Maybe this poster should double-check what the term "relatively" means.
My point was not that it's a "Star Wars" style dodgem...my point is that a) at the speeds traveled, even a marble-sized piece of debris would be enough to severely damage a spacecraft. b) in a given volume of space, that of the "asteroid belt" is likely to be RELATIVELY more cluttered than that of interplanetary space.
The Pioneer spacecraft passed almost through the belt, and had very few hits. Likely this would be the case for any probe. But I could see where, as the probe got closer to the belt, it would likely be able to resolve local conditions BETTER than we could here, and that it might be beneficial to have the ABILITY to apply meaningful thrust to some other direction to either change course to avoid recently-detected 'risky' areas, or to investigate something more interesting.
I dunno, it seems to me that a mission to the asteroids is precisely the WRONG field to employ an ion-emission engine. Ion engines are low thrust, long duration power - meaning very^2 slow to accelerate. Certainly, as a cruising engine, it's great. But in the asteroid belt, I'd suspect that to be an environment where it's (relatively) cluttered, and somewhat quick accelerations in any sort of direction might be required. Maybe it's a relative thing, and an asteroid field is actually less cluttered then a planetary environment, but I would have assumed that they'd built into the navigation systems some sort of local surveillance and autonomy to avoid untracked debris that may pose a hazard to the spacecraft?
...but I agree with scuttlemonkey's heading - from the "awaiting-further-objections dept".
I'm "awaiting objections" from the side of the political crowd that has been demanding unrestricted Embryonic Stem Cell harvesting for years.
Because, you see, if indeed there is a way to create pluripotent stem cells without necessarily taking them from fetuses, one might say that Pres. Bush's moral qualms were in hindsight justifiable, and acted as a spur toward the development of less-morally-questionable sources.
And it seems to be inconceivable to one side of the political spectrum that anything Bush & co. would do could be right in both a scientific and moral sense.
1) can I install something by either double-clicking the "installer" file, or something equally simple and intuitive (like running some sort of installer application, and pointing it at the install file)?
2) can I run something after it's installed by simply double-clicking the icon for that program?
3) if I plug in a USB device, will it auto-detect, install, and run?
If you don't get it, my point is that nowhere under the definition of the term "easy to use" will one find: - having to go into shells - issue lines of command with riduculously long pathnames - navigating Byzantine corridors of input parameters
I genuinely tried Linux - both Suse and Ubuntu varieties. I don't think I'm COMPLETELY stupid, and I found both of them run WONDERFULLY any of the preinstalled apps. Installing, running, and using anything else? Um, not so much. I would very much like to use linux in preference to MS products....but for now, I'm still running XP because I don't WANT to climb another learning curve to the point where the OS is transparent.
I'm really not sure if this is going to be awesome or awesomely overhyped.
Generally, I don't like it when games intend a 'message' with their mechanics. I understand that the settings are incredibly beautiful and detailed, but having an artist spend 4 hours texturing a model for a future-retro art deco faucet doesn't have anything, really, to do with it being a good GAME.
I'd be interested to hear less about the physics and setting (ho-hum), and more about whatever sort of faction-system architecture that would have to underpin such a non-linear, freeform game. Is it a simple matrix, some of which are zero-sum (ie go up with Faction 1, go down with Faction 2) and some are related (go up with faction 1 by 10 points, this means you also go up in Faction 2 by 2 points)? Do the faction relationships change over time? Can the player's actions move factions' opinions of each other? Does the player's actions affect everyone in the faction instantly, or is there a communication lag before 'everyone' knows? Does the character build reputation? Do the character's actions only have an effect if they are observed? I mean, if the player wastes a Little Sister and her Big Daddy instantly, and then gets away unobserved, does that impact his rep?
How will the player accomplish anything - will it be MMOG sorts of quest givers with specific tasks that the player can accomplish? Can the player develop allies, ala HL2? What can they do?
Sorry, but all I've seen are some pretty pics, and a few *VERY* setpiece combats and tactics. Set the bear on fire and toss it at the big daddy? That's only novel the first time you see it - this is the 2nd for me, which makes it seem less like an 'example of free form use of the environment' than a narrowly-scripted "thing" that the game's programmed to allow you to do.
How about something different in the demos? How about breaking a bottle from the bar, and then lighting that pool of alcohol to separate a little sister from her big daddy?
Right now I'm only allowing myself about 4 of 10 on the "hopefulness" meter for this one. I hope like hell it's going to be SS2 writ new. I'm more afraid of Daikatana or American McGee's "Alice".
Lady, if you have privacy concerns, close your drapes.
I don't know, but it was pretty clear to me (no pun intended) from an early age that windows are generally see-through BOTH WAYS. Glass is a fairly egalitarian thing. Don't want to be seen? Pull the shades. And before the privacy wanks all chime in about how unfair this is that one must isolate oneself for privacy - at a certain point, you can't deny the reality of your existence in a physical world, where, barring pricey tech, if you can see out others can see in.
Next thing you know, someone might be LOOKING AT YOU without your permission! Oh noes!
"This move may inspire First Nations in other provinces to follow suit."
Better still, it might inspire a judge to grow a pair of cojones and tell the "First Nations" to fark off. Their stone age culture was steamrollered by the rest of humanity. Either join the rest of us, or consign yourselves to history.
It's sad that after so many predictions by the RIAA of the demise of commercial radio...
The recordable tape cassette? People will just record what they want and never listen, it will be the END OF RADIO! DAT? People will just record what they want and never listen, it will be the END OF RADIO! Burnable CDs? People will just record what they want and never listen, it will be the END OF RADIO! MP3s over the internet? People will just record what they want and never listen, it will be the END OF RADIO!
...the ones ACTUALLY killing radio are the RIAA themselves. Sad, predictable, and ironic all at once.
No, as you recall Indiana Jones would have (given the setting) uncovered some great mystical Cthulhoid plot which, when all was said and done, would have resulted in the spectacular destruction of at least one world-significant historical site and then had all evidence locked away in a government storage facility under "TOP SECRET" classification.
I think dividends to shareholders actually sounds a lot safer to us innocent bystanders.
"speech recognition software can keep up with someone speaking at 160 wpm." Well...is that really true?
As I type, I edit. I finish a sentence, and I edit. WITH EDITING TIME, I'm around 30-40 wpm (I probably type 2x-2.25x as fast).
Now, speechrec is 'keeping up with' someone at 160 wpm. Then, that person has to either a) stop, comma, go back, del del del (or whatever the 'word commands' are for editing, or b) manually re-read and edit the entire paper.
Personally, when I've used recent speechrec software, I find that the ACTUAL, real-world rate is well below 10 wpm to create a 'final draft'.
Don't get me wrong, I think speechrec is *great* for getting words & thoughts down on paper quickly, without interrupting a stream of consciousness musing. But as a tool for generating "final" quality text? Um...not yet.
"While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing."
So...of 19 groups, 2 are increasing, 2 are decreasing. = disaster?
THAT'S my point: that we DON'T KNOW. To claim certainty is absurd, and makes climate change doomsayers unbelieveable because of their false certainty bordering on religion.
"Do the negative aspects of Global Warming outweigh the positive aspects? Yes."
Really? It would be nice to live in such certainty, however, that certainly smells like something from the genus Factus Internetis Sphincterum to me. For every negative you can think of, I can probably think of an equal or greater net positive. That makes one of us either a Pollyanna or a Cassandra. Personally, I expect the reality will fall somewhere in the middle, as usual.
Here's a little quiz: Take any point in history. Now, what are the odds that the world's climate on that day will be exactly the same as it is 100 years later?
To put it another way...if you plop a city down somewhere, and then move forward through time, the odds that city will suffer some catastrophic event - from earthquake, to war, to flood, to famine, to plague - reaches near-unity. Put it on a coastline and you've probably DOUBLED your odds of 'something bad' over time.
Climate has never stood still. It was historically both warmer and colder than today. It will be both warmer and colder in the future. Accept that the world in which our society is built (and that includes infrastructure, national boundaries, etc.) is all just ephemera compared to the natural processes of a planet.
Suddenly, this hairless ape that infests almost every corner of the landmass of this planet thinks that it's his fault. Cute, but kinda pathetic.
While your comment may have started as something flippant, you may be on to something philosophically speaking.
There have been a nearly infinite number of efforts to try to quantify 'what is a person?' (or, more specifically, what qualifies as 'personhood' to each individual).
In a sense, you're implying a utilitarian definition which might seem coldhearted, but on a Darwinian level makes perfect sense: I consider you a "person" if you can be of some use to me or the survival of my genes. On an enlightened-self-interest level, this could be directly related to the necessity I have for you. If you are someone in my small town, you are a part of my community and therefore somewhat relevant, and while if you die I might feel a little sad, I probably won't lie awake at night grieving since we were only peripherally necessary to each other in a very broad sense. OTOH, if you are a mugger, or someone I identify as a violent criminal, or from a GROUP I identify as one with a hostile intent to MY group, I can quite easily dehumanize you and your value becomes intrinsically less to me, or in fact NEGATIVE if you are enough of a threat.
So....what they're saying is that it's Canalzone, with different flag points randomized and doors/portals that are randomly open/closed. Woo. I'm excited.
That's silly. You refuse, and stand your ground. They either relent or fire you. You don't say "do this or I quit" - you're right, that puts you in a bad spot with unemployment.
"I'd say that I'm sorry that the kids are being punished, but I'm not. This isn't about the school district doing anything inappropriate. It's about kids doing something that they knew was inappropriate and being punished appropriately. I fail to see why anyone is upset by this."
Because this is slashdot, and the idea that someone hacked *anything* gives readers such a boner that they automagically sympathize with the 'victims'. It's like bashing MS...it doesn't have to make sense, it just IS.
Here's an analogy: the school puts locks on the doors. Kids tape the locks so they don't latch, and freely enter the school on Saturday. Should the SCHOOL be liable for their security systems FAILING?
No, it's incredibly stupid to even pose the question.
Please. Firstly, the title of the article shows which way/. is going to swing on this: " Student Attempting To Improve School Security Suspended"
Attempting to improve security? Really? How precisely was he 'attempting' to improve anything. It reads to me that he found an exploit AND EXPLOITED IT. He didn't immediately approach CISCO, or an academic advisor, or anyone.
Other posters in this thread talk about oppression and crap - what a laugh. It's the Townsend defense: Yes, officer, I was looking through pedophilic pron because I wanted to catch these darn bad guys, I was JUST about to come tell you about it.
It's very simple to do white hat research. 1) tell someone what you're doing. If you feel you might want to 'sell' the idea or there's some reason you don't want to be too specific, don't be. But TELL someone - even a discussion with your lawyer can later be used as strong evidence about your ORIGINAL INTENT
2) document what you're doing
3) if someone interrupts you and says "aha, we caught a criminal" you have a paper trail AND at least one witness that you laid the groundwork for something non-criminal beforehand.
The problem is that actions like this look JUST LIKE the crimes they purport to prevent. So much so, it's very, very easy to claim that's what you were doing after the fact. So the burden is upon YOU to prove that your explanation is not just after-the-fact rationalization.
Either allow teachers to exercise a degree of common sense in advising authorities when they feel that a student is 'disturbed' OR accept that occasionally there are going to be VT incidents.
You can't have it both ways - you cannot constantly second-guess teachers and authorities for trying to anticipate problems and head them off early, AND at the same time criticize them for 'not doing enough' to prevent massacres like happened at VT.
Well, I suppose you CAN if you're just an anonymous intarweb poster verbally flagellating for attention.
"Whether or not it is self-serving is utterly irrelevant to whether or not Cheney has abused the offices of state."
On a theoretical level, perhaps. Yes, whether a person has or has not committed acts of which he is accused is entirely logically distinct from the motives of the person accusing him.
In the real world, if I have something to gain DIRECTLY by accusing someone of something, my motive would seriously impugn the value of my accusations. PARTICULARLY in a political campagn where the mere accusation has press value, while the exoneration or defense is long, complicated, and likely as not to come long after it's of no value.
To ignore that is at least naive, but more likely the result of bias either for Kucinich or against Cheney.
Perhaps Mr. Kucinich's altruism would be a little less suspect if he wasn't simultaneously running for president himself?
I'm not saying that he's not doing this for the very best of motives, but if one begins by presuming a purely malignant motivation for whatever Cheney's done, it would then be naked partisanship to assume anything but an equally malignant motivation for other politicians, no?
"If the actions of someone hurt your feelings, gross you out, strike you as immoral, or irrationally frighten you: get over it, ignore them, and mind your own business."
Or better still, you're free to call THEM whatever you like. However, they are equally entitled to ignore what you say.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this poster should double-check what the term "relatively" means.
My point was not that it's a "Star Wars" style dodgem...my point is that
a) at the speeds traveled, even a marble-sized piece of debris would be enough to severely damage a spacecraft.
b) in a given volume of space, that of the "asteroid belt" is likely to be RELATIVELY more cluttered than that of interplanetary space.
The Pioneer spacecraft passed almost through the belt, and had very few hits. Likely this would be the case for any probe. But I could see where, as the probe got closer to the belt, it would likely be able to resolve local conditions BETTER than we could here, and that it might be beneficial to have the ABILITY to apply meaningful thrust to some other direction to either change course to avoid recently-detected 'risky' areas, or to investigate something more interesting.
Next time try reading, thinking, THEN posting.
I dunno, it seems to me that a mission to the asteroids is precisely the WRONG field to employ an ion-emission engine.
Ion engines are low thrust, long duration power - meaning very^2 slow to accelerate. Certainly, as a
cruising engine, it's great. But in the asteroid belt, I'd suspect that to be an environment where it's (relatively) cluttered, and somewhat quick accelerations in any sort of direction might be required. Maybe it's a relative thing, and an asteroid field is actually less cluttered then a planetary environment, but I would have assumed that they'd built into the navigation systems some sort of local surveillance and autonomy to avoid untracked debris that may pose a hazard to the spacecraft?
...but I agree with scuttlemonkey's heading - from the "awaiting-further-objections dept".
I'm "awaiting objections" from the side of the political crowd that has been demanding unrestricted Embryonic Stem Cell harvesting for years.
Because, you see, if indeed there is a way to create pluripotent stem cells without necessarily taking them from fetuses, one might say that Pres. Bush's moral qualms were in hindsight justifiable, and acted as a spur toward the development of less-morally-questionable sources.
And it seems to be inconceivable to one side of the political spectrum that anything Bush & co. would do could be right in both a scientific and moral sense.
...which is most of the rest of the world:
1) can I install something by either double-clicking the "installer" file, or something equally simple and intuitive (like running some sort of installer application, and pointing it at the install file)?
2) can I run something after it's installed by simply double-clicking the icon for that program?
3) if I plug in a USB device, will it auto-detect, install, and run?
If you don't get it, my point is that nowhere under the definition of the term "easy to use" will one find:
- having to go into shells
- issue lines of command with riduculously long pathnames
- navigating Byzantine corridors of input parameters
I genuinely tried Linux - both Suse and Ubuntu varieties. I don't think I'm COMPLETELY stupid, and I found both of them run WONDERFULLY any of the preinstalled apps. Installing, running, and using anything else? Um, not so much. I would very much like to use linux in preference to MS products....but for now, I'm still running XP because I don't WANT to climb another learning curve to the point where the OS is transparent.
I'm really not sure if this is going to be awesome or awesomely overhyped.
Generally, I don't like it when games intend a 'message' with their mechanics. I understand that the settings are incredibly beautiful and detailed, but having an artist spend 4 hours texturing a model for a future-retro art deco faucet doesn't have anything, really, to do with it being a good GAME.
I'd be interested to hear less about the physics and setting (ho-hum), and more about whatever sort of faction-system architecture that would have to underpin such a non-linear, freeform game. Is it a simple matrix, some of which are zero-sum (ie go up with Faction 1, go down with Faction 2) and some are related (go up with faction 1 by 10 points, this means you also go up in Faction 2 by 2 points)? Do the faction relationships change over time? Can the player's actions move factions' opinions of each other? Does the player's actions affect everyone in the faction instantly, or is there a communication lag before 'everyone' knows? Does the character build reputation? Do the character's actions only have an effect if they are observed? I mean, if the player wastes a Little Sister and her Big Daddy instantly, and then gets away unobserved, does that impact his rep?
How will the player accomplish anything - will it be MMOG sorts of quest givers with specific tasks that the player can accomplish? Can the player develop allies, ala HL2? What can they do?
Sorry, but all I've seen are some pretty pics, and a few *VERY* setpiece combats and tactics. Set the bear on fire and toss it at the big daddy? That's only novel the first time you see it - this is the 2nd for me, which makes it seem less like an 'example of free form use of the environment' than a narrowly-scripted "thing" that the game's programmed to allow you to do.
How about something different in the demos? How about breaking a bottle from the bar, and then lighting that pool of alcohol to separate a little sister from her big daddy?
Right now I'm only allowing myself about 4 of 10 on the "hopefulness" meter for this one. I hope like hell it's going to be SS2 writ new. I'm more afraid of Daikatana or American McGee's "Alice".
Lady, if you have privacy concerns, close your drapes.
I don't know, but it was pretty clear to me (no pun intended) from an early age that windows are generally see-through BOTH WAYS. Glass is a fairly egalitarian thing. Don't want to be seen? Pull the shades. And before the privacy wanks all chime in about how unfair this is that one must isolate oneself for privacy - at a certain point, you can't deny the reality of your existence in a physical world, where, barring pricey tech, if you can see out others can see in.
Next thing you know, someone might be LOOKING AT YOU without your permission! Oh noes!
"This move may inspire First Nations in other provinces to follow suit."
Better still, it might inspire a judge to grow a pair of cojones and tell the "First Nations" to fark off. Their stone age culture was steamrollered by the rest of humanity. Either join the rest of us, or consign yourselves to history.
That would be a nice precedent to set.
"If all of us waited until all the conditions were 100% right, nothing amazing will ever be achieved."
Or we'd work for NASA. And yes.
No, as you recall Indiana Jones would have (given the setting) uncovered some great mystical Cthulhoid plot which, when all was said and done, would have resulted in the spectacular destruction of at least one world-significant historical site and then had all evidence locked away in a government storage facility under "TOP SECRET" classification.
I think dividends to shareholders actually sounds a lot safer to us innocent bystanders.
"speech recognition software can keep up with someone speaking at 160 wpm."
Well...is that really true?
As I type, I edit. I finish a sentence, and I edit. WITH EDITING TIME, I'm around 30-40 wpm (I probably type 2x-2.25x as fast).
Now, speechrec is 'keeping up with' someone at 160 wpm. Then, that person has to either
a) stop, comma, go back, del del del (or whatever the 'word commands' are for editing, or
b) manually re-read and edit the entire paper.
Personally, when I've used recent speechrec software, I find that the ACTUAL, real-world rate is well below 10 wpm to create a 'final draft'.
Don't get me wrong, I think speechrec is *great* for getting words & thoughts down on paper quickly, without interrupting a stream of consciousness musing. But as a tool for generating "final" quality text? Um...not yet.
"While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing."
So...of 19 groups, 2 are increasing, 2 are decreasing. = disaster?
THAT'S my point: that we DON'T KNOW. To claim certainty is absurd, and makes climate change doomsayers unbelieveable because of their false certainty bordering on religion.
"Do the negative aspects of Global Warming outweigh the positive aspects? Yes."
Really? It would be nice to live in such certainty, however, that certainly smells like something from the genus Factus Internetis Sphincterum to me. For every negative you can think of, I can probably think of an equal or greater net positive. That makes one of us either a Pollyanna or a Cassandra. Personally, I expect the reality will fall somewhere in the middle, as usual.
Here's a little quiz:
Take any point in history.
Now, what are the odds that the world's climate on that day will be exactly the same as it is 100 years later?
To put it another way...if you plop a city down somewhere, and then move forward through time, the odds that city will suffer some catastrophic event - from earthquake, to war, to flood, to famine, to plague - reaches near-unity. Put it on a coastline and you've probably DOUBLED your odds of 'something bad' over time.
Climate has never stood still. It was historically both warmer and colder than today. It will be both warmer and colder in the future. Accept that the world in which our society is built (and that includes infrastructure, national boundaries, etc.) is all just ephemera compared to the natural processes of a planet.
Suddenly, this hairless ape that infests almost every corner of the landmass of this planet thinks that it's his fault. Cute, but kinda pathetic.
"Such is the nature of the game - you can't win 100% of the time."
No, but you can make great political mileage from COMPLAINING about it 100% of the time. That is totally certain.
"The current admin does everything, seriously, everything
wrong, which creates long term damage.
You can predict what their response will be to any
situation: whatever will create damage will be the choice.
The list is long. Katrina is a good example."
If the current adminstration was able to cause Katrina, then perhaps that tinfoil hat isn't going to be enough.....
While your comment may have started as something flippant, you may be on to something philosophically speaking.
There have been a nearly infinite number of efforts to try to quantify 'what is a person?' (or, more specifically, what qualifies as 'personhood' to each individual).
In a sense, you're implying a utilitarian definition which might seem coldhearted, but on a Darwinian level makes perfect sense: I consider you a "person" if you can be of some use to me or the survival of my genes. On an enlightened-self-interest level, this could be directly related to the necessity I have for you. If you are someone in my small town, you are a part of my community and therefore somewhat relevant, and while if you die I might feel a little sad, I probably won't lie awake at night grieving since we were only peripherally necessary to each other in a very broad sense. OTOH, if you are a mugger, or someone I identify as a violent criminal, or from a GROUP I identify as one with a hostile intent to MY group, I can quite easily dehumanize you and your value becomes intrinsically less to me, or in fact NEGATIVE if you are enough of a threat.
So....what they're saying is that it's Canalzone, with different flag points randomized and doors/portals that are randomly open/closed. Woo. I'm excited.
That's silly. You refuse, and stand your ground. They either relent or fire you. You don't say "do this or I quit" - you're right, that puts you in a bad spot with unemployment.
"I'd say that I'm sorry that the kids are being punished, but I'm not. This isn't about the school district doing anything inappropriate. It's about kids doing something that they knew was inappropriate and being punished appropriately. I fail to see why anyone is upset by this."
Because this is slashdot, and the idea that someone hacked *anything* gives readers such a boner that they automagically sympathize with the 'victims'. It's like bashing MS...it doesn't have to make sense, it just IS.
Here's an analogy: the school puts locks on the doors. Kids tape the locks so they don't latch, and freely enter the school on Saturday. Should the SCHOOL be liable for their security systems FAILING?
No, it's incredibly stupid to even pose the question.
Please. /. is going to swing on this: " Student Attempting To Improve School Security Suspended"
Firstly, the title of the article shows which way
Attempting to improve security? Really? How precisely was he 'attempting' to improve anything. It reads to me that he found an exploit AND EXPLOITED IT. He didn't immediately approach CISCO, or an academic advisor, or anyone.
Other posters in this thread talk about oppression and crap - what a laugh. It's the Townsend defense: Yes, officer, I was looking through pedophilic pron because I wanted to catch these darn bad guys, I was JUST about to come tell you about it.
It's very simple to do white hat research.
1) tell someone what you're doing. If you feel you might want to 'sell' the idea or there's some reason you don't want to be too specific, don't be. But TELL someone - even a discussion with your lawyer can later be used as strong evidence about your ORIGINAL INTENT
2) document what you're doing
3) if someone interrupts you and says "aha, we caught a criminal" you have a paper trail AND at least one witness that you laid the groundwork for something non-criminal beforehand.
The problem is that actions like this look JUST LIKE the crimes they purport to prevent. So much so, it's very, very easy to claim that's what you were doing after the fact. So the burden is upon YOU to prove that your explanation is not just after-the-fact rationalization.
Either allow teachers to exercise a degree of common sense in advising authorities when they feel that a student is 'disturbed' OR accept that occasionally there are going to be VT incidents.
You can't have it both ways - you cannot constantly second-guess teachers and authorities for trying to anticipate problems and head them off early, AND at the same time criticize them for 'not doing enough' to prevent massacres like happened at VT.
Well, I suppose you CAN if you're just an anonymous intarweb poster verbally flagellating for attention.
Wow, he's almost as brilliant as the dozen or more people that posted that exact same reference in http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/2 7/203205 THIS story.
/. editors: perhaps you should read your stories and their comments?
Note to
"Whether or not it is self-serving is utterly irrelevant to whether or not Cheney has abused the offices of state."
On a theoretical level, perhaps. Yes, whether a person has or has not committed acts of which he is accused is entirely logically distinct from the motives of the person accusing him.
In the real world, if I have something to gain DIRECTLY by accusing someone of something, my motive would seriously impugn the value of my accusations. PARTICULARLY in a political campagn where the mere accusation has press value, while the exoneration or defense is long, complicated, and likely as not to come long after it's of no value.
To ignore that is at least naive, but more likely the result of bias either for Kucinich or against Cheney.
Perhaps Mr. Kucinich's altruism would be a little less suspect if he wasn't simultaneously running for president himself?
I'm not saying that he's not doing this for the very best of motives, but if one begins by presuming a purely malignant motivation for whatever Cheney's done, it would then be naked partisanship to assume anything but an equally malignant motivation for other politicians, no?
"If the actions of someone hurt your feelings, gross you out, strike you as immoral, or irrationally frighten you: get over it, ignore them, and mind your own business."
Or better still, you're free to call THEM whatever you like. However, they are equally entitled to ignore what you say.