Is this really a problem for Slashdot? If I think about half of the shit I've submitted that got rejected, it's enough to make me not submit anything again. Sure, my submissions didn't have cool buzzwords like "video on demand", "terrabyte", and I don't own a plasma display, but they were articles whose answer wasn't the first darn response on a Google search. Subscribers... Are you getting what you paid for?
Bitter are we? Honestly, I think these things get accepted based mostly on what will garner the most response, and it's the editors job to choose that. It may be a SIMPLE question, as opposed to a more complicated one, but the simple question got 506 comments as of the time of this posting, whereas something really specific and uninteresting without "cool buzzwords" would barely be read.
Sure, Slashdot is a "news" site, but their main value added is the comments, so if a story is not going to get a lot of comments, why would they post it?
... Such fees go into a pool to provide the needed incentives to network operators to expand their broadband networks out to those who otherwise might be cut off.
. .. Isn't one of the benefits of the internet it's access to everyone? Shouldn't we help bring such access to all of those in our country who otherwise might be cut off from it and who are willing to pay for it?
Uhhh... no. I actually pay quite a bit to have my internet and cable pumped into my house, and you're saying I should have to pay more so someone in podunk South Dakota can have broadband internet access? I mean, it's great that the schools can have a T1, but you choose to live in these places, why should I have to fund your internet?? I know people in suburban Boston who base their house-buying decisions on whether the area is broadband-connected or not. If it's not, it's a serious detraction. If you want to live in that area, you deal with the fact that there is no broadband.
Besides, it's not like the internet is not avaialble to these regions. There is still dialup, or even Satellite internet service. I'm sorry you live in the middle of nowhere and there's no infrastructure for broadband, but it's still a luxury in my eyes, not something that taxes and fees should be paying for. You say these fees benefit consumers, but from your example they're benefiting the small minority of consumers while the majority that are paying are left with no benefit at all.
And the top bidder is...someone named fashionpillows. Go figure.
Someone named fashionpillows, whose last 3 ebay transactions (well, the ones with feedback at least ) are a 15 dollar polo shirt, a ten dollar Windows XP CD, and a 14,000 dollar PORSCHE.
There's a subwoofer in the BATTERY???? Kind of ironic, considering the power a sub woudl suck FROM the battery, but seriously... what?? Just seems an odd place to integratea subwoofer. Is this common practice? I've never heard of it before.
Re:No, you are "Wrong. Wrong wrong."
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
Come again? It's not censorship except in the sense of fulfilling the definition of censorship? What makes you think that no-one but you understands the distinction between censorship and government censorship? Where do you get off saying that the parent poster is "Wrong. Wrong wrong." based solely on the fact that you don't think others are capable of understanding the words they use?
censoring: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Touche. You're right, most people do know what they're talking about here. However, it's not news unless the censorship is considered objectionable. For someone to be complaining about it, it means to me that they think it's excessive censorship.
My point was trying to be that censorship isn't always a negative thing, and it can be strongly argued that CBS is not censoring the ad to prevent people from seeing an opposing viewpoint, but rather to not lose viewers. The former is what most would consider bad and unethical censorship, or Big Brother-eque, while the latter is protecting the interest of the company by not showing something which may cause people to bring their business elsewhere.
Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
A corporation not playing an ad because of its political viewpoints is censorship
Wrong. Wrong wrong. It's a good business model, not censorship. It may be censorship in the exact definition of the word, but not in the big brother way you're all thinking of it. CBS is in the business of making money, that's all. If half of the people watching CBS, or even some reasonable percentage, are going to be turned off in any way by the ad, it is their responsibility to the company they represent to not show it to protect their business interests. THey're not censoring ANYONE. I'm sure there are PLENTY of ads that get rejected for the same reason, you don't all get up in arms over that. It's a private fucking business, they make decisions to help their business.
Oh, and somewhere up in the parent heirarchy here there was a mention of a "non-partisan" group promoting this ad. If it were non-partisan, I'm sure the ad woudln't specifically target BUSH. Bush's deficit? There's a lot more people in Washington making budget decisions than Bush. I'd agree that this administration has made a BUNCH of BAD budget decisions, don't get me wrong... I'm just pointing out the fallacy in pretending to be non-partisan.
Where is the Ford Escort? I have personly been in 2 that had the engine catch fire, and have known of two others that caught fire. Meanwhile, the Edsel, quite possibly the ugliest car Ford ever made was a fairly decent car for it's time. As for Pontiac Fiero, I owned one once and had it catch fire while it was parked and being washed in a stall. I had to rewire the/entire/ car. On the other hand it had the best handling of any car I have ever driven.
Are you a) a firefighter or b) a resident of one of the active volcano islands of hawaii? In my life I've known a grand total of two people who have been involved in car fires, both of which were EXTREMELY old cars, and only actually SEEN two in my entire life. For one person to actually have two of the exact same car catch fire, and know of two others... there's some extenuating circumstance going on here. YOu work for Chevy, don't you?:)
Folks, six cups of coffee seems a little extreme. Seriously. Two, maybe three is reasonable, one per phase of the day. Six you're putting much more serious health risks into play than Diabetes.
Funny side note, when my dad was a travelling salesman (before my birth) he aparently got addicted to coffee from being on the road. He didn't really realize it, until he literally had heart palpatations, went to the doctor, who told him he had OD'd on caffeine. So the next time he went out he counted the number of times he got coffee - 23. He said he never even noticed how much coffee he was drinking.
How was this thief even able to use this stolen laptop? Were they not running a password protected operating system, at least Windows 2000 or Windows XP?
Unfortunately Windows2000 and WindowsXP have an option that most people un-select which says "users must enter a name and password to access this system". It pretty much defies the use of HAVING a name and password when the computer automatically boots through it. The worst part is this is the default configuration. So most users never really even SEE that Windows has a password.
And AOL lets you SAVE the password on your computer, which is equally foolish.
Crap. All major sports athletes are overpaid primadonnas. Paying them millions because they can throw a ball only fuels consumerism. "Did you watch the game on Sunday? Wow!" mindless sheep
Wow, what an arrogant ass.
Stopping at saying all major sports athletes are overpaid primadonas you probably would have been right. But then throwing a dig at the 90%+ of the society who enjoy at least one sport is pretty weak. Firstly, who are you to judge someone because they enjoy a game? What do you enjoy? I'm sure there's a mindless activity out there that flaots your boat. Maybe not sports, but SOMEthing. And if NOT, maybe you should relax a bit. Not every moment in life has to earn you the Nobel Prize.
As for them being overpaid, maybe they don't deserve it, but at the same time, if people will pay for it, why not? The day people start getting fed up with advertising or ticket prices those things will come down, or the business will fail. But I as well as obviously MANY others are willing to sit through a few commercials (muted, while I'm getting a snack) to be entertained for three hours by the best athletes in their field. And that money, for the most part, goes to the people who are entertaining me. What's wrong with that? Those people who can "throw a ball" make me forget my worries and enjoy my days off for a couple of hours every week, and for that I say they deserve quite a bit, actually.
7.1 surround? MP3 Playback? Is it just me, or are these things unnecessary on a PORTABLE device that will only accept proprietary discs (no burning MP3's and playing them).
It DOES have 802.11b, so maybe you can download MP3s to the device?
Just a thought, I have no idea. Maybe it's another way for sony to make money by selling a burner for these proprietary discs. Maybe they'll even start SELLING the discs with music on them. Who knows?
he target isn't to grow the spece ad infinium but to create fixed size, large space. Once you have the space, you just keep going and you allow the space to shrink some if the car in front of you temporarily slows down.
Agreed. The original poster said 500 feet at 15mph. To me and most of the rest of the world, that is excessive, and cause for some ire from other drivers. At rush hour, there are two issues at work - people who drive like morons, and just the fact that there's too many damned cars on the road. If everyone's leaving 10 car lengths in front of them, this just makes the latter problem 10 times worse. It's a common misconception that it we all just left space and drove at a slow speed there'd be no traffic. You just can't fit 10,000 cars on a road with enough room for 8,000 without gridlock.
All I'm saying is you have to find a balance. More space between cars is not the only solution.
i do something like that in really congested traffic. like, 15 mph on the interstate. i'll go 14. i'll end up with 500 feet clear in front of me, and people in the left lane will splash back into the buffer in front of me. i never hit the breaks once. it takes about 8 seconds to cover the buffer space to catch up, and sure enough the person behind me is always absolutely livid that i decided to let a space build up. and most of the time, they cut the person off to the left of me, cut close to me, flip me off in the mirror, peel out, and dart ahead. oy ve
So YOU'RE that guy! F you buddy!!
Seriously though, while this is the way you SHOULD be driving in traffic, keeping adequate (not excessive!) space between you and the car in front of you to avoid jamming your brakes, you probably cause more problems than you solve. You can be perfectly in the right, but if it pissed everyone else on teh road off and they road rage around you, seems like you're causing more harm than good there.
You can smugly sit there in the knowledge that you're doing the right thing, until you see that it's not all black and white and you have to try and conform to the driving style of the world around you. Within reason.
The best roads made are ones done by expert traffic engineers.. In the city I live near, there's 9 stop lights in a 3 lane (one way) road. The posted speed is 25MPH. However, if you go 22.5MPH, every one of them will be green,. Usualy there's an idiot or 2 that burns rubber out of one intersection, while I barely cruise up. By the time I hit the next stoplight, it's already changed.
I'm not going to outright say this is impossible, but... this seems impossible. It's reasonable to assume that on a one-way street you could do this for any number of lights. But to get nine lights in a row to work for one direction, the other direction would be an absolute mess. It also doesn't take into account the weight / magnetic sensors that most new intersections with traffic lights have that tell if a car is waiting on a side street and changes the light pattern accordingly.
The US can't find the weapons, now it is looking for war justification on the grounds of research into WMD by Iraq
GAH!!! I cannot, nor can pretty much anyone else, defend the current Iraq situation. I was trying to leave that out of this to make the point that originally, Iraq was not allowed to have WMD and the US was. That's it. And up until 2002 or so, this was the case. Bush has caused the whole world to rethink it now. I used to liek the guy, when I tried to believe he was telling the truth; obviously he wasn't. I agree - he's an oaf. A lying one to boot. A Bush-bashing fest is just totally off-topic, and there's not that many people left to defend him anyways.
What about intense, unopposed aerial bombardment; As far as an effect is concerned, this is a weapon of mass destruction. The US anihilated scores and scores of helpless iraqi forces by bombing them beyond mercy.
What part of Barring the current Iraq situation didn't you get? I purposefully left that out because I certainly don't want to defend Bush, nor do I think it's possible. The whole comment was made in response to why UP UNTIL NOW the US was allowed to have WMD (along with many many other nations) and Iraq was not. World view has certainly changed in the past few months, and as time passes it seems, regrettably, rightfully so.
Oh.. so by that "logic" Saddam Hussein was COMPLETELY and utterly correct in undertaking biological research as he didn't want to get caught with his pants down if someone else invented it.
Or is it that if the US does it this means it is "good" research, but if someone else does it then it is "bad" research.
After all the US has never used WMDs have they...
You're such a troll.
1) Biological RESEARCH and biological WEAPONS are two different things. It doesn't help you learn how to protect against a viral strain if it's sitting in a missile or bomb. Jesus, bash W all you want, but you're really going to stick up for someone like Saddam Hussein??
2) Barring the current Iraq situation, the US has proven they are RESPONSIBLE with their use of WMD, and only use them when attacked, and therefore are allowed to have them, per the UN and the rest of the world treaties out there. Iraq, on the other hand, was deemed to be a threat to the rest of the world, and told --BY THE UNITED NATIONS that you all love and worship-- that they must destroy their WMD. The US didn't tell them to do it (or at least not on our own).
You may not agree with the current Iraq situation, or the current president -- probably rightfully so -- but I just don't understand the whole "bash the US for the hell of it" mindset. You'll go so far as to defend a known terrible dictator just to make the US look bad. I don't get it.
Or maybe a first grade spelling book, which says that the third-person verb conjugation of "launch" is spelled "launches", not "launchs."
I mean, c'mon, it's the first thing I noticed when I fired up slashdot this morning. Have people just stopped paying attention to spelling around here?
Does anyone have any mirrors that would include the *bird downloads? All of the mirrors I see only have the regular Mozilla downloads. Unless I can't navigate correctly..... in which case help with that problem would also be appreciated.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this really a problem for Slashdot? If I think about half of the shit I've submitted that got rejected, it's enough to make me not submit anything again. Sure, my submissions didn't have cool buzzwords like "video on demand", "terrabyte", and I don't own a plasma display, but they were articles whose answer wasn't the first darn response on a Google search. Subscribers ... Are you getting what you paid for?
Bitter are we? Honestly, I think these things get accepted based mostly on what will garner the most response, and it's the editors job to choose that. It may be a SIMPLE question, as opposed to a more complicated one, but the simple question got 506 comments as of the time of this posting, whereas something really specific and uninteresting without "cool buzzwords" would barely be read.
Sure, Slashdot is a "news" site, but their main value added is the comments, so if a story is not going to get a lot of comments, why would they post it?
Police Chief Wiggum : Hello? No, you've got the wrong number, this is nine one..... two.
... Such fees go into a pool to provide the needed incentives to network operators to expand their broadband networks out to those who otherwise might be cut off. .
. .
Isn't one of the benefits of the internet it's access to everyone? Shouldn't we help bring such access to all of those in our country who otherwise might be cut off from it and who are willing to pay for it?
Uhhh... no. I actually pay quite a bit to have my internet and cable pumped into my house, and you're saying I should have to pay more so someone in podunk South Dakota can have broadband internet access? I mean, it's great that the schools can have a T1, but you choose to live in these places, why should I have to fund your internet?? I know people in suburban Boston who base their house-buying decisions on whether the area is broadband-connected or not. If it's not, it's a serious detraction. If you want to live in that area, you deal with the fact that there is no broadband.
Besides, it's not like the internet is not avaialble to these regions. There is still dialup, or even Satellite internet service. I'm sorry you live in the middle of nowhere and there's no infrastructure for broadband, but it's still a luxury in my eyes, not something that taxes and fees should be paying for. You say these fees benefit consumers, but from your example they're benefiting the small minority of consumers while the majority that are paying are left with no benefit at all.
And the top bidder is...someone named fashionpillows. Go figure.
Someone named fashionpillows, whose last 3 ebay transactions (well, the ones with feedback at least ) are a 15 dollar polo shirt, a ten dollar Windows XP CD, and a 14,000 dollar PORSCHE.
Ebay is truly a magical place.
Subwoofer integrated into battery
There's a subwoofer in the BATTERY???? Kind of ironic, considering the power a sub woudl suck FROM the battery, but seriously... what?? Just seems an odd place to integratea subwoofer. Is this common practice? I've never heard of it before.
Come again? It's not censorship except in the sense of fulfilling the definition of censorship? What makes you think that no-one but you understands the distinction between censorship and government censorship? Where do you get off saying that the parent poster is "Wrong. Wrong wrong." based solely on the fact that you don't think others are capable of understanding the words they use?
censoring: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Touche. You're right, most people do know what they're talking about here. However, it's not news unless the censorship is considered objectionable. For someone to be complaining about it, it means to me that they think it's excessive censorship.
My point was trying to be that censorship isn't always a negative thing, and it can be strongly argued that CBS is not censoring the ad to prevent people from seeing an opposing viewpoint, but rather to not lose viewers. The former is what most would consider bad and unethical censorship, or Big Brother-eque, while the latter is protecting the interest of the company by not showing something which may cause people to bring their business elsewhere.
A corporation not playing an ad because of its political viewpoints is censorship
Wrong. Wrong wrong. It's a good business model, not censorship. It may be censorship in the exact definition of the word, but not in the big brother way you're all thinking of it. CBS is in the business of making money, that's all. If half of the people watching CBS, or even some reasonable percentage, are going to be turned off in any way by the ad, it is their responsibility to the company they represent to not show it to protect their business interests. THey're not censoring ANYONE. I'm sure there are PLENTY of ads that get rejected for the same reason, you don't all get up in arms over that. It's a private fucking business, they make decisions to help their business.
Oh, and somewhere up in the parent heirarchy here there was a mention of a "non-partisan" group promoting this ad. If it were non-partisan, I'm sure the ad woudln't specifically target BUSH. Bush's deficit? There's a lot more people in Washington making budget decisions than Bush. I'd agree that this administration has made a BUNCH of BAD budget decisions, don't get me wrong... I'm just pointing out the fallacy in pretending to be non-partisan.
Doesn't seem like anything's changing here folks....
:
:
:
:
Nintendo
NES : 1985
SuperNES : 1991
N64 : 1996
Game Cube : 2001
Avg Time Bet Releases : 5.3 years.
Sega
Master System : 1986
Genesis : 1989
Saturn : 1995
Dreamcast : 1998
Avg Time Bet. Releases : 4 years
Sony
PS1 : 1995
PS2 : 2000
PS3 : 2006 (projected)
Avg Time Bet. Releases : ~5 years
MS
XBox : 2001
XBox 2 : 2005 (projected)
Avg Time Bet. Releases : 4 years
The spelling and grammar seem familiar... Remarkably similar to that of the slashdot community it seems.
;-).... )
That, and every document I read that's written by the engineers at work (other than myself, of course
Where is the Ford Escort? I have personly been in 2 that had the engine catch fire, and have known of two others that caught fire. Meanwhile, the Edsel, quite possibly the ugliest car Ford ever made was a fairly decent car for it's time. As for Pontiac Fiero, I owned one once and had it catch fire while it was parked and being washed in a stall. I had to rewire the /entire/ car. On the other hand it had the best handling of any car I have ever driven.
:)
Are you a) a firefighter or b) a resident of one of the active volcano islands of hawaii? In my life I've known a grand total of two people who have been involved in car fires, both of which were EXTREMELY old cars, and only actually SEEN two in my entire life. For one person to actually have two of the exact same car catch fire, and know of two others... there's some extenuating circumstance going on here. YOu work for Chevy, don't you?
Folks, six cups of coffee seems a little extreme. Seriously. Two, maybe three is reasonable, one per phase of the day. Six you're putting much more serious health risks into play than Diabetes.
Funny side note, when my dad was a travelling salesman (before my birth) he aparently got addicted to coffee from being on the road. He didn't really realize it, until he literally had heart palpatations, went to the doctor, who told him he had OD'd on caffeine. So the next time he went out he counted the number of times he got coffee - 23. He said he never even noticed how much coffee he was drinking.
But at least he doesn't have diabetes.
How was this thief even able to use this stolen laptop? Were they not running a password protected operating system, at least Windows 2000 or Windows XP?
Unfortunately Windows2000 and WindowsXP have an option that most people un-select which says "users must enter a name and password to access this system". It pretty much defies the use of HAVING a name and password when the computer automatically boots through it. The worst part is this is the default configuration. So most users never really even SEE that Windows has a password.
And AOL lets you SAVE the password on your computer, which is equally foolish.
(And if you don't know THAT name, he was the guy who introduced The Beatles to the sitar.)
The Bea-who?
Crap. All major sports athletes are overpaid primadonnas. Paying them millions because they can throw a ball only fuels consumerism. "Did you watch the game on Sunday? Wow!" mindless sheep
Wow, what an arrogant ass.
Stopping at saying all major sports athletes are overpaid primadonas you probably would have been right. But then throwing a dig at the 90%+ of the society who enjoy at least one sport is pretty weak. Firstly, who are you to judge someone because they enjoy a game? What do you enjoy? I'm sure there's a mindless activity out there that flaots your boat. Maybe not sports, but SOMEthing. And if NOT, maybe you should relax a bit. Not every moment in life has to earn you the Nobel Prize.
As for them being overpaid, maybe they don't deserve it, but at the same time, if people will pay for it, why not? The day people start getting fed up with advertising or ticket prices those things will come down, or the business will fail. But I as well as obviously MANY others are willing to sit through a few commercials (muted, while I'm getting a snack) to be entertained for three hours by the best athletes in their field. And that money, for the most part, goes to the people who are entertaining me. What's wrong with that? Those people who can "throw a ball" make me forget my worries and enjoy my days off for a couple of hours every week, and for that I say they deserve quite a bit, actually.
Lighten up.
And dude, Italian -American please. "Guido" is not the preferred nomenclature.
Walter, I'm not talking about the guys who build the railroads here....
7.1 surround? MP3 Playback? Is it just me, or are these things unnecessary on a PORTABLE device that will only accept proprietary discs (no burning MP3's and playing them).
It DOES have 802.11b, so maybe you can download MP3s to the device?
Just a thought, I have no idea. Maybe it's another way for sony to make money by selling a burner for these proprietary discs. Maybe they'll even start SELLING the discs with music on them. Who knows?
he target isn't to grow the spece ad infinium but to create fixed size, large space. Once you have the space, you just keep going and you allow the space to shrink some if the car in front of you temporarily slows down.
Agreed. The original poster said 500 feet at 15mph. To me and most of the rest of the world, that is excessive, and cause for some ire from other drivers. At rush hour, there are two issues at work - people who drive like morons, and just the fact that there's too many damned cars on the road. If everyone's leaving 10 car lengths in front of them, this just makes the latter problem 10 times worse. It's a common misconception that it we all just left space and drove at a slow speed there'd be no traffic. You just can't fit 10,000 cars on a road with enough room for 8,000 without gridlock.
All I'm saying is you have to find a balance. More space between cars is not the only solution.
i do something like that in really congested traffic. like, 15 mph on the interstate. i'll go 14. i'll end up with 500 feet clear in front of me, and people in the left lane will splash back into the buffer in front of me. i never hit the breaks once. it takes about 8 seconds to cover the buffer space to catch up, and sure enough the person behind me is always absolutely livid that i decided to let a space build up. and most of the time, they cut the person off to the left of me, cut close to me, flip me off in the mirror, peel out, and dart ahead. oy ve
So YOU'RE that guy! F you buddy!!
Seriously though, while this is the way you SHOULD be driving in traffic, keeping adequate (not excessive!) space between you and the car in front of you to avoid jamming your brakes, you probably cause more problems than you solve. You can be perfectly in the right, but if it pissed everyone else on teh road off and they road rage around you, seems like you're causing more harm than good there.
You can smugly sit there in the knowledge that you're doing the right thing, until you see that it's not all black and white and you have to try and conform to the driving style of the world around you. Within reason.
The best roads made are ones done by expert traffic engineers.. In the city I live near, there's 9 stop lights in a 3 lane (one way) road. The posted speed is 25MPH. However, if you go 22.5MPH, every one of them will be green,. Usualy there's an idiot or 2 that burns rubber out of one intersection, while I barely cruise up. By the time I hit the next stoplight, it's already changed.
I'm not going to outright say this is impossible, but... this seems impossible. It's reasonable to assume that on a one-way street you could do this for any number of lights. But to get nine lights in a row to work for one direction, the other direction would be an absolute mess. It also doesn't take into account the weight / magnetic sensors that most new intersections with traffic lights have that tell if a car is waiting on a side street and changes the light pattern accordingly.
So maybe you're just really lucky on this road?
The US can't find the weapons, now it is looking for war justification on the grounds of research into WMD by Iraq
GAH!!! I cannot, nor can pretty much anyone else, defend the current Iraq situation. I was trying to leave that out of this to make the point that originally, Iraq was not allowed to have WMD and the US was. That's it. And up until 2002 or so, this was the case. Bush has caused the whole world to rethink it now. I used to liek the guy, when I tried to believe he was telling the truth; obviously he wasn't. I agree - he's an oaf. A lying one to boot. A Bush-bashing fest is just totally off-topic, and there's not that many people left to defend him anyways.
What about intense, unopposed aerial bombardment; As far as an effect is concerned, this is a weapon of mass destruction. The US anihilated scores and scores of helpless iraqi forces by bombing them beyond mercy.
What part of Barring the current Iraq situation didn't you get? I purposefully left that out because I certainly don't want to defend Bush, nor do I think it's possible. The whole comment was made in response to why UP UNTIL NOW the US was allowed to have WMD (along with many many other nations) and Iraq was not. World view has certainly changed in the past few months, and as time passes it seems, regrettably, rightfully so.
Oh.. so by that "logic" Saddam Hussein was COMPLETELY and utterly correct in undertaking biological research as he didn't want to get caught with his pants down if someone else invented it.
Or is it that if the US does it this means it is "good" research, but if someone else does it then it is "bad" research.
After all the US has never used WMDs have they...
You're such a troll.
1) Biological RESEARCH and biological WEAPONS are two different things. It doesn't help you learn how to protect against a viral strain if it's sitting in a missile or bomb. Jesus, bash W all you want, but you're really going to stick up for someone like Saddam Hussein??
2) Barring the current Iraq situation, the US has proven they are RESPONSIBLE with their use of WMD, and only use them when attacked, and therefore are allowed to have them, per the UN and the rest of the world treaties out there. Iraq, on the other hand, was deemed to be a threat to the rest of the world, and told --BY THE UNITED NATIONS that you all love and worship-- that they must destroy their WMD. The US didn't tell them to do it (or at least not on our own).
You may not agree with the current Iraq situation, or the current president -- probably rightfully so -- but I just don't understand the whole "bash the US for the hell of it" mindset. You'll go so far as to defend a known terrible dictator just to make the US look bad. I don't get it.
Or maybe a first grade spelling book, which says that the third-person verb conjugation of "launch" is spelled "launches", not "launchs."
I mean, c'mon, it's the first thing I noticed when I fired up slashdot this morning. Have people just stopped paying attention to spelling around here?
Does anyone have any mirrors that would include the *bird downloads? All of the mirrors I see only have the regular Mozilla downloads. Unless I can't navigate correctly..... in which case help with that problem would also be appreciated.
All that work goes up in a puff of smoke as the slashdot effect takes its deadly toll....