The semi-black and white style really works well. It looks a lot like Miller's art, as does the makeup on Mickey Rourke. At first Elijah Wood as Kevin surprised me, but he's a damn good actor and he is pretty. Of course, unless they change the plot he won't have any lines. I wonder if Wood's presence means we'll have scores of Wood obsessed girls flocking to see Sin City?
I do have to admit that when I first saw the "black and white for everything but a few splashes of color" stile it reminded me of that cherry 7-UP commercial...
While I agree with your conclusion that what people want is a computer that "just works", and I'll also agree that Linux doesn't quite supply that yet, I'll also point out that neither does MS. Joe User can't fix a Windows problem any more than he can fix a Linux problem.
As far as I can see the only thing that is stopping a mass migration to Linux is a lack of software, especially games and business software. Joe User can't upgrade his graphics card under Linux, true; but he can't upgrade his graphics card under Windows either. What Joe User *can* do under Windows is go to the store, buy a prepackaged piece of software, pop in the disk and click "next" until its installed.
Also, we have to admit that some of the critical software for Linux isn't as good as the software for Windows. Last night I discovered that KOffice's KSpread program won't let me make a non-contiguous selection. KWord doesn't feature paragraph grouping or widow and orphan control. I *want* to use the free software programs, but I find myself using Crossover Office to run MS Office because MS Office works. Its expensive, but it does the job.
Linux is ready for the desktop, we just need software to run there.
Your information seems to be badly out of date. The early model compact florescent bulbs did make a really hidious color light, but not any more. I use compact florescent light exclusively at my house. Since about two years ago they have made nice natural color bulbs. Meantime, my electric bill has gone down by about $5-$8 a month and I haven't changed a bulb in about two years. Overall I'm quite happy with my compact florescent bulbs.
Re:How would SBC do this?
on
SBC's VoIP End Run
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Its all about the final connection to people using traditional phone lines. I use Packet 8 as my VOIP provider and call my grandmother in Indiana. She is not tech savy, and uses a traditional telephone. My phone call is routed through the net until it needs to get to her telephone. That is where the Bells intend to kill VOIP (by anyone except themselves). Right now the VOIP companies pay a low rate for this final termination. The Bells want to jack that rate up to the point where it would kill the VOIP companies.
If I call another VOIP phone the problem doesn't exist, but the vast majority of phones I call are traditional telephones, not VOIP. That means the VOIP companies would either have to a) charge extra for every call I make to a non-VOIP phone, or b) charge extra across the board. Either approach would price them out of the market.
And now we see exhibit 2^74th in our ongoing demonstration of why regulations are not necessarially a bad thing. The Bells want to use their monopoly on the "last mile" to force the other players out of the market, just as they did with DSL.
Our toothless FCC and SEC will do nothing because they are lead by people who believe that regulation is, in and of itself, a very bad thing. Michael "the Market is my God" Powell is about as likely to stop the Bells from squashing the competition as George Bush is to announce that he's in favor of gay marriage. Naturally there will be people who will claim that this can't stop the bold VOIP companies, but they'll be wrong. If the Bells can charge exhorbinant rates for call termination it'll put Vonage, Packet 8, and the rest out of business in a year.
It is possible that massive public outcry could change things and force even Michael Powell's FCC to stop the Bells. I wouldn't count on it though...
I'm wondering how long Vivindi will be in the game distribution business. If I were in charge of a game development company and I had the choice of dealing with Vivindi or *anyone* else, I'd take anyone else.
Howabout we start by having a civilized conversation without unwarranted assumptions, 'k? Nothing I wrote stated, or implied, that the only thing the US government was doing in Iraq was killing people. I *did* point out that using missiles to take out combatants in residential areas is a bad idea, which isn't the same thing at all.
I disagree with your basic assumption that the US needed to invade Iraq. Pakistan, just as an example, had and continues to have, weapons much more powerful than Saddam ever had a wet dream about, and the proven willingness to sell the secrets of making those weapons to terrorists. Not only that, but there is very strong evidence linking the dictator of Pakistan to terrorists operating in the Kashmir region. I'm not saying that we should have invaded Pakistan, but I am saying that Iraq seems to have been less of a threat than Pakistan is, and Pakistan is simply the easiest example I can think of.
Given that 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi subjects, I would have expected the US to use its political muscle to force the Saudi dictators to stop funding "schools" that do nothing more than teach children to hate America. I find it horrifying that this basic step has not yet happened, and that the US government continues to be quite friendly to the Saudi despots.
Similarly, while military action in Afghanistan was self-evidently necessary, the US never put more than 1/10th of the troops on the ground there that are currently in Iraq. After the bombs stopped falling, the Bush government seemed to loose interest. In evidence of that, I will point out that in 2003, the year after the invasion of Afghanistan the Bush government's proposed budget had $0 for rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan. As a consiquence, the heroin output of Afghanistan is now back to pre-war levels, warlords control huge segments of the country, and the Taliban is growing again. I don't think you can successfully combat terrorism by taking that approach to things.
As for Iraq, the rebuilding is going quite slowly, in large part because the US government does little to involve the Iraqis in the rebuilding. Unemployment is 80% in Iraq today. Virtually all rebuilding is done by foreign contractors, which doesn't contribute much to Iraq's economy, nor to fostering a sense of confidence in the nationbuilding process.
Given both what the Bush government said before the war began, and news reports indicating that planning for the post-war was essentially ignored, I cannot agree with you that "we need more people to understand what the current one [plan] really is". I'd settle for there being a plan, much less having a good one, and I do not see any evidence that there was a well laid out plan.
"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid," 20030328 O.M.B. Director Mitch Daniels. I quote former Director Daniels as an example of the unwarranted optimism that went into what little planning was done. Richard Perle said that he'd be surprised if there wasn't a grand square in Bagdhad named after president Bush. In March 2003, during a meeting of war planners and intelligence officials at Shaw Air Force Base, an Army official's presentation on the Pentagon's strategy included a slide on "Phase 4-C," the period of rebuilding after fighting had ended. That slide said only "To Be Provided." Knight Ridder Newspapers. "the insurgency was not inevitable... We had momentum going in and had Saddam's forces on the run. But we did not have enough troops... They took advantage of our limited numbers." Major General James A. Marks.
My points here aren't that complex: 1) there doesn't seem to have been any reality based post war planning, and 2) that lack is creating sympathy for terrorists both in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world. Abu Gharib was just the icing on the cake.
I think that the best way to accomplish the needed, and laudable, goal of keeping more powerful weapons out of terrorist hands is not to produce more terrorists. Before the invasion there were very few terrorists operating out of Iraq, today that number has increased significantly. The poor post-war planning for both Iraq and Afghanistan has helped terrorist organizations recruit new members.
Also, re: atomic weapons, I cannot help but notice that Pakistan, the nation where one of its top atomic weapons specialists was selling atomic secrets to all and sundry, is being called an "ally". Abdul Qadeer Khan, the man who sold the secrets, got a slap on the wrist, yet the dictatorship of Pakistan is an ally? My point here is that the approach taken by the Bush government seems poorly thought out.
And, finally, I'd say that the most effective way to stop terrorism is to change the conditions that produce terrorists. We cannot simply say "these people are evil, that is why they are terrorists", not if we want to produce plans that work. The "use missile strikes in densly populated areas" approach has not worked yet, neither in Iraq nor Israel, and I see no reason why it should suddenly start working. We need a new plan.
And if there's one thing we here in the U.S. really, really hate, it's to look bad in the Arab world
And people wonder why there is widespread doubt that the US entered Iraq with the intent of "liberating" the Iraqi people...
War is not about killing your enemies, every strategist from Sun Tsu to Carl von Clausewitz to the modern Pentagon made, and makes, that point. War is about convincing your enemies to surrender. Cowing them through sheer military might is not enough, that's what people mean when they talk about "winning the peace". Ask yourself why the guerillas in Iraq have so much support, then look at the US shutting down a newspaper, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, etc. I think its pretty damn important that we not look bad to the Arab world.
Yeah, but also as in real life...
on
Humor in Games?
·
· Score: 1
The humor is often kinda subtle, and not the main focus. Take the Dungeon Keeper series, for example. It wasn't a funny game, but at the same time it had a lot of funny elements. From slapping imps, to the odd comments from the Mentor Voice there was humor throughout the whole thing (not to mention a sort of gonzo feel to the first game).
The first time the Mentor said "You have an excess of Mistresses. There's a word for Keepers like you..." I'll admit that I laughed.
There's no doubt that a great many Gentoo users just like the pseudo-133t aspect. But, as was pointed out earlier, the installation is pretty easy if you follow the instructions.
Personally, I see Gentoo as a great learning distro. I used a variety of distros, started with RedHat, tried SuSE, Debian, and wound up with Mandrake just because I liked its default desktop settings better than RedHat's. After a few months of using Linux, I wanted to learn more about how to make it work. Linux From Scratch seemed nifty, but a bit *too* badass at the time. So I tried Gentoo.
If you aren't a Linux expert, and you want to learn more about what goes on inside, Gentoo can be a great tool. Of course, you have to approach it that way if you want to learn anything; I'm certain that its possible to install Gentoo and come out of the experience knowing no more than you did when you started. Personally, I'm going to give LFS a shot here in a couple of months.
Allergies have a direct relationship with the level of pollutants in the area the person grew up in. As, not coincidentally, do cancer rates.
Note that all the research, work, effort, and awareness programs directed at both cancer and allergies focus on drugs to control the conditions rather than prevention of the condition. The reason for this becomes apparent when you note that the majority of the funding for the cancer and allergy research comes from polluters.
The obvious step would be to reduce pollution, but somehow that doesn't get mentioned in any cancer or allergy literature. I wonder why...
Damn skippy. Free speech includes free speech for those I disagree with, free speech for those who wish to spread FUD, etc. The proper solution is not to stifle the speech of those we disagree with, but to speak ourselves. More speech is better than less.
What happened to: "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!"
I think most people are educated/intelligent enough to recognize corporate astroturf for what it is when its as blatiant as a SCO owned and operated website. And if they aren't, that's where our speech comes in, to inform Joe Average and criticize our enemies; but not to silence anyone.
How does the man not go insane from mind-shattering cognitive dissonance?
[ultra snarky mode] You're making a pretty big assumption there, bub. [/ultra snarky mode]
The truth is that people have held bigger dissonances than that throughout history. The typical pro-death penalty, anti-abortion person usually explains that "sanctity of life" is only for innocent life, or that the (accused) murderer violated that sanctity so it doesn't apply to them. Personally, I agree with you, but obviously the logic of our position doesn't seem aparent to a fairly large chunk of the population. Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty on the simple grounds that the judicial system cannot be perfect. A wrongly convicted person serving a life sentence can be released with an appology, you can't bring someone back from the dead if you execute them for a crime they didn't commit.
My problem with Mac comes down to one thing: price. I'll admit that OSX is a sweet OS, and I've got nothing religious against any OS (except WinME, which just sucks). But for $600 in parts, and a free Linux install, I can get a computer with about as much horsepower as you'd get for a $1500 - $2000 Mac. Its self evidently a computer for the economic elite, not everybody. Much as BMW is a car for the economic elite.
Not that either the Mac or a BMW is a bad thing, its just out of most people's price range.
I think that's the reason why the Mac snobs bug me more than Linux snobs or MS snobs. Not only are they developing religious attachments to an OS, but there's an economic side to their snobbery as well.
I wasn't talking about law, just reality. I'll semi-quote Eddie Izzard (great comedian, BTW, he said it better) There's first degree murder, second degree murder, etc, so why not first degree perjury, second degree perjury, etc? Lie about a blowjob, that's third degree perjury; lie about WMD, continually insinuate that Saddam was behind 9/11, that's first degree perjury.
Clinton lied about a lot of very important things (his dedication to the environment, his desire to help the working poor, his committment to equal right, etc), and for that reason I do not like Clinton. The blowjob lie is, however, the dumbest thing to dislike Clinton for I've ever heard of. There are so many better reasons to be anti-Clinton.
As for Bush, well, he told us there were WMD, and there aren't. If that doesn't count as a lie, I don't know what does.
Actually, if the Bush government had any brains, *and* it knew where Osama was, they would not have arrested him yet. If he's been in custody all this time when they bring him out he'd say so, and the October surprise would backfire.
If they know where he is, they're just keeping an eye on him to arrest him at the most politically beneficial time. Or, if you want to go really conspiricy: they arrested him last week, and will leak word of this through one of their pet "journalists". After mass speculaiton, they will "admit" that they have him, and were planning to announce the fact on Nov 3 to avoid influencing the elections, thus getting the benefit of an October Surprise, and getting to look like they were being good. I didn't think up that scenario, BTW, saw it somewhere on the web.
Personally, I'd guess that Osama is hanging out in the bin Ladin family compound in Saudi Arabia.
Well, and speaking here as someone who doesn't like Clinton at all, I'd say that its because Bill lied about getting a blowjob. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say that ranks around 1, it just really isn't that important. Now, if we were to talk about the *real* reasons to dislike Clinton (his idiot "don't ask don't tell" policy, his decision to help the elite with his "welfare reform" nonesense, etc) we might get into the realm of lies that rank 4 or above.
Bush, OTOH, lied in order to lead the USA into an expensive, and utterly pointless war. As a result of Bush's lies there are now 1060+ dead Americans, and we've got a debt that we'll be paying for decades to come. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd put Bush's lies at around 8 or 9.
Generally, I'd argue that a person who lies about sex is simply a human; everyone lies about sex. A person who lies to trick his country into going to war is a more serious problem.
I agree with around 90% or so of what the Green Party Platform advocates. My major objections are their opposition to atomic power, and genetic engineering.
I can see the reasons for those objections: under the current setup both atomic power and genetic engineering are accidents waiting to happen. Some fission power plants in the US have operated up to 25 years before the *first* safety inspection, that's just plain stupid. But the problem is not with fission itself, but simply with the way fission power plants are regulated and administered. Fission power can be perfectly safe (I'll continue to advocate for fusion research, but I'll take fission in the meantime), it just isn't now.
The same thing goes for genetic engineering, I do not trust a for profit corporation to voluntarially take the necessary safety precautions. Safety and testing cost money, and Monsanto (or whoever) would much rather use that money for a fat bonus to its bloated CEO's. But, just as with fission, the problem is not the technology, but its implementation. Greater enforced transparency, government oversight, mandated testing, etc can make genetic engineering perfectly safe.
I'd vote Cobb for president if I thought he had a chance (and, considering I live in Texas, where the Electoral College's winner take all insanity will throw my vote away, I might vote Cobb anyway), but I'd feel a lot more comfortable voting Cobb if the Greens didn't have that nasty streak of neo-luddite-ism.
I once tried, quite a while ago, to boycott products made in China. It isn't really possible, or at least not practical. If nothing else, the modern system of interlocking ownership between megacorporations has ended boycott as an effective tactic for change. Not only are enough of the available consumer goods made in China as to make boycott quite difficult (if not outright impossible), but due to the convoluted system of ownership in the corporate world it is close to impossible to know who you are dealing with.
I'm not advocating an embargo on Chinese goods, it wouldn't really be practical and, as others have pointed out, it won't do much to help the Chinese people. I'd like to see the Cuban ban ended, for similar reasons, and I believe that I've posted on Slashdot in the past on the subject of the hypocracy of our politicians using Cuba as their Communist whipping boy while cozying up to China.
However... Acknowledging that trade with Thugocrat nations is inevitable (and superior to embargo [1]) is not the same as embracing the idea of corporations joyfully exploiting the situation. Our corporations doing business in China should be under an obligation to cooperate as little as possible with the repressive desires of the thugs in charge, and that ultimatley is what bothers me about Google's decision. First is that they have tried to keep this secret, they did not publish an article outlining their position and their justification for helping the Chinese censor their news. Second is that in the past the Chinese Thugocrats have caved in to pressure on this very subject, which makes the fact that Google caved without any public outcry worse. Finally, Google could have taken the path of least complience, they could have put in the links to non-Thugocrat approved news with a "BANNED by the PRC" tag so that their Chinese viewers would be forced to be aware of the extent to which their government is keeping things from them. Instead, Google chose to go with the path of maximum complience, choosing not only to help the Chinese governmet censor what its people can see, but also keeping the people from even knowing that they are being censored.
[1] Though, I will admit to seeing the attraction of the idea. The notion that if you make things worse for the citizens they'll be more inclined to revolt is tempting. False, but tempting.
but it's still basically a computerized dollhouse...but there's nothing wrong with that.
I like my computerized dollhouse. And yes, I'll admit freely that The Sims is basically a new way to play with dolls. I'm secure enough in my manhood to admit to liking the Sims.
Not at all. I think that the voyeuristic element is one of the prime selling points. When I play I definately like watching what is happening in my Sim's lives.
Slashdot Mirror
I do have to admit that when I first saw the "black and white for everything but a few splashes of color" stile it reminded me of that cherry 7-UP commercial...
Last time I looked, OOo was lagging behind KOffice. But I haven't looked at OOo for about eight months. Prolly time to check it out again.
As far as I can see the only thing that is stopping a mass migration to Linux is a lack of software, especially games and business software. Joe User can't upgrade his graphics card under Linux, true; but he can't upgrade his graphics card under Windows either. What Joe User *can* do under Windows is go to the store, buy a prepackaged piece of software, pop in the disk and click "next" until its installed.
Also, we have to admit that some of the critical software for Linux isn't as good as the software for Windows. Last night I discovered that KOffice's KSpread program won't let me make a non-contiguous selection. KWord doesn't feature paragraph grouping or widow and orphan control. I *want* to use the free software programs, but I find myself using Crossover Office to run MS Office because MS Office works. Its expensive, but it does the job.
Linux is ready for the desktop, we just need software to run there.
If I call another VOIP phone the problem doesn't exist, but the vast majority of phones I call are traditional telephones, not VOIP. That means the VOIP companies would either have to a) charge extra for every call I make to a non-VOIP phone, or b) charge extra across the board. Either approach would price them out of the market.
Our toothless FCC and SEC will do nothing because they are lead by people who believe that regulation is, in and of itself, a very bad thing. Michael "the Market is my God" Powell is about as likely to stop the Bells from squashing the competition as George Bush is to announce that he's in favor of gay marriage. Naturally there will be people who will claim that this can't stop the bold VOIP companies, but they'll be wrong. If the Bells can charge exhorbinant rates for call termination it'll put Vonage, Packet 8, and the rest out of business in a year.
It is possible that massive public outcry could change things and force even Michael Powell's FCC to stop the Bells. I wouldn't count on it though...
I disagree with your basic assumption that the US needed to invade Iraq. Pakistan, just as an example, had and continues to have, weapons much more powerful than Saddam ever had a wet dream about, and the proven willingness to sell the secrets of making those weapons to terrorists. Not only that, but there is very strong evidence linking the dictator of Pakistan to terrorists operating in the Kashmir region. I'm not saying that we should have invaded Pakistan, but I am saying that Iraq seems to have been less of a threat than Pakistan is, and Pakistan is simply the easiest example I can think of.
Given that 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi subjects, I would have expected the US to use its political muscle to force the Saudi dictators to stop funding "schools" that do nothing more than teach children to hate America. I find it horrifying that this basic step has not yet happened, and that the US government continues to be quite friendly to the Saudi despots.
Similarly, while military action in Afghanistan was self-evidently necessary, the US never put more than 1/10th of the troops on the ground there that are currently in Iraq. After the bombs stopped falling, the Bush government seemed to loose interest. In evidence of that, I will point out that in 2003, the year after the invasion of Afghanistan the Bush government's proposed budget had $0 for rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan. As a consiquence, the heroin output of Afghanistan is now back to pre-war levels, warlords control huge segments of the country, and the Taliban is growing again. I don't think you can successfully combat terrorism by taking that approach to things.
As for Iraq, the rebuilding is going quite slowly, in large part because the US government does little to involve the Iraqis in the rebuilding. Unemployment is 80% in Iraq today. Virtually all rebuilding is done by foreign contractors, which doesn't contribute much to Iraq's economy, nor to fostering a sense of confidence in the nationbuilding process.
Given both what the Bush government said before the war began, and news reports indicating that planning for the post-war was essentially ignored, I cannot agree with you that "we need more people to understand what the current one [plan] really is". I'd settle for there being a plan, much less having a good one, and I do not see any evidence that there was a well laid out plan.
"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid," 20030328 O.M.B. Director Mitch Daniels. I quote former Director Daniels as an example of the unwarranted optimism that went into what little planning was done. Richard Perle said that he'd be surprised if there wasn't a grand square in Bagdhad named after president Bush. In March 2003, during a meeting of war planners and intelligence officials at Shaw Air Force Base, an Army official's presentation on the Pentagon's strategy included a slide on "Phase 4-C," the period of rebuilding after fighting had ended. That slide said only "To Be Provided." Knight Ridder Newspapers. "the insurgency was not inevitable ... We had momentum going in and had Saddam's forces on the run. But we did not have enough troops ... They took advantage of our limited numbers." Major General James A. Marks.
My points here aren't that complex: 1) there doesn't seem to have been any reality based post war planning, and 2) that lack is creating sympathy for terrorists both in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world. Abu Gharib was just the icing on the cake.
Also, re: atomic weapons, I cannot help but notice that Pakistan, the nation where one of its top atomic weapons specialists was selling atomic secrets to all and sundry, is being called an "ally". Abdul Qadeer Khan, the man who sold the secrets, got a slap on the wrist, yet the dictatorship of Pakistan is an ally? My point here is that the approach taken by the Bush government seems poorly thought out.
And, finally, I'd say that the most effective way to stop terrorism is to change the conditions that produce terrorists. We cannot simply say "these people are evil, that is why they are terrorists", not if we want to produce plans that work. The "use missile strikes in densly populated areas" approach has not worked yet, neither in Iraq nor Israel, and I see no reason why it should suddenly start working. We need a new plan.
War is not about killing your enemies, every strategist from Sun Tsu to Carl von Clausewitz to the modern Pentagon made, and makes, that point. War is about convincing your enemies to surrender. Cowing them through sheer military might is not enough, that's what people mean when they talk about "winning the peace". Ask yourself why the guerillas in Iraq have so much support, then look at the US shutting down a newspaper, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, etc. I think its pretty damn important that we not look bad to the Arab world.
The first time the Mentor said "You have an excess of Mistresses. There's a word for Keepers like you..." I'll admit that I laughed.
Personally, I see Gentoo as a great learning distro. I used a variety of distros, started with RedHat, tried SuSE, Debian, and wound up with Mandrake just because I liked its default desktop settings better than RedHat's. After a few months of using Linux, I wanted to learn more about how to make it work. Linux From Scratch seemed nifty, but a bit *too* badass at the time. So I tried Gentoo.
If you aren't a Linux expert, and you want to learn more about what goes on inside, Gentoo can be a great tool. Of course, you have to approach it that way if you want to learn anything; I'm certain that its possible to install Gentoo and come out of the experience knowing no more than you did when you started. Personally, I'm going to give LFS a shot here in a couple of months.
Note that all the research, work, effort, and awareness programs directed at both cancer and allergies focus on drugs to control the conditions rather than prevention of the condition. The reason for this becomes apparent when you note that the majority of the funding for the cancer and allergy research comes from polluters.
The obvious step would be to reduce pollution, but somehow that doesn't get mentioned in any cancer or allergy literature. I wonder why...
What happened to: "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!"
I think most people are educated/intelligent enough to recognize corporate astroturf for what it is when its as blatiant as a SCO owned and operated website. And if they aren't, that's where our speech comes in, to inform Joe Average and criticize our enemies; but not to silence anyone.
Well said, I wish I had mod points.
The truth is that people have held bigger dissonances than that throughout history. The typical pro-death penalty, anti-abortion person usually explains that "sanctity of life" is only for innocent life, or that the (accused) murderer violated that sanctity so it doesn't apply to them. Personally, I agree with you, but obviously the logic of our position doesn't seem aparent to a fairly large chunk of the population. Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty on the simple grounds that the judicial system cannot be perfect. A wrongly convicted person serving a life sentence can be released with an appology, you can't bring someone back from the dead if you execute them for a crime they didn't commit.
Not that either the Mac or a BMW is a bad thing, its just out of most people's price range.
I think that's the reason why the Mac snobs bug me more than Linux snobs or MS snobs. Not only are they developing religious attachments to an OS, but there's an economic side to their snobbery as well.
Clinton lied about a lot of very important things (his dedication to the environment, his desire to help the working poor, his committment to equal right, etc), and for that reason I do not like Clinton. The blowjob lie is, however, the dumbest thing to dislike Clinton for I've ever heard of. There are so many better reasons to be anti-Clinton.
As for Bush, well, he told us there were WMD, and there aren't. If that doesn't count as a lie, I don't know what does.
If they know where he is, they're just keeping an eye on him to arrest him at the most politically beneficial time. Or, if you want to go really conspiricy: they arrested him last week, and will leak word of this through one of their pet "journalists". After mass speculaiton, they will "admit" that they have him, and were planning to announce the fact on Nov 3 to avoid influencing the elections, thus getting the benefit of an October Surprise, and getting to look like they were being good. I didn't think up that scenario, BTW, saw it somewhere on the web.
Personally, I'd guess that Osama is hanging out in the bin Ladin family compound in Saudi Arabia.
Bush, OTOH, lied in order to lead the USA into an expensive, and utterly pointless war. As a result of Bush's lies there are now 1060+ dead Americans, and we've got a debt that we'll be paying for decades to come. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd put Bush's lies at around 8 or 9.
Generally, I'd argue that a person who lies about sex is simply a human; everyone lies about sex. A person who lies to trick his country into going to war is a more serious problem.
I can see the reasons for those objections: under the current setup both atomic power and genetic engineering are accidents waiting to happen. Some fission power plants in the US have operated up to 25 years before the *first* safety inspection, that's just plain stupid. But the problem is not with fission itself, but simply with the way fission power plants are regulated and administered. Fission power can be perfectly safe (I'll continue to advocate for fusion research, but I'll take fission in the meantime), it just isn't now.
The same thing goes for genetic engineering, I do not trust a for profit corporation to voluntarially take the necessary safety precautions. Safety and testing cost money, and Monsanto (or whoever) would much rather use that money for a fat bonus to its bloated CEO's. But, just as with fission, the problem is not the technology, but its implementation. Greater enforced transparency, government oversight, mandated testing, etc can make genetic engineering perfectly safe.
I'd vote Cobb for president if I thought he had a chance (and, considering I live in Texas, where the Electoral College's winner take all insanity will throw my vote away, I might vote Cobb anyway), but I'd feel a lot more comfortable voting Cobb if the Greens didn't have that nasty streak of neo-luddite-ism.
I'm not advocating an embargo on Chinese goods, it wouldn't really be practical and, as others have pointed out, it won't do much to help the Chinese people. I'd like to see the Cuban ban ended, for similar reasons, and I believe that I've posted on Slashdot in the past on the subject of the hypocracy of our politicians using Cuba as their Communist whipping boy while cozying up to China.
However... Acknowledging that trade with Thugocrat nations is inevitable (and superior to embargo [1]) is not the same as embracing the idea of corporations joyfully exploiting the situation. Our corporations doing business in China should be under an obligation to cooperate as little as possible with the repressive desires of the thugs in charge, and that ultimatley is what bothers me about Google's decision. First is that they have tried to keep this secret, they did not publish an article outlining their position and their justification for helping the Chinese censor their news. Second is that in the past the Chinese Thugocrats have caved in to pressure on this very subject, which makes the fact that Google caved without any public outcry worse. Finally, Google could have taken the path of least complience, they could have put in the links to non-Thugocrat approved news with a "BANNED by the PRC" tag so that their Chinese viewers would be forced to be aware of the extent to which their government is keeping things from them. Instead, Google chose to go with the path of maximum complience, choosing not only to help the Chinese governmet censor what its people can see, but also keeping the people from even knowing that they are being censored.
[1] Though, I will admit to seeing the attraction of the idea. The notion that if you make things worse for the citizens they'll be more inclined to revolt is tempting. False, but tempting.