Many people find the vast majority of their air travel is on small jets or turboprops.
If you're flying more than 3 hours on a small jet, I'm sorry you can't find a better carrier.
Some of us don't live close enough to airports that the major carriers consider to be important enough to send large jets to. I have had days where I have spent 5-6 hours or more in a single day seated in Embraers, Canadairs, or turboprops (or any combination thereof). It makes no difference what carrier I am on, they all put me through this.
Hell some days I'm happy if I just have a connecting airport where I don't have to go through security again before I get to my next gate.
Being as I was riding steerage class on an EmbraerJet - and all the other legs of my journey were the same - it had no value for my travel.
But how long was that flight? Maximum range is about 3h30 isn't it? It's barely worth lying down on short flights.
Range is somewhere in that neighborhood. But of course you're not including time spent on the runway and other wastes of time.
Although I've found that most of the Embraers, Canadairs, Bombardiers, and Turboprops I have been on lately have seats that barely recline at all; regardless of where you are on the plane. Sitting straight up for 3 hours sucks. I'm not looking to lay down, I'm just looking to get some degree of comfort, and that is often on single-class planes where you couldn't get more legroom for any amount of money. Sometimes the airlines have tried to get me to pay more for priority boarding (as in, the front of the plane) but no extra legroom or ability to recline the seat.
Although really I would be happy if I could even get power on my flights. When I spend 7-8 or more hours travelling in a single day, my laptop battery can't hold out if I want to do anything resembling useful work. Hell even going through my presentation slides may be enough to drain the battery before I reach the layover, and I may well not find any available power there - nor have enough time to charge during the layover anyways.
It's not really a problem that needs to be solved for those though. Most of those are a couple of hours, so there's hardly even enough time to see a whole movie.
Movie? I don't care much about whether I can watch a movie or not, I'd like to get some of the basic amenities that are supposedly "standard" on the large planes - like power for example. If I'm going to be a sardine stuffed in steerage class, I would at least like to be able to plug in my laptop so I can get some work done.
I've had days where I have had 2 or more flights of 2+ hours each, with an hour or so layover in between, all on planes that are too small to have power available. Add in taxi time and other periods in between, and my laptop can't sleep that long and still have enough power to do useful work; hence I have to power down and then power back up. But of course with the power used to boot up, I have that much less battery available to do anything useful while on the flight; even going through presentation slides might not be doable.
If it is only for the largest planes, then it isn't all that helpful for a lot of travellers (myself included). Many people find the vast majority of their air travel is on small jets or turboprops. If this never trickles down to those - and likely it never will - then it doesn't matter. This reminds me of reading a Continental in-flight magazine that told me about the new full-recline sleeper seats that are in first class on the largest planes. Being as I was riding steerage class on an EmbraerJet - and all the other legs of my journey were the same - it had no value for my travel.
Sadly, a federal (US) investigation would seldom be worthwhile. Usually the registrar, ISP, and payment processing are all non-US companies. The closest you can usually get with most spammers is ICANN, but ICANN doesn't give a shit as long as the registrar pays them so that's a guaranteed dead end. Some of the registration obfuscation services are US-based, but by the time anyone with any authority got to them, they would have already alerted their customers and closed their accounts so they would have no liability to disclose their information.
'm not sure Bush's base would have stood for it. They were pretty up in arms about Obama signing it. Of course, you also have to take into account their ability to rationalize just about anything so long as it's their guy doing it...
Bush's base would have happily seen it signed. Remember the background of the Bush administration:
After not winning the election, Bush started two wars - one was started on questionable and dubious justification, and the other was just simply wrong and started with blatant lies. Those two wars cost a significant number of active troops - both those who came home in body bags and those who came home with injuries too grave to fight anymore. That drove the numbers of active troops down significantly enough in comparison to what was needed that we had to start sending out reserve and national guard troops on war missions that had nothing to do with guarding out nation.
Eventually, something would need to be done to improve troops numbers. The two quickest ways to address that is to either welcome previously excluded troops (in part already done by increasing the maximum age of enlistment and the maximum allowable weight for a soldier) or drafting men into the armed forces. The second is a no-go, so they would accept a repeal of don't-ask-don't-tell on that justification.
Besides, it probably would have never reached Bush's desk anyway
Eventually it would have had to happen. Under Bush it would have been authored as a "national security" measure instead and it would have been just as accepted.
Both Bush and Obama are pretty good at making sure that only legislation they already approve of hits their desk at the first place.
The sad part is that some people believe there to be a meaningful difference between legislation they each approve.
Only in America do we bestow the honor of "doctor" upon those who never wrote a dissertation. The rest of the world recognizes the inaccuracy of calling someone who went through chiropractor, medical, dental, veterinary, or law school a "doctor".
Nobody who has not written and defended a research dissertation should go around advertising themselves a "doctor".
And looking at The Sydney Morning Herald (warning site loves advertisements with sound) I'm not seeing any reports of massive scores of people disappearing in the rapture. The news seems to continue on there just like any other Saturday.
On a side note, it appears that the "10 things you need to know list" is primarily telling me there will be advertising after the rapture, since I saw more ads than content on that site.
I challenge you (again!) to point to one bill signed by President Lawnchair that would not have been signed by Bush. I'll save you the time right now, there isn't one.
Do you think that Bush would have signed the bill into law repealing "Don't Act, Don't Tell"? (not that I don't agree that Obama and Bush are extremely similar, but I also like a good challenge).
He would have eventually been sold on it. Not because he cares about homosexuals, but because he wants to have as many people in the military as possible to support his wars.
So yes, I do think Bush would have signed that repeal, had it ever reached his desk. Of course, he wasn't exactly one to veto much of anything.
I've been saying for years that the only way to stop spam is to go after the money that keeps it going. I have the comment history here to back that up, as well.
However, whoever wrote this summary got one thing wrong at the end. A "Joe Job" - sending out fake spam to smear someone you dislike - is useless. I've seen plenty of them in the past, and the result is questionable at best. People who dislike spam won't see it, and those who buy spamvertised products will just be confused by it.
Regardless, I'm glad to see that more people are realizing that indeed spam is an economic problem, that needs to be solved with economic solutions. No amount of filtering or homicide will bring about an end to spam; only economic actions will.
Are you serious? Are you going to seriously make the claim that there's no difference from Bush? Based on the Patriot Act being renewed?
I'm sorry that you didn't read my entire post before you hit reply.
Allow me to restate what I said previously that you seemed to have not read:
There has not been a single bill yet signed by President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama that President Bush would not have signed.
I challenge you (again!) to point to one bill signed by President Lawnchair that would not have been signed by Bush. I'll save you the time right now, there isn't one.
People who think our government hasn't fundamentally changed don't follow politics.
Wrong. People who think that our government has changed in any meaningful way since 2008 don't follow politics.
Come on, really. The only thing that changed after the 2008 election was the drapes in The White House. No legislative changes happened then, and none occurred after the 2010 election either. There has not been a single bill yet signed by President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama that President Bush would not have signed.
Not. A. Single. One.
Even the so-called "Obamacare" bit - although a better name would be The Health Insurance Company Bailout Act - that the people on the radio love to bitch about, was written by republicans. It drove more consumers to the big businesses that both sides of the aisle embrace with open arms.
PS to slashdot. I love all the conservative ads featured here. I'm glad to see you are so unbiased. I see yet another townhall.com ad featuring a picture of President Lawnchair, asking if I support repealing "Obamacare".
it seems like Skype has been pretty good at keeping backwards compatibility so far. It doesn't seem to matter much how close (or distant) the versions are on two different systems currently. As long as they don't break that trend, Linux users should be OK for some time to come even if MS drops development of new versions for Linux.
That said, MS still wants to make money. If they can keep customers around, they will. It isn't in their own best interest to drop Linux development of Skype, because the Linux users likely won't go out and buy a version of Windows to use Skype in the future; hence they become lost customers.
I would bet that if it is coming from a single IP at a time, it is coming from a country where English is not the primary language. You can try to report it, but you'll likely get a reply in a language you cannot read and the correspondence will stop there.
Alternately, if you are seeing distributed (botnet) attempts, there isn't much point in trying. You'll have dozens (if not more) of different addresses, and they are almost always all transient anyways. You could spend your time going through all the addresses, finding all the ISPs, but you'll likely end up with many copies of the same problem I just described.
In other words, just make sure you don't allow logins of the names they try. Don't just stop with "a really good password" as so many others have tried; rather ban those usernames entirely from remote login. I've even seen phone book attacks on my system where they try a long list of common first names (Aaron, all the way to Zelda).
It went down before it made the front page - it was incommunicado when it was still a preview story. Hence either it was down before then, or it was taken down by just the traffic from slashdot subscribers who were able to see the link before the story was on the front page.
Why would I want to have one less physical system.
Many reasons. Less hardware to manage, less physical clutter, less power consumption, the list goes on from there...
Also, those floppies will probably outlive that hard drive there the images are stored.
5.25 floppies? Maybe; if you're putting the images on a very old and unreliable hard drive. 3.5" floppies? Not a snowball's chance in hell. I've had 3.5" floppies self-destruct just moments after having data written to them for the first time. The longevity of a 3.5" floppy is so pitiful that an argument could be made it was designed by satan himself, just to drive people mad.
But either way, if you put the images onto a modern hard drive, and manage your data on your home network wisely, the images should outlive the floppy discs. On top of that, 5.25" floppy drives are becoming incredibly hard to find - your discs aren't worth the physical space they occupy on a shelf if you can't read them at all.
I keep music on records and tapes
Plenty of hardware is still made for both of those formats. Nobody makes 5.25" floppy drives any more to the best of my knowledge, and 3.5" floppy drives are quickly vanishing as well. This is an apples to oranges comparison here, really. If you want t compare 3.5" and 5.25" floppy discs to a music format, they are more like 8-tracks or mini-discs.
All the games you have on 5.25" floppy. Once you get all that from floppy to images, you can junk the box and bask in the glory of having one less physical system. As an added bonus, your spouse will thank you - or if you're still single, you'll have a slightly better chance of finding one.
Sure, but the point I'm after is that the information on the consumer that the FSF is so interested in raising a stink over, Nintendo could just as well get from the federal (or local) government anyays.
The FSF is specifically concerned about users giving their own identifying information to Nintendo through a 3DS. However the government already knows who you are, where you live, who you've worked for, when you were born, etc. Plenty of companies have already shown how easy it is to get that information from the government and do whatever you want with it.
If, on the other hand, you are creating new data on an internet-connected gaming device, I would suggest you might want to look at new platforms for that purpose. There are better options than something that small and that easily compromised.
Incorrectly attributed to him in the expense report.
I agree wholeheartedly. Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq, just as Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. However that was not the excuse that was sold to us for the invasion of Iraq.
The Bush Administration explicitly said that Iraq was connected to 9/11 - both Bush and Cheney said that plainly - which made iraq tied to Bin Laden by association.
Except that the Bush Administration was blatently lying. So blaming those costs on Bin Laden is just continuing the lie.
There is no doubt it was a bald-faced lie, connecting Iraq to 9/11. However it is part of how it was sold to the American people - and a non-trivial portion of the US population still believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 - so even though it had nothing to do with Bin Laden in reality, the two are related in the expense report.
The Bush Administration explicitly said that Iraq was connected to 9/11 - both Bush and Cheney said that plainly - which made iraq tied to Bin Laden by association.
They will likely be ordered first to launch into a massive investigation of the Clinton-Lewinski affair. Then when they fail to find anything that warrants his immediate execution and striking from all future printing of US history books, congress will order the agency shut down immediately.
Don't count on that. It's been that way for some time now, and nobody with the ability to fix it seems to care. One of the former slashdot programmers was a regular voice on use.perl and he never bothered to fix it; I highly doubt anyone still working for slashdot gives a damn about it.
By the way, how do we report bugs about Slashdot?
Carrier pigeon, sent to the ISS.
Or at the very least, that would be just as useful as any other mechanism. Slashdot doesn't care about fixing bugs, just about implementing new ones. You can email rob malda directly (malda@slashdot.org) if you want, and he'll weasel his way around the problem in a reply to you. Or you can just do like the rest of us and bitch about the bugs openly here on slashdot instead. It also doesn't lead to them being fixed, but you can take credit for being the first to find a specific bug!
Slashdot Mirror
Many people find the vast majority of their air travel is on small jets or turboprops.
If you're flying more than 3 hours on a small jet, I'm sorry you can't find a better carrier.
Some of us don't live close enough to airports that the major carriers consider to be important enough to send large jets to. I have had days where I have spent 5-6 hours or more in a single day seated in Embraers, Canadairs, or turboprops (or any combination thereof). It makes no difference what carrier I am on, they all put me through this.
Hell some days I'm happy if I just have a connecting airport where I don't have to go through security again before I get to my next gate.
Being as I was riding steerage class on an EmbraerJet - and all the other legs of my journey were the same - it had no value for my travel.
But how long was that flight? Maximum range is about 3h30 isn't it? It's barely worth lying down on short flights.
Range is somewhere in that neighborhood. But of course you're not including time spent on the runway and other wastes of time.
Although I've found that most of the Embraers, Canadairs, Bombardiers, and Turboprops I have been on lately have seats that barely recline at all; regardless of where you are on the plane. Sitting straight up for 3 hours sucks. I'm not looking to lay down, I'm just looking to get some degree of comfort, and that is often on single-class planes where you couldn't get more legroom for any amount of money. Sometimes the airlines have tried to get me to pay more for priority boarding (as in, the front of the plane) but no extra legroom or ability to recline the seat.
Although really I would be happy if I could even get power on my flights. When I spend 7-8 or more hours travelling in a single day, my laptop battery can't hold out if I want to do anything resembling useful work. Hell even going through my presentation slides may be enough to drain the battery before I reach the layover, and I may well not find any available power there - nor have enough time to charge during the layover anyways.
It's not really a problem that needs to be solved for those though. Most of those are a couple of hours, so there's hardly even enough time to see a whole movie.
Movie? I don't care much about whether I can watch a movie or not, I'd like to get some of the basic amenities that are supposedly "standard" on the large planes - like power for example. If I'm going to be a sardine stuffed in steerage class, I would at least like to be able to plug in my laptop so I can get some work done.
I've had days where I have had 2 or more flights of 2+ hours each, with an hour or so layover in between, all on planes that are too small to have power available. Add in taxi time and other periods in between, and my laptop can't sleep that long and still have enough power to do useful work; hence I have to power down and then power back up. But of course with the power used to boot up, I have that much less battery available to do anything useful while on the flight; even going through presentation slides might not be doable.
If it is only for the largest planes, then it isn't all that helpful for a lot of travellers (myself included). Many people find the vast majority of their air travel is on small jets or turboprops. If this never trickles down to those - and likely it never will - then it doesn't matter. This reminds me of reading a Continental in-flight magazine that told me about the new full-recline sleeper seats that are in first class on the largest planes. Being as I was riding steerage class on an EmbraerJet - and all the other legs of my journey were the same - it had no value for my travel.
Sadly, a federal (US) investigation would seldom be worthwhile. Usually the registrar, ISP, and payment processing are all non-US companies. The closest you can usually get with most spammers is ICANN, but ICANN doesn't give a shit as long as the registrar pays them so that's a guaranteed dead end. Some of the registration obfuscation services are US-based, but by the time anyone with any authority got to them, they would have already alerted their customers and closed their accounts so they would have no liability to disclose their information.
'm not sure Bush's base would have stood for it. They were pretty up in arms about Obama signing it. Of course, you also have to take into account their ability to rationalize just about anything so long as it's their guy doing it...
Bush's base would have happily seen it signed. Remember the background of the Bush administration:
After not winning the election, Bush started two wars - one was started on questionable and dubious justification, and the other was just simply wrong and started with blatant lies. Those two wars cost a significant number of active troops - both those who came home in body bags and those who came home with injuries too grave to fight anymore. That drove the numbers of active troops down significantly enough in comparison to what was needed that we had to start sending out reserve and national guard troops on war missions that had nothing to do with guarding out nation.
Eventually, something would need to be done to improve troops numbers. The two quickest ways to address that is to either welcome previously excluded troops (in part already done by increasing the maximum age of enlistment and the maximum allowable weight for a soldier) or drafting men into the armed forces. The second is a no-go, so they would accept a repeal of don't-ask-don't-tell on that justification.
Besides, it probably would have never reached Bush's desk anyway
Eventually it would have had to happen. Under Bush it would have been authored as a "national security" measure instead and it would have been just as accepted.
Both Bush and Obama are pretty good at making sure that only legislation they already approve of hits their desk at the first place.
The sad part is that some people believe there to be a meaningful difference between legislation they each approve.
Doctor of Chiropractic (DC) are indeed doctors.
Only in America do we bestow the honor of "doctor" upon those who never wrote a dissertation. The rest of the world recognizes the inaccuracy of calling someone who went through chiropractor, medical, dental, veterinary, or law school a "doctor".
Nobody who has not written and defended a research dissertation should go around advertising themselves a "doctor".
And looking at The Sydney Morning Herald (warning site loves advertisements with sound) I'm not seeing any reports of massive scores of people disappearing in the rapture. The news seems to continue on there just like any other Saturday.
On a side note, it appears that the "10 things you need to know list" is primarily telling me there will be advertising after the rapture, since I saw more ads than content on that site.
I challenge you (again!) to point to one bill signed by President Lawnchair that would not have been signed by Bush. I'll save you the time right now, there isn't one.
Do you think that Bush would have signed the bill into law repealing "Don't Act, Don't Tell"? (not that I don't agree that Obama and Bush are extremely similar, but I also like a good challenge).
He would have eventually been sold on it. Not because he cares about homosexuals, but because he wants to have as many people in the military as possible to support his wars.
So yes, I do think Bush would have signed that repeal, had it ever reached his desk. Of course, he wasn't exactly one to veto much of anything.
I've been saying for years that the only way to stop spam is to go after the money that keeps it going. I have the comment history here to back that up, as well.
However, whoever wrote this summary got one thing wrong at the end. A "Joe Job" - sending out fake spam to smear someone you dislike - is useless. I've seen plenty of them in the past, and the result is questionable at best. People who dislike spam won't see it, and those who buy spamvertised products will just be confused by it.
Regardless, I'm glad to see that more people are realizing that indeed spam is an economic problem, that needs to be solved with economic solutions. No amount of filtering or homicide will bring about an end to spam; only economic actions will.
Are you serious? Are you going to seriously make the claim that there's no difference from Bush? Based on the Patriot Act being renewed?
I'm sorry that you didn't read my entire post before you hit reply.
Allow me to restate what I said previously that you seemed to have not read:
There has not been a single bill yet signed by President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama that President Bush would not have signed.
I challenge you (again!) to point to one bill signed by President Lawnchair that would not have been signed by Bush. I'll save you the time right now, there isn't one.
People who think our government hasn't fundamentally changed don't follow politics.
Wrong. People who think that our government has changed in any meaningful way since 2008 don't follow politics.
Come on, really. The only thing that changed after the 2008 election was the drapes in The White House. No legislative changes happened then, and none occurred after the 2010 election either. There has not been a single bill yet signed by President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama that President Bush would not have signed.
Not. A. Single. One.
Even the so-called "Obamacare" bit - although a better name would be The Health Insurance Company Bailout Act - that the people on the radio love to bitch about, was written by republicans. It drove more consumers to the big businesses that both sides of the aisle embrace with open arms.
PS to slashdot. I love all the conservative ads featured here. I'm glad to see you are so unbiased. I see yet another townhall.com ad featuring a picture of President Lawnchair, asking if I support repealing "Obamacare".
it seems like Skype has been pretty good at keeping backwards compatibility so far. It doesn't seem to matter much how close (or distant) the versions are on two different systems currently. As long as they don't break that trend, Linux users should be OK for some time to come even if MS drops development of new versions for Linux.
That said, MS still wants to make money. If they can keep customers around, they will. It isn't in their own best interest to drop Linux development of Skype, because the Linux users likely won't go out and buy a version of Windows to use Skype in the future; hence they become lost customers.
I would bet that if it is coming from a single IP at a time, it is coming from a country where English is not the primary language. You can try to report it, but you'll likely get a reply in a language you cannot read and the correspondence will stop there.
Alternately, if you are seeing distributed (botnet) attempts, there isn't much point in trying. You'll have dozens (if not more) of different addresses, and they are almost always all transient anyways. You could spend your time going through all the addresses, finding all the ISPs, but you'll likely end up with many copies of the same problem I just described.
In other words, just make sure you don't allow logins of the names they try. Don't just stop with "a really good password" as so many others have tried; rather ban those usernames entirely from remote login. I've even seen phone book attacks on my system where they try a long list of common first names (Aaron, all the way to Zelda).
It went down before it made the front page - it was incommunicado when it was still a preview story. Hence either it was down before then, or it was taken down by just the traffic from slashdot subscribers who were able to see the link before the story was on the front page.
Why would I want to have one less physical system.
Many reasons. Less hardware to manage, less physical clutter, less power consumption, the list goes on from there...
Also, those floppies will probably outlive that hard drive there the images are stored.
5.25 floppies? Maybe; if you're putting the images on a very old and unreliable hard drive. 3.5" floppies? Not a snowball's chance in hell. I've had 3.5" floppies self-destruct just moments after having data written to them for the first time. The longevity of a 3.5" floppy is so pitiful that an argument could be made it was designed by satan himself, just to drive people mad.
But either way, if you put the images onto a modern hard drive, and manage your data on your home network wisely, the images should outlive the floppy discs. On top of that, 5.25" floppy drives are becoming incredibly hard to find - your discs aren't worth the physical space they occupy on a shelf if you can't read them at all.
I keep music on records and tapes
Plenty of hardware is still made for both of those formats. Nobody makes 5.25" floppy drives any more to the best of my knowledge, and 3.5" floppy drives are quickly vanishing as well. This is an apples to oranges comparison here, really. If you want t compare 3.5" and 5.25" floppy discs to a music format, they are more like 8-tracks or mini-discs.
All the games you have on 5.25" floppy. Once you get all that from floppy to images, you can junk the box and bask in the glory of having one less physical system. As an added bonus, your spouse will thank you - or if you're still single, you'll have a slightly better chance of finding one.
Sure, but the point I'm after is that the information on the consumer that the FSF is so interested in raising a stink over, Nintendo could just as well get from the federal (or local) government anyays.
The FSF is specifically concerned about users giving their own identifying information to Nintendo through a 3DS. However the government already knows who you are, where you live, who you've worked for, when you were born, etc. Plenty of companies have already shown how easy it is to get that information from the government and do whatever you want with it.
If, on the other hand, you are creating new data on an internet-connected gaming device, I would suggest you might want to look at new platforms for that purpose. There are better options than something that small and that easily compromised.
What does Nintendo get from this that the federal government doesn't already have on you (which they may be able to get through a FOIA request)?
Incorrectly attributed to him in the expense report.
I agree wholeheartedly. Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq, just as Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. However that was not the excuse that was sold to us for the invasion of Iraq.
Bush's Iraq War, which had nothing to do with him
The Bush Administration explicitly said that Iraq was connected to 9/11 - both Bush and Cheney said that plainly - which made iraq tied to Bin Laden by association.
Except that the Bush Administration was blatently lying. So blaming those costs on Bin Laden is just continuing the lie.
There is no doubt it was a bald-faced lie, connecting Iraq to 9/11. However it is part of how it was sold to the American people - and a non-trivial portion of the US population still believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 - so even though it had nothing to do with Bin Laden in reality, the two are related in the expense report.
Bush's Iraq War, which had nothing to do with him
The Bush Administration explicitly said that Iraq was connected to 9/11 - both Bush and Cheney said that plainly - which made iraq tied to Bin Laden by association.
They will likely be ordered first to launch into a massive investigation of the Clinton-Lewinski affair. Then when they fail to find anything that warrants his immediate execution and striking from all future printing of US history books, congress will order the agency shut down immediately.
Oh well, too bad for the camel. It's going to stay headless until the next major UI rewrite. Thanks anyway.
I'm pretty sure the last rewrite is responsible for the decapitation. I rather highly doubt that the next one will put the head back on.
Yes, the artist made a mistake: the image http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicperl.gif is too wide to fit into the template. Hopefully it will be noticed now.
Don't count on that. It's been that way for some time now, and nobody with the ability to fix it seems to care. One of the former slashdot programmers was a regular voice on use.perl and he never bothered to fix it; I highly doubt anyone still working for slashdot gives a damn about it.
By the way, how do we report bugs about Slashdot?
Carrier pigeon, sent to the ISS.
Or at the very least, that would be just as useful as any other mechanism. Slashdot doesn't care about fixing bugs, just about implementing new ones. You can email rob malda directly (malda@slashdot.org) if you want, and he'll weasel his way around the problem in a reply to you. Or you can just do like the rest of us and bitch about the bugs openly here on slashdot instead. It also doesn't lead to them being fixed, but you can take credit for being the first to find a specific bug!