The reason that anti-environmentalists don't want to acknowledge the warmup is not based on degree of error in measurements, or a disagreement about basic science.
They want to drive their cars.
They have a visceral dislike of long-haired hippy tree huggers.
Antarctica will continue to melt. The north pole has turned into a giant Slushie(tm) as of last summer.
If God writes in letters a thousand miles tall on the face of the moon: YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THIS, then the Almighty would be accused of liberal sympathies.
The warming is starting to pick up steam. It may take most of a hundred years, but it will happen, mostly because of our beloved cars.
But, the way it will happen, I think, is that the same businesslike people who now deny the reality of the change will be the same ones buying up new oceanside property to develop at amazing profits. Call me cynical...
"I find it interesting that so many people here are upset that a company was forced to follow the rules. "
Sony was informed it was breaking a rule, and offered to stop. Microsoft decided that wasn't good enough, so Sony threw up their hands and walked out.
Interesting logic.
Sony let people play with Playstations. Microsoft screams murder, demands their absence. Sony complies. People say them's the rules. People point out that the company who demanded that the rule be followed dominates the industry because it broke every rule it could get away with -- and never offered to stop. People say so only MS is supposed to follow the rules? This does not excuse Sony from breaking the rules by letting people play games! Um once again, pointing out the irony of the IT world's biggest criminal beeotching about rules...
There is a difference between rules and morals. Sony broke a (silly)rule, a rule no one probably even knew about, but Microsoft has no morals, so it has no problem with its own hypocrisy.
Which is worse? Sony letting people play games, or Microsoft using the rules to eliminate its competitor from the free market floor?
Microsoft wants its competition to follow rules. It recognizes none for itself.
Notice the impact, symbolically, on the market at the show? The fun Playstation booth was shuttered, with Microsoft tut-tutting. Rules were followed, backstabbing or no.
BUT: the losers were the people who could no longer play the games and have fun. The only winner was Microsoft.
Well, Microsoft is a monopoly, convicted of market manipulation, product tying, yadda yadda.
As with most "bias",/.ers have opinions of Microsoft based on years of experience, and simple knowledge of recent court cases.
Water is wet, Fox News is far right-wing, trees are made of wood, and Microsoft is a predatory monopolist. To believe so, and to regard Microsoft-related stories with a grain of anti-MS feeling, is only sanity.
To give MS the benefit of the doubt is situations such as this is about as likely as keeping an open mind about the softness of a concrete wall as you crash your car into it. You know concrete walls, and they are rarely soft as a sponge.
Not bias, which to my mind is baseless slant, but just common sense.
Actually, according to the story, Sony offered to only permit its own employees to operate the PS2's.
"Other parties" wouldn't agree to the compromise, and we can all guess who that "parties" was.
Nasty little company. I've heard others opine that MS's position in the game machine arena is not that of a monopolist; this behavior is indicative of how they "compete" in an open marketplace, in this case a literal one.
Now, I've been watching MS since '81, and I'm well versed in their utter lack of business ethics. Others younger than I have more tolerance of their behavior, lacking my perspective.
I'd like those yunguns to watch MS carefully over the next few years, and see how Bill & Company operate when they want to take over a market segment. It will be educational to people who think monopolists are really cool.
But Apple didn't try to stop people from selling fruit called "apples".
Amazon hasn't sued Brazil for naming their river after their company. And one doesn't order books from the Amazon river.
Point is, the word "windows" in connection with GUI's indicates that the graphical shell draws little boxes in which program output is displayed, more or less. Now, trademarking "Microsoft Windows" is valid. But maintaining that the word "windows", in connection with a GUI product, is proprietary? Insane. GEM had windows, the Mac OS uses windows, yadda yadda.
Not to say a stupid judge can't ignore sanity. For insance, there was an old family restaurant in the Chicago burbs named McDonald's. It existed years before Krock created his cerealburger stand. But, McDonalds the corporation actually took the poor restaurant owner to court and found him guilty of trademark infringement!
would hate 802.11b networks to dissaper, but Sirius got his point, he is using that frequency for long,
They did not pay for that frequency band. They payed for an adjacent band, and want 802.11 nets banned because they might interfere with their (theoretical) service.
IMO, I think that the proposal is a roundabout way to ban 802.11 radionets, which if not stopped, are going to be a major problem for pay-for-net services, as no one will want to pay for bandwidth which is freely available after the purchase of a 100 dollar PCI card.
And I never did agree with auctioning off a public resource -- bandwidth -- to a private concern. It leads to nonsense like this.
couldn't the smart boys and girls start routing the traffic independently, i.e. a new network "above" the internet?
I second and third that motion. A couple of us here have discussed setting up new domains and alternative DNS's on a radionet that does NOT have a connection to the original Internet, thereby avoiding the commmercialized content and government control now prevalent.
I do think that eventually this alternative network, and the equipment necessary to create it, will become outlawed, What fun we will have then!
How about it, Much Smarter Boys and Girls than I? Can a new radionet be created using new domains like.radio or.school that not only refuses to interface with the old Internet, but actually bans commercial intrusion entirely?
usually the dust-in-the-air problem is solved by using more than one link. you set up parallel lasers, separated by a hundred feet, say. if one gets blocked, the other takes over for a bit.
i seem to recall that people are cobbling together laser transmitters using dirt cheap red lasers from CD-ROM drives. The cost issue may not be as important as you may think at first.
big point: lasers aren't regulated the way radio is. if big telecom companies start feeling threatened (and believe me, they will), they will lobby for, and receive, severe restrictions on the use of private radio links for networking. at that point, 802.11 would become low-powered and deployed surreptitiously, and lasers could be used to undetectably connect the 802.11 LANs.
We ARE the Congress. Criticizing our own elected representatives is like finding a way to whip your own ass.
If they are the best we can get, then we deserve them.
Re:802.11 works ok as a LAN...
on
Hawaii Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 2
Well, we have to mow our lawns and shovel snow from the driveway... maintaining antennas is just another civic duty.
That sort of thing, public duty, has kind of evaporated, I know. If there's no profit in it, it shouldn't be done, most people think.
Well, since the pipe providers say they can't provide access at a profit, then there's no choice anymore. We build our own internet.
"roll-your-own" was how the internet started, anyway. Now that Business has arrived, nothing seems possible anymore without massive outlays of cash. Except Wi-Fi.
I agree totally with your comment that this only works on the LAN level. Thing is, we can make a pretty big LAN... and that LAN can connect with other LAN's... and someday, perhaps, a critical mass will be achieved, and the "Internet" is born again, this time without corporate control.
I do think that perhaps the key is NOT to gateway to the corporate Internet. New domains, like.radio, or.backbone, or.school, or.homepage, could be created, and an alternative DNS created.
Security? New World Order types keep stating that we have no privacy anymore, no freedom of speech anymore -- get over it.
Well, there really isn't such a thing as security, either - get over it. The Internet was designed to be a system of trusted computers, and that seems to be where the Pringlenet is going. If this makes it insecure for businesses, then businesses should stay away and play on the Internet they now own.
But why is it so important for forums like this to assume, and even insist, that anyone who can appreciate a game like D&D, and perhaps played it extensively during middle school, automatically has no social graces?
Sigh. Experience. I've gamed off and on for about 20 years now, and yuppers, a truly wound-up gamer does not go out to the clubs every Saturday night. Those years of weekends spent with other guys around a table, drinking Dew and eating pizza, didn't usually create the opportunity to learn the urbanity of Sean Connery.
It wasn't that the game wasn't cool. It's just that, when your whole life starts becoming the game, the True Geek alarm starts flashing.
Nowadays, tho, things are not what they used to be, back in the olden days of the early nineties. RPGs have attracted a greater variety of participants (read: women), and the bad-fraternity house mannerisms are giving way to, well, more style n'grace amongst gamers.
Well, to answer the question, people see gamers as geeks with weird mannerisms cause they tend to be people with weird mannerisms...
Get rid of the 5.25" bay, the 3.5" bay, the serial ports, the parallel port. Maybe even USB, eventually: Firewire is a superior tech. But let's leave one USB there for fun. Oh, an Ethernet port, of course. And a modem port.
Here's where we get more fun out of life. Imagine it's 2005. IBM brings out MRAM on schedule, which is non-volatile RAM: no data loss on power down.
We'd use some standard volatile RAM, probably just cache, to store things we don't want people to look at, particularly. So if the DRM stormtroopers grab your box, the evil bad MP3s get wiped wihout hope of discovery when you hit the panic button.
The box is about the size of a paperback book, or maybe a VHS cassette. Two 1394 ports, a USB port for a keyboard, a digital monitor port. It has no hard drive, but, say, 10 gigs of MRAM. I have no idea what the power supply would be like; that may spoil my dream here. Okay, let's add a flash memory slot. For a CPU, let's say we go with the usual nanometer-level fab process, only instead of cranking the MHz up, we bring it down; this reduces the heat output a lot. Maybe a 500 MHz wonder.
Optionally, you could put a cheap LCD screen on one side, maybe with a stylus input for those times you are sans keyboard. Then you can be covered if you want to carry this around.
Okay, let's add a cheap camera. And a microphone and cheap speaker or earbud? Okay, there is a phone posibility there.
Hmp. Let's put an 802.11 variant in there for wireless networking.
Okay, let's dream some more, and instead of a battery, the thing runs on a couple of ounces of butane for a fuel cell.
And let's just imagine this thing costs, oh, five hundred bucks.
The anger is not about the article. The anger is caused by why FOX is running it -- to smear Democrats, and to provide ideas for smearing Democrats. FOX taints any article it runs merely because IT is running it.
FOX NEWS is not a news network. It is the media branch of far-right wingers, created to destroy Clinton, and now existing to elect Republicans.
Not that it is a Republican network -- it is not. It is a reactionary network, composed of radical political ideologues, neo-conservative economic libertians, religious fundementalists, objectivists, and assorted people who are only there to ride the money train.
They demonify Democrats and court Republicans in order to spread their view of religion, economics, media, and social order. The minute a Republican turns against them in any way, it's fire-up-the-stake time. No prisoners taken. No logic taken, either.
It is a machine for grinding right wing knives. A propaganda outlet which proclaims the grandest lie of all as you turn it on for the first time: "Fair and Balanced". Heavens to Orwell.
FAIR, at least, can count on their fingers. And they document extensively that FOX NEWS is a right-wing site dedicated soley to destroying the credibility of anyone who does not agree with their beliefs.
Hell, Murdoch created the network basically to destroy Clinton. Every man jack on board that network needs cult deprogramming. They are STILL running reports on Monica Lewinsky. Still trying to nail Clinton for SOMEthing. Parenthetically, it's pathetic that after all these years and Scaife's millions, they couldn't find anything on a governor of Arkasas, for God's sake, one of the most politically corrupt states in the nation. It just might be because he kept his nose miraculously clean. The other explantion is that his political persecutors are incompetents.
A blowjob, for all of that. 200 FBI agents and 70 million dollars. And they only got the testimony on Lewinsky into the court by lying to the judge about it's relevance to the Paula Jones deposition. Starr's boy's should have had some sort of reprimand from the judge, but that was overwhelmed by fun dirty sex secret stories.
And FOX the mighty is still implying that the entire Clinton admin was lousy with pinko liberal criminals. Um, listen. There were no indictments of anyone working for Clinton. No convictions. And this is with rightwing near-psychopathic human hounds trying to get ANYthing.
Bush and Reagan had dozens of convictions of their people. Jail time. Lying. Dealing with terrorists. And a lot of those people are now in the current administration -- hence Boy George's permanent lockup of all of Reagan/Bush's daily records. No that he extended such "privacy" to Clinton, of course.
FAIR at least can count and present evidence that the deck not only is stacked cold at FOX, it is dripping liquid helium. Dispute their counting abilities; don't ad hominem them for being "liberal" (GASP!) which only impresses the rightwingers among us anyway.
Um, the unfairness of Fox is incredibly apparent to anyone who is not right wing to begin with.
FAIR is left wing? What the hell is left wing? Let me define it for you:
Left wing: (adjective) Non-representative of the views of hard core conservative white men. Example: "FAIR indicates that 90+ percent of commentators and guests on the FOX NEWS network are far right wing. Q.E.D.: FAIR is left wing because they do not pretend that this is fair. And probably made up of left-leaning Kennedy-loving commie-pinko terrorist-making tax-and-spend fag-coddlin' LIBERALS!!! And Bush is a God! Hail Bush!"
I'm aware Judicial Watch is on the attack against the current administration. It is surprising, and should be a warning to all fanatics everywhere -- be careful what you wish for; you may just get it. In this case, they wanted an attack dog, forgetting that sometimes a badly trained dog will bite the trainer.
Hm. You know, about those documents everyone wants to see about the task force. You all are/.ers -- you know what a Honey Pot trap is.
Those documents may be a honey pot. The Boys from Texas may have a cute little secret -- there may be no record of egregious dealmaking or influence in those supoenaed docs. The communications may have been off the record, in a more social milleu.
When those docs are finally analyzed, the GAO and JW may find that there isn't anything incriminating -- and the WH may score a calulated victory in the public's eye, with the aim of building polical capital against the next time they refuse to give up public records. The current president's people are ruthless, and are capable of such a simple trick. Beware a honey pot!
ummm.. nah. The original cold fusion experiments were easy to duplicate. It just couldn't be done. Fifteen years or more have passed. It's dead, dead, deadsky.
Slashdot Mirror
length of cable 1 meter, just like the present ATA.
Ah yes, rape as a just form of punishment for hacking.
America, America, God shed his grace on thee...
Why is rape tolerated, other than it's amusing for good citizens to think about?
I mean really, is it too much to have the right to not contract AIDS as a prison bonus?
Back on the thread, this kid was an idiot. But the punishment for being stupid shouldn't be rape. But it will be, won't it?
The reason that anti-environmentalists don't want to acknowledge the warmup is not based on degree of error in measurements, or a disagreement about basic science.
They want to drive their cars.
They have a visceral dislike of long-haired hippy tree huggers.
Antarctica will continue to melt. The north pole has turned into a giant Slushie(tm) as of last summer.
If God writes in letters a thousand miles tall on the face of the moon: YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THIS, then the Almighty would be accused of liberal sympathies.
The warming is starting to pick up steam. It may take most of a hundred years, but it will happen, mostly because of our beloved cars.
But, the way it will happen, I think, is that the same businesslike people who now deny the reality of the change will be the same ones buying up new oceanside property to develop at amazing profits. Call me cynical...
"I find it interesting that so many people here are upset that a company was forced to follow the rules. "
Sony was informed it was breaking a rule, and offered to stop. Microsoft decided that wasn't good enough, so Sony threw up their hands and walked out.
Interesting logic.
Sony let people play with Playstations.
Microsoft screams murder, demands their absence. Sony complies.
People say them's the rules.
People point out that the company who demanded that the rule be followed dominates the industry because it broke every rule it could get away with -- and never offered to stop.
People say so only MS is supposed to follow the rules? This does not excuse Sony from breaking the rules by letting people play games!
Um once again, pointing out the irony of the IT world's biggest criminal beeotching about rules...
There is a difference between rules and morals. Sony broke a (silly)rule, a rule no one probably even knew about, but Microsoft has no morals, so it has no problem with its own hypocrisy.
Which is worse? Sony letting people play games, or Microsoft using the rules to eliminate its competitor from the free market floor?
Microsoft wants its competition to follow rules. It recognizes none for itself.
Notice the impact, symbolically, on the market at the show? The fun Playstation booth was shuttered, with Microsoft tut-tutting. Rules were followed, backstabbing or no.
BUT: the losers were the people who could no longer play the games and have fun. The only winner was Microsoft.
Just like real life.
I hear that word a lot lately, bias.
/.ers have opinions of Microsoft based on years of experience, and simple knowledge of recent court cases.
Well, Microsoft is a monopoly, convicted of market manipulation, product tying, yadda yadda.
As with most "bias",
Water is wet, Fox News is far right-wing, trees are made of wood, and Microsoft is a predatory monopolist. To believe so, and to regard Microsoft-related stories with a grain of anti-MS feeling, is only sanity.
To give MS the benefit of the doubt is situations such as this is about as likely as keeping an open mind about the softness of a concrete wall as you crash your car into it. You know concrete walls, and they are rarely soft as a sponge.
Not bias, which to my mind is baseless slant, but just common sense.
Rules like, say, not faking video evidence for a court trial?
Which they got away with, ultimately.
Actually, according to the story, Sony offered to only permit its own employees to operate the PS2's.
"Other parties" wouldn't agree to the compromise, and we can all guess who that "parties" was.
Nasty little company. I've heard others opine that MS's position in the game machine arena is not that of a monopolist; this behavior is indicative of how they "compete" in an open marketplace, in this case a literal one.
Now, I've been watching MS since '81, and I'm well versed in their utter lack of business ethics. Others younger than I have more tolerance of their behavior, lacking my perspective.
I'd like those yunguns to watch MS carefully over the next few years, and see how Bill & Company operate when they want to take over a market segment. It will be educational to people who think monopolists are really cool.
Actually, they did try to compromise by offering to have only their employees operate the PS2's. The compromise was declined, and they were ejected.
And yes, it was a MS executive who asked that the rule be enforced.
Microsoft doesn't break the rules, ever, eh? It just breaks laws.
Petty monopolists.
okay, let's here it from the females... ladies? Anyone there? Helloooooo.... [echo echo echo]
But Apple didn't try to stop people from selling fruit called "apples".
Amazon hasn't sued Brazil for naming their river after their company. And one doesn't order books from the Amazon river.
Point is, the word "windows" in connection with GUI's indicates that the graphical shell draws little boxes in which program output is displayed, more or less. Now, trademarking "Microsoft Windows" is valid. But maintaining that the word "windows", in connection with a GUI product, is proprietary? Insane. GEM had windows, the Mac OS uses windows, yadda yadda.
Not to say a stupid judge can't ignore sanity. For insance, there was an old family restaurant in the Chicago burbs named McDonald's. It existed years before Krock created his cerealburger stand. But, McDonalds the corporation actually took the poor restaurant owner to court and found him guilty of trademark infringement!
They did not pay for that frequency band. They payed for an adjacent band, and want 802.11 nets banned because they might interfere with their (theoretical) service.
IMO, I think that the proposal is a roundabout way to ban 802.11 radionets, which if not stopped, are going to be a major problem for pay-for-net services, as no one will want to pay for bandwidth which is freely available after the purchase of a 100 dollar PCI card.
And I never did agree with auctioning off a public resource -- bandwidth -- to a private concern. It leads to nonsense like this.
I second and third that motion. A couple of us here have discussed setting up new domains and alternative DNS's on a radionet that does NOT have a connection to the original Internet, thereby avoiding the commmercialized content and government control now prevalent.
I do think that eventually this alternative network, and the equipment necessary to create it, will become outlawed, What fun we will have then!
How about it, Much Smarter Boys and Girls than I? Can a new radionet be created using new domains like
usually the dust-in-the-air problem is solved by using more than one link. you set up parallel lasers, separated by a hundred feet, say. if one gets blocked, the other takes over for a bit.
i seem to recall that people are cobbling together laser transmitters using dirt cheap red lasers from CD-ROM drives. The cost issue may not be as important as you may think at first.
big point: lasers aren't regulated the way radio is. if big telecom companies start feeling threatened (and believe me, they will), they will lobby for, and receive, severe restrictions on the use of private radio links for networking. at that point, 802.11 would become low-powered and deployed surreptitiously, and lasers could be used to undetectably connect the 802.11 LANs.
We ARE the Congress. Criticizing our own elected representatives is like finding a way to whip your own ass.
If they are the best we can get, then we deserve them.
Well, we have to mow our lawns and shovel snow from the driveway... maintaining antennas is just another civic duty.
.radio, or .backbone, or .school, or .homepage, could be created, and an alternative DNS created.
That sort of thing, public duty, has kind of evaporated, I know. If there's no profit in it, it shouldn't be done, most people think.
Well, since the pipe providers say they can't provide access at a profit, then there's no choice anymore. We build our own internet.
"roll-your-own" was how the internet started, anyway. Now that Business has arrived, nothing seems possible anymore without massive outlays of cash. Except Wi-Fi.
I agree totally with your comment that this only works on the LAN level. Thing is, we can make a pretty big LAN... and that LAN can connect with other LAN's... and someday, perhaps, a critical mass will be achieved, and the "Internet" is born again, this time without corporate control.
I do think that perhaps the key is NOT to gateway to the corporate Internet. New domains, like
Security? New World Order types keep stating that we have no privacy anymore, no freedom of speech anymore -- get over it.
Well, there really isn't such a thing as security, either - get over it. The Internet was designed to be a system of trusted computers, and that seems to be where the Pringlenet is going. If this makes it insecure for businesses, then businesses should stay away and play on the Internet they now own.
Sigh. Experience. I've gamed off and on for about 20 years now, and yuppers, a truly wound-up gamer does not go out to the clubs every Saturday night. Those years of weekends spent with other guys around a table, drinking Dew and eating pizza, didn't usually create the opportunity to learn the urbanity of Sean Connery.
It wasn't that the game wasn't cool. It's just that, when your whole life starts becoming the game, the True Geek alarm starts flashing.
Nowadays, tho, things are not what they used to be, back in the olden days of the early nineties. RPGs have attracted a greater variety of participants (read: women), and the bad-fraternity house mannerisms are giving way to, well, more style n'grace amongst gamers.
Well, to answer the question, people see gamers as geeks with weird mannerisms cause they tend to be people with weird mannerisms...
OKAY, I know, I described a laptop -- let's be clear. I want a non-clamshell brick, without moving parts, and with plenty of flexibility.
Get rid of the 5.25" bay, the 3.5" bay, the serial ports, the parallel port. Maybe even USB, eventually: Firewire is a superior tech. But let's leave one USB there for fun. Oh, an Ethernet port, of course. And a modem port.
Here's where we get more fun out of life. Imagine it's 2005. IBM brings out MRAM on schedule, which is non-volatile RAM: no data loss on power down.
We'd use some standard volatile RAM, probably just cache, to store things we don't want people to look at, particularly. So if the DRM stormtroopers grab your box, the evil bad MP3s get wiped wihout hope of discovery when you hit the panic button.
The box is about the size of a paperback book, or maybe a VHS cassette. Two 1394 ports, a USB port for a keyboard, a digital monitor port. It has no hard drive, but, say, 10 gigs of MRAM. I have no idea what the power supply would be like; that may spoil my dream here. Okay, let's add a flash memory slot. For a CPU, let's say we go with the usual nanometer-level fab process, only instead of cranking the MHz up, we bring it down; this reduces the heat output a lot. Maybe a 500 MHz wonder.
Optionally, you could put a cheap LCD screen on one side, maybe with a stylus input for those times you are sans keyboard. Then you can be covered if you want to carry this around.
Okay, let's add a cheap camera. And a microphone and cheap speaker or earbud? Okay, there is a phone posibility there.
Hmp. Let's put an 802.11 variant in there for wireless networking.
Okay, let's dream some more, and instead of a battery, the thing runs on a couple of ounces of butane for a fuel cell.
And let's just imagine this thing costs, oh, five hundred bucks.
I see *A* future, and this is part of it.
And still no Firewire ports...
when Intel decides it wants no part of a superior technology, they go the whole nine yards and half a decade, don't they?
I mean, really, COME ON, give it up Intel!!
CNN is not "left". Last I heard, they weren't editorializing for creating a socialist workers' paradise in the U.S.
"Left" does not mean "not-far-right-wing". Not agreeing with Murdoch, Rev. Moon, or Limbaugh does not make me a liberal. It just makes me not-stupid.
CNN was an network of intelligent reporters. Not "left". If being intelligent locks one out of the right-wing clubhouse, so be it.
Sigh. But now CNN is actively creating a right-wing slant on its network to grab those ratings.
This is why news operations should be loss leaders, not profit centers. Once you become a vendor of junk, all journalistic pretensions are gone.
The anger is not about the article. The anger is caused by why FOX is running it -- to smear Democrats, and to provide ideas for smearing Democrats. FOX taints any article it runs merely because IT is running it.
FOX NEWS is not a news network. It is the media branch of far-right wingers, created to destroy Clinton, and now existing to elect Republicans.
Not that it is a Republican network -- it is not. It is a reactionary network, composed of radical political ideologues, neo-conservative economic libertians, religious fundementalists, objectivists, and assorted people who are only there to ride the money train.
They demonify Democrats and court Republicans in order to spread their view of religion, economics, media, and social order. The minute a Republican turns against them in any way, it's fire-up-the-stake time. No prisoners taken. No logic taken, either.
It is a machine for grinding right wing knives. A propaganda outlet which proclaims the grandest lie of all as you turn it on for the first time: "Fair and Balanced". Heavens to Orwell.
FAIR, at least, can count on their fingers. And they document extensively that FOX NEWS is a right-wing site dedicated soley to destroying the credibility of anyone who does not agree with their beliefs.
Hell, Murdoch created the network basically to destroy Clinton. Every man jack on board that network needs cult deprogramming. They are STILL running reports on Monica Lewinsky. Still trying to nail Clinton for SOMEthing. Parenthetically, it's pathetic that after all these years and Scaife's millions, they couldn't find anything on a governor of Arkasas, for God's sake, one of the most politically corrupt states in the nation. It just might be because he kept his nose miraculously clean. The other explantion is that his political persecutors are incompetents.
A blowjob, for all of that. 200 FBI agents and 70 million dollars. And they only got the testimony on Lewinsky into the court by lying to the judge about it's relevance to the Paula Jones deposition. Starr's boy's should have had some sort of reprimand from the judge, but that was overwhelmed by fun dirty sex secret stories.
And FOX the mighty is still implying that the entire Clinton admin was lousy with pinko liberal criminals. Um, listen. There were no indictments of anyone working for Clinton. No convictions. And this is with rightwing near-psychopathic human hounds trying to get ANYthing.
Bush and Reagan had dozens of convictions of their people. Jail time. Lying. Dealing with terrorists. And a lot of those people are now in the current administration -- hence Boy George's permanent lockup of all of Reagan/Bush's daily records. No that he extended such "privacy" to Clinton, of course.
FAIR at least can count and present evidence that the deck not only is stacked cold at FOX, it is dripping liquid helium. Dispute their counting abilities; don't ad hominem them for being "liberal" (GASP!) which only impresses the rightwingers among us anyway.
Um, the unfairness of Fox is incredibly apparent to anyone who is not right wing to begin with.
FAIR is left wing? What the hell is left wing? Let me define it for you:
Left wing: (adjective) Non-representative of the views of hard core conservative white men. Example: "FAIR indicates that 90+ percent of commentators and guests on the FOX NEWS network are far right wing. Q.E.D.: FAIR is left wing because they do not pretend that this is fair. And probably made up of left-leaning Kennedy-loving commie-pinko terrorist-making tax-and-spend fag-coddlin' LIBERALS!!! And Bush is a God! Hail Bush!"
I'm not very far off the mark here.
I'm aware Judicial Watch is on the attack against the current administration. It is surprising, and should be a warning to all fanatics everywhere -- be careful what you wish for; you may just get it. In this case, they wanted an attack dog, forgetting that sometimes a badly trained dog will bite the trainer.
/.ers -- you know what a Honey Pot trap is.
Hm. You know, about those documents everyone wants to see about the task force. You all are
Those documents may be a honey pot. The Boys from Texas may have a cute little secret -- there may be no record of egregious dealmaking or influence in those supoenaed docs. The communications may have been off the record, in a more social milleu.
When those docs are finally analyzed, the GAO and JW may find that there isn't anything incriminating -- and the WH may score a calulated victory in the public's eye, with the aim of building polical capital against the next time they refuse to give up public records. The current president's people are ruthless, and are capable of such a simple trick. Beware a honey pot!
ummm.. nah. The original cold fusion experiments were easy to duplicate. It just couldn't be done. Fifteen years or more have passed. It's dead, dead, deadsky.