared. End of discussion. There is just no way to reasonably argue that a consensus to delete was reached. I thus view Lifebaka's deletion as an abuse of his admin powers - interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of participants acknowledge your viewpoint and still disagree with you as supporting your viewpoint strains good faith to its breaking point. I further see no value in relisting - the discussion as it took place is a conclusive endorsement of the view that the article clears the minimum standards for inclusion. Barring a compelling new point about the article, any relisting would be a textbook example of the tendency to get articles deleted not out of actual policy grounds but just by asking enough other parents that eventually you get one to side with you. In other words, it's a shameless violation of WP:ADMINSHOP. Barring an actual new argument, attempts to relitigate the already settled discussion are disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer is a Wikipedia Administrator

You find it if you look.

The article has since been listed on deletion review. Head on over, make your case.

Meanwhile, the article has be undeleted and moved to userspace here.

The article has since been listed on deletion review. Head on over, make your case.

Meanwhile, the article has be undeleted and moved to userspace here.

He self-proclaims himself to be an Inclusionist there. Hah.

Toy Size Spy Drones, Live government cell phones tracking, ACTA, Arbitrary domain names seizing, Law mandated year-long ISP data retention policies. Innocent citizens detained at airports (during which agents copy and/or seize their laptops and cellphones).

It sure is nice living in the future.

The difference is that the fab guys went with electron beams and, in some applications, x-rays. Neither of which I typically consider light, although part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Of course... the light they're shining on your DL is UV and is used to light-up the UV-reactive inks on your DL. There's also some fun stuff on your credit cards (Amex, MC, Visa at least) - but I suspect you were using that as a synecdoche.

That aside - the status of a driver's license is not necessarily automatic in all states. An easy example is state's with particularly young driving ages (or possible driving age if you're living on a farm or the like). If you then move to another state, you may be able to drive there while not a resident - but once you become a resident you'll typically have to get the license of the state that you're in. If you aren't of age - then no dice.

I believe you're conflating either the National Driver Register or Driver License Compact or even the Non-Resident Violator Compact with the TSA's policy to accept government issued IDs. The NRVC is notably not reciprocal between all states.

Of course... the light they're shining on your DL is UV and is used to light-up the UV-reactive inks on your DL. There's also some fun stuff on your credit cards (Amex, MC, Visa at least) - but I suspect you were using that as a synecdoche.

That aside - the status of a driver's license is not necessarily automatic in all states. An easy example is state's with particularly young driving ages (or possible driving age if you're living on a farm or the like). If you then move to another state, you may be able to drive there while not a resident - but once you become a resident you'll typically have to get the license of the state that you're in. If you aren't of age - then no dice.

I believe you're conflating either the National Driver Register or Driver License Compact or even the Non-Resident Violator Compact with the TSA's policy to accept government issued IDs. The NRVC is notably not reciprocal between all states.

Of course... the light they're shining on your DL is UV and is used to light-up the UV-reactive inks on your DL. There's also some fun stuff on your credit cards (Amex, MC, Visa at least) - but I suspect you were using that as a synecdoche.

That aside - the status of a driver's license is not necessarily automatic in all states. An easy example is state's with particularly young driving ages (or possible driving age if you're living on a farm or the like). If you then move to another state, you may be able to drive there while not a resident - but once you become a resident you'll typically have to get the license of the state that you're in. If you aren't of age - then no dice.

I believe you're conflating either the National Driver Register or Driver License Compact or even the Non-Resident Violator Compact with the TSA's policy to accept government issued IDs. The NRVC is notably not reciprocal between all states.

Things normal people wanted and didn't get: USB port, wireless syncing, lower price, 7-inch version

You do realize that the camera adapter features a USB port, right? It has since last year, and works with a good number of USB devices.
The reason that Apple doesn't include it by default is that USB is used for everything... which would mean they would then have to either whitelist or blacklist use cases and create drivers for... all this extra work, and they'd likely see meagre to no additional profit from it? From a business standpoint, funneling everything through the 30-pin adapter makes a whole lot more sense.

With HDMI and Camera (USB) adapters, iPad will meet the 80/20 pareto rule of extensibility already.

Whedon was right? Hundreds of worlds?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_Firefly_planets_and_moons

Obviously, but no matter its source, it is not urine until it goes through the kidneys.

It's those cheeky, cheeky nephrons causing trouble again!

I'm not to sure. Ibas says they are almost impossibly to wipe out. That even with secure delete, almost 90% is still intact. And I think I believe them.

Microsoft v. TomTom.

I know, right? It disturbs me that any rodent should have gimballed ears. My son's not bothered by it, however, and loves the show.

I wonder if the copyright extends to the water molecule?

Actually, it's easier to escape the Solar System than go into an orbit around Mercury.

Reaching Mercury from Earth poses significant technical challenges, since the planet orbits so much closer to the Sun than does the Earth. A Mercury-bound spacecraft launched from Earth must travel over 91 million kilometers into the Sun’s gravitational potential well. Mercury has an orbital speed of 48 km/s, while Earth’s orbital speed is 30 km/s. Thus the spacecraft must make a large change in velocity (delta-v) to enter a Hohmann transfer orbit that passes near Mercury, as compared to the delta-v required for other planetary missions.

The potential energy liberated by moving down the Sun’s potential well becomes kinetic energy; requiring another large delta-v change to do anything other than rapidly pass by Mercury. To land safely or enter a stable orbit the spacecraft would rely entirely on rocket motors. Aerobraking is ruled out because the planet has very little atmosphere. A trip to Mercury requires more rocket fuel than that required to escape the Solar System completely. As a result, only two space probes have visited the planet so far. A proposed alternative approach would use a solar sail to attain a Mercury-synchronous orbit around the Sun.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mercury_(planet)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Endoplasmic_reticulum

Ridiculous : The spell for a Boggart (Celtic creature or HP shape shifter). The endoplasmic reticulum occurs in three shapes and varies with the amount of synthesis.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Endoplasmic_reticulum

How about an O'Neill Cylinder at a La Grange point or even a Dyson Sphere variant at approximately 1AU?

How about an O'Neill Cylinder at a La Grange point or even a Dyson Sphere variant at approximately 1AU?

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Considering that Windows 7 has only been out 493 days as of this posting, and 2979 days have elapsed since the beginning of 2003, that means that one vulnerability is announced every 8.6 days on average for Windows 7, versus one vulnerability every 19.9 days on average for OS X.

Original:

The first federal copyright act, the Copyright Act of 1790 granted copyright for a term of "fourteen years from the time of recording the title thereof", with a right of renewal for another fourteen years if the author survived to the end of the first term.

from here

It's one thing for an author to make a living off of his work and creativity and another for their kids and grandkids to become "trust fund" babies because of that work.

We need to go back to the original law to encourage folks to write and become professional writers. Just look around the web, we really need more professional writers. Which means, I completely disagree with everyone who wants to eliminate Copyright or any other IP law for that matter completely.

Not when you're talking about the US President. At least, not according to Truman. The President's job is to be personally responsible for the actions of the executive branch. Fault and responsibility are not the same thing in this case, but the fault is still there, even if it's passive (e.g. not putting procedures in place to avoid something happening), rather than active (e.g. ordering something).

Web developers stopped testing their sites with Netscape 6 ages ago.

Because Netscape 6 was a piece of shit not worth the time it took to download it. And it's not as if Netscape was so great at "web standards compliance" either.

Fact is 15 years ago netscape 4.x was inferior. It was worse than IE4. Yes IE1 2 and 3 were worse than Netscape 1-3.0, but IE had caught up, and then the Netscape team screwed up...

Netscape 6, 7 were pieces of bloated shit. If you thought Netscape 4 and IE4 were crap, they were worse. They really really sucked.

Believe me I was looking for something better than IE after using Netscape from v3 to v4.8, but there just wasn't any thing better for windows[1].

From IE4 to IE6 (1998 to 2005) tell me which browser was better than IE that ran on windows? Definitely not Netscape/Mozilla. Konqueror didn't run on Windows. Mosaic? Hahaha.

See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Timeline_of_web_browsers.svg

Mozilla Firefox only started getting usable in 2006 by my standards (my standards = crash less than IE). And it took them two more years to reduce those memory issues (I was using a desktop linux machine at work from 2006-2008 and it was common for firefox to use more memory than my vmware virtual machine running Windows XP and IE!).

I even tried Opera in 2006+ and it was actually slower than Firefox for my usage, and it even leaked lots of memory (yes we can blame it on flash but I'm just going to use what works).

Just look at how much Google Chrome has caught up in such a short time and you can see the alternative browsers just weren't good enough. Even nongeeks were seeing the difference between Chrome and IE and telling their nongeek friends to use it. Yes I know Chrome was based on Webkit and Webkit was based on Konqueror. But fact is there weren't good enough geniuses working on the "IE alternative" problem back then.

[1] If anyone thinks I should have switched to Desktop Linux back then, they're either stupid or delusional. Even 10 years later Desktop Linux still hasn't got _basic_ desktop stuff like sound right.

It's a tiny bit dishonest to say "the X administration" unless it was a conscious policy of X, not something that you can expect to see from X-1 and x+1.

In that case, administrations X-1, X, and X+1 would all be equally deserving of our contempt and criticism. There is no dishonesty involved: each functionary is acting on guidelines or instructions or policy formed by their superior, who in turn is acting on guidelines or instructions or policy formed by their superior. And so it goes, each level escaping responsibility until we remember where Harry Truman said the buck stopped.

If you're going to rail against pork spending, at least rail against the right pig. We have the money for a LOT of things. It's just that we spend most of what should be discretionary money on an enormous military. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Be sure to check out Space Weather's Flybys page or Heavens Above to see if the ISS and Discovery are viewable overhead in your neighborhood. I tried a few zip codes and it looks like the NYC area will get to see a very bright ISS and Discovery pair on March 5th. This will be the day that Discovery undocks so you may get to see two bright dots moving across the sky from that area. I had the opportunity to see the ISS with Atlantis recently undocked on STS-129 and it was an impressive sight.

What's the big deal? This is just planned obsolescence, a rather old concept as far as corporations are concerned.