My wife had laser eye surgery and went from one step above legally blind to almost perfect vision. Aside of multiple warnings from "The Simpsons" and "Futurama" that she'll go blind in 10 years, it's been a perfect solution, and it wasn't THAT expensive.
Like the episode where they must ration the replicator because of power problems (which was cool), but later in the episode they are playing pool on the holodeck. I watched season 1 part of season 2 and part of season 4 (I do think that Seven was a decent character, at least at first).
Johnny Carson quit when he was still on top. Star Trek should have stopped after DS9. Although the last few movies were pretty good. I'm sure people will flame me into tiny cinders, but I thought "Insurrection" and "Nemesis" were quite good. Especially "Insurrection". "First Contact" seemed like a generic SF script shoe-horned into the Star Trek setting. It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't good Star Trek.
I'm just impressed someone on/. knows the saying is "interest is piqued" rather than "peaked". Finally someone around here who has actually read a book. Good job, Sentry21.
I'd love to watch it, but I refuse to deal with RealMedia for any reason. Those people are scum and their software sucks.
Here's the funny thing. The Discworld books started off as essentially a parody of fantasy. The problem is that Pratchett is too good of a writer and by the third book, the series took on a life of its own.
The first two ("The Colour of Magic" and "The Light Fastastic") are pretty good, but they pale in comparison to what followed. With "Equal Rites", suddenly the storytelling and characters came to forefront. The humor is always present, including the puns and other intellectual wordplay, but these are just frosting... the story underneath is still thick and meaty. Mmmmm... frosting on meat.
Anyhow, many (or even most) of the stories are allegorical observations on modern society, adding yet another level.
Painting Democrats with such a broad brush is exactly how Republicans operate. Oh, they're all Michael Moore. They're all leftist Commies.
I'm not saying that, just that they are doing a good job of looking like that. Regardless of whose decision it was.
Hiring Howard "Hate Republicans" Dean is just as damaging in my mind, but I guess I'm not their targeted audience.
As far as your complaints about Republicans, if you think the Democrats are any different, you're fooling yourself. They are as venemous and hateful as anyone this side of David Duke.
Terry Pratchett writes a book that's a better movie than Hollywood can make using an actual movie. It's amazing how he does it. It's a combination of pacing, dialog, humor and grand vision. I don't know what's more amazing, the fact that he can do it so well or the fact that he's maintained this style and skill through almost 20 years and 30 books.
Sure, some Discworld books are better than others (and "Lords and Ladies" is in my top 3 for sure), but they are all good.
I was re-re-rereading "Men at Arms" last night and enjoying (once again) translating Gargoyle speech. That and the French and Latin puns, brilliant and sharp satire, plus tons of believeable and funny and likeable characters, and a world as richly detailed as Tolkien's, combine to make the best fiction reading ever.
Except once you get through the analog hole, you're free and clear. I'm guessing no watermark could possibly survive that without visual artifacts. In fact, I have a hard time believing watermarks could survive transcoding either, but those math types working for Macrovision, et al, are a lot smarter than me.
Still, they are fighting a battle they can never win. The media companies will continue to look increasingly foolish until they embrace the technology. While I do download some broadcast TV shows a la using a TiVo, I would gladly pay to do so.
Even though it's a naive thought, it seems to me that if the commericals were left in, the TV studios wouldn't have much to complain about. I mean, isn't the whole point of TV to get us to watch the commercials? Like Homer says, "If you don't watch the commercials, it's stealing." I remember that with amusement when the commercial breaks on talk radio come on and I pop in a CD for a track or 2 (or if it's Transatlantic or the Flower Kings, pop it in for a track and end up coming back during the _next_ commercial break... D'Oh!)
There's a difference between being a member of the press at a function (which was the capacity in which he was acting), and being an honored guest.
If he had merely been invited to the DNC convention, I wouldn't have thought anything of it... I'm sure there were plenty of nuts at the RNC convention, but by putting him in the Presidential box, they not only legitimized him, but aligned themselves with his rabid, hateful, spittle-spewing, sensationalist rhoetoric. In other words, they imply that he is what they are all about.
It seems to me that any administration we have is going to be doing this kind of stuff. I can't imagine either this or the last administration going against the likes of Disney on this issue.
Don't forget Orrin Hatch wants to be able remotely destroy your computer.
Stupid enough that they can't find real work. It's just like telemarketers. Just because you're too dumb to do something useful doesn't give you the right to demand that I tolerate you harassing me.
Interesting too, that Bush just signed the Class Action Fairness Act that limits the amount of winnings that can be pursued in this kind of litigation.
Perhaps, but it seems the only effect of a class action lawsuit is that the lawyers walk away with millions while all the members of the "class" get checks for something like $6 a piece.
please don't use that fat ugly m-f'er michael moore and his propoganda movies as a statement or representative of the DNC
You know, I'd love to believe you because I wouldn't wish Moore on Osama bin Laden leave alone any American political party, but the fact that Moore was seated in the Presidential Box at the Democratic convention kinda goes against your assertion. Between that and Howard "I Hate Republicans and Everything They Stand For" Dean, the Democrats have forfeited the White House for at least a generation, which is a shame. I have never voted for a Democrat for President, and probably never will, but it woulod be nice to have some real competition to help keep the Republicans honest, and at this rate, I think we're looking at another 1964 or even 1984. No offense to Democrats, but your party is self-destructing. Too bad they can't put the good Democrats (and there are many) on the top instead of the nutcakes and droners.
Well there is some impressive and dense prose up there but you did wander off the deep end enough times that yea I think it probably does suggest wacko more than statesman.
Thank you. I'd hate to be thought of as a statesman.
You rambled so much, and made some giant leaps where its not even clear what you are talking about exactly and its probably dangerous for me to even try to rebut it but there are few points that probably should be made.
Well, this was primarily because I was responding to your largely ad hominem comments about President Bush and Christians. Given that there was nothing specific to respond to, I did in fact ramble quite a bit.
You see I want, and I think our founding fathers wanted a country where if you wanted to be a religious fanatic and stay married for life to someone you hate because your beliefs say you can't divorce, and have 10 children you can and no one should ever say you cant.
Not all of us hate our spouses. I for one am totally infatuated with my wife of 12 years. She's my best friend and soulmate. And I only have 4 kids, because we haven't been able to have a fifth.
But then too the framework they founded suggests that if you choose to not subscribe to a religion or subscribe to one that is abhorred by the majority that is your right too and you should not be discriminated against or persecuted for making that choice. If, for whatever reason, monogomous heterosexual marriage is not suited to your view on life, well that should be your right too, and it is fundementally wrong for people like you to start railing against anyone who chooses to not subscribe to your rigid view of acceptable societal building blocks.
You do in fact have the right to do what you choose, however, I see no reason to redefine marriage which has been defined constantly in Western society for thousands of years. If precedence is any basis, there's much more reason to accept polygamy, but no one (aside from some Utah nutcakes) is calling for that. However, if gay marriage is ever passed, polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, marriage to siblings and just about anything else cannot be denied. The institution then becomes meaningless, as people will exercise it merely for financial benefit (as opposed to a small minority today).
To summarize I don't have the right to tell you to not follow your religion, nor do you have the right to tell me I must have a religion. If I take action that precludes you from following your religion I'm in the wrong, if you take action to attempt to inflict your religion on me, against my will and in the public square, you are equally in the wrong.
Fair enough.
Our founding fathers established the concept of separation of church and state because many of them fled religious persecution in Europe, persecution that arose precisely because a single religion established itself as the state religion and any citizen of the state that didn't accept that religion would be subjected to both religious and civil persecution.
Specifically they said that the government would not establish or require a religion. As far as I'm concerned, and on the basis of everything up to about 40 years ago, this has been taken way farther than was ever meant or needed.
The thing most rabid Christians completely don't get
I don't know any so I can't say...
Religion and family beliefs like sexual preference are personal and private and they should stay personal and private between your family and your church.
Yeah, we don't want to force those Christian morals on others. You know, all that archaic stuff like "You shall not kill." or "You shall not steal." That's so first millenium.
As soon as you start putting the ten commandments or the Koran in a courtroom you are saying to people who aren't Judeo-Christian or Muslim respectively that justice, rather
Whadaya expect from a country that has FOUR channels?!
We Americans lead the world in quantities of cheap, mindless TV. We are the envy of the world! And half of it is copied from British TV in the first place.
That would require forgetting 25 years of allowing applications to act like they own the entire machine and OS.
This would have never happened if MS had put a little thought into developing apps for user accounts. Since they didn't bother, neither did anyone else, and you can't do diddly on Windows without being an admin.
I actually discovered how bad it is in 2003 when, for the first time ever, I had a computer at work on which I was not alllowed to be an admin. This wouldn't have been so bad if the IT department hadn't consisted of a bunch of arrogant no-nothings who had no idea what they were doing. Fortunately, for my sanity, I got laid off. It's not a good idea to quit a job that sucks after being out of work for a year, but it's also not good to go postal either.
A reporter (and copy writer and editor) that can't do math?! Get outta here.
Next thing, you'll tell me they're biased. Or that good video game reviews are bought and sold. Or that the radio industry is still engaging in payola.
What does history have to do with it, we are talking about current events here?
Yes, clearly you have completely missed my point. No wonder you think I'm a wacko since you seem incapable of piecing anything together.
Let me state it again.
Upon what basis do you conclude that the "religious right" has "declared war"?
The fact that almost every institution of the past two centries in this country are being attempted to be dismantled by deconstructionists, moral relativists and nihilists posing as modern, enlightened thinkers?
That such a dismantling has coincided with significant declines in the moral and economic well-being of many in this country?
That the basic building block of society, the family is being systematically attacked, denigrated and choked off by a system of beliefs based on a coreless amoral hubris that elevates hedonism, egotism and entitlement while scorning merit, hard work and accomplishment, and most importantly, the concept of objective truth?
That there is a large majority of people that do not want an unaccountable, so-called enlightened few to completely redefine the basic building blocks of society?
There is indeed a cultural cold war in this country. If you consider the history of this country, the ideals and assumptions upon which it was based, and compare that to what is happening now, you will see that along with those bad things that we have cast aside (slavery, for instance), we are also casting aside those principles that no less than the Founding Fathers found to absolutely necessary to the continued existence of our democratic republic. First and foremost among these is a recognition of and reverence to the Creator of the universe.
Yes, I know, history is irrelevant to you, but to thoughtful people, it is a great source of insight. I'm trying to take your claims of "declaring war" in the context in which they exist. You might sneer at the thoughts of such luminaries as Washington, Jefferson and Madison (although you seem to be the kind of guy who might respect them), but I think they would not recognize the United States as the country they founded. You would probably agree with me on that. But if you compare the visions of religious right and the atheistic left, I think you cannot deny which ideal is closer to that upon which this great nation was formed.
Oh, I know, Bush has launched an imperialist, pre-emptive war against Iraq. I love the way we have all this cheap oil because of it. That's why he did it, right?
Yes, I know, the only reason the Muslims attacked us on 9/11 because we continue to interfere in their affairs. We have no business interfering with their aggression and genocide.
I know that if we all sat down and talked we could come to an agreement that everyone could live with. Except for maybe the Jews that would be driven into the sea. If those idiots hadn't given them their own country in the first place all this wouldn't be a problem. You know those idiots, the U.N.
I know how evil the Americans are, trying to enforce the demands of an impotent and corrupt United Nations (that screwed up so well trying to give the Jews a break after a third of them were slaughtered), while millions are murdered in the name of the so-called religion of peace. I know how foolish it is to show strength to an enemy that only respects force and called for our destruction for many years. My! How 10th century of us. (And yes, I recognize the irony of criticizing the Muslims for being violent in light of the Crusades, which only happened about 800> years ago.)
Last time we tried making nice with the bad guys, tanks were rolling across Poland and millions were slaughtered in ovens. But nowadays it's all our fault that a bunch of barbarians are trying to unleash a nuclear holocaust. Isn't it ironic that all the folks (China, Russia, France, the U.N.) who wanted to "work things out" in Iraq were getting kickbacks from the Oil for Food program? Ho
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, Wesley Snipes with a scalpel can defeat any biometric security out there.
Here's my nanotechnology policy based on the books of Greg Bear. "Blood Music"? Not so good. "Queen of Angels"? Pretty good.
(Yes, I know "Blood Music" wasn't nanotechnology, but it was the same basic idea.)
My wife had laser eye surgery and went from one step above legally blind to almost perfect vision. Aside of multiple warnings from "The Simpsons" and "Futurama" that she'll go blind in 10 years, it's been a perfect solution, and it wasn't THAT expensive.
Like the episode where they must ration the replicator because of power problems (which was cool), but later in the episode they are playing pool on the holodeck. I watched season 1 part of season 2 and part of season 4 (I do think that Seven was a decent character, at least at first).
Johnny Carson quit when he was still on top. Star Trek should have stopped after DS9. Although the last few movies were pretty good. I'm sure people will flame me into tiny cinders, but I thought "Insurrection" and "Nemesis" were quite good. Especially "Insurrection". "First Contact" seemed like a generic SF script shoe-horned into the Star Trek setting. It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't good Star Trek.
Yes, Gilligan's Island was also very watchable, but I wouldn't rate it as a better drama than TNG, and it had the same premise as Voyager.
Plus the Skipper was a far less nasal and annoying leader.
If this were CBS, it would have been pinned on President Bush as a conspirancy by the White House against OSS.
When comparing CBS and the Weekly World News, at least the latter has the decency to make interesting or funny hoaxes.
I'm just impressed someone on /. knows the saying is "interest is piqued" rather than "peaked". Finally someone around here who has actually read a book. Good job, Sentry21.
I'd love to watch it, but I refuse to deal with RealMedia for any reason. Those people are scum and their software sucks.
Here's the funny thing. The Discworld books started off as essentially a parody of fantasy. The problem is that Pratchett is too good of a writer and by the third book, the series took on a life of its own.
The first two ("The Colour of Magic" and "The Light Fastastic") are pretty good, but they pale in comparison to what followed. With "Equal Rites", suddenly the storytelling and characters came to forefront. The humor is always present, including the puns and other intellectual wordplay, but these are just frosting... the story underneath is still thick and meaty. Mmmmm... frosting on meat.
Anyhow, many (or even most) of the stories are allegorical observations on modern society, adding yet another level.
Painting Democrats with such a broad brush is exactly how Republicans operate. Oh, they're all Michael Moore. They're all leftist Commies.
I'm not saying that, just that they are doing a good job of looking like that. Regardless of whose decision it was.
Hiring Howard "Hate Republicans" Dean is just as damaging in my mind, but I guess I'm not their targeted audience.
As far as your complaints about Republicans, if you think the Democrats are any different, you're fooling yourself. They are as venemous and hateful as anyone this side of David Duke.
Or Howandaland...
Terry Pratchett writes a book that's a better movie than Hollywood can make using an actual movie. It's amazing how he does it. It's a combination of pacing, dialog, humor and grand vision. I don't know what's more amazing, the fact that he can do it so well or the fact that he's maintained this style and skill through almost 20 years and 30 books.
Sure, some Discworld books are better than others (and "Lords and Ladies" is in my top 3 for sure), but they are all good.
I was re-re-rereading "Men at Arms" last night and enjoying (once again) translating Gargoyle speech. That and the French and Latin puns, brilliant and sharp satire, plus tons of believeable and funny and likeable characters, and a world as richly detailed as Tolkien's, combine to make the best fiction reading ever.
Except once you get through the analog hole, you're free and clear. I'm guessing no watermark could possibly survive that without visual artifacts. In fact, I have a hard time believing watermarks could survive transcoding either, but those math types working for Macrovision, et al, are a lot smarter than me.
Still, they are fighting a battle they can never win. The media companies will continue to look increasingly foolish until they embrace the technology. While I do download some broadcast TV shows a la using a TiVo, I would gladly pay to do so.
Even though it's a naive thought, it seems to me that if the commericals were left in, the TV studios wouldn't have much to complain about. I mean, isn't the whole point of TV to get us to watch the commercials? Like Homer says, "If you don't watch the commercials, it's stealing." I remember that with amusement when the commercial breaks on talk radio come on and I pop in a CD for a track or 2 (or if it's Transatlantic or the Flower Kings, pop it in for a track and end up coming back during the _next_ commercial break... D'Oh!)
You assume that all the items used to copy something are digital. They'll take my analog VCR from me when they can pry it from my cold, dead hands.
There's a difference between being a member of the press at a function (which was the capacity in which he was acting), and being an honored guest.
If he had merely been invited to the DNC convention, I wouldn't have thought anything of it... I'm sure there were plenty of nuts at the RNC convention, but by putting him in the Presidential box, they not only legitimized him, but aligned themselves with his rabid, hateful, spittle-spewing, sensationalist rhoetoric. In other words, they imply that he is what they are all about.
It seems to me that any administration we have is going to be doing this kind of stuff. I can't imagine either this or the last administration going against the likes of Disney on this issue.
Don't forget Orrin Hatch wants to be able remotely destroy your computer.
Yeah, but given the U.N.'s history, they're likely to put the Christmas Islands in charge of domains.
How clueless must advertising executives be?
Stupid enough that they can't find real work. It's just like telemarketers. Just because you're too dumb to do something useful doesn't give you the right to demand that I tolerate you harassing me.
Interesting too, that Bush just signed the Class Action Fairness Act that limits the amount of winnings that can be pursued in this kind of litigation.
Perhaps, but it seems the only effect of a class action lawsuit is that the lawyers walk away with millions while all the members of the "class" get checks for something like $6 a piece.
please don't use that fat ugly m-f'er michael moore and his propoganda movies as a statement or representative of the DNC
You know, I'd love to believe you because I wouldn't wish Moore on Osama bin Laden leave alone any American political party, but the fact that Moore was seated in the Presidential Box at the Democratic convention kinda goes against your assertion. Between that and Howard "I Hate Republicans and Everything They Stand For" Dean, the Democrats have forfeited the White House for at least a generation, which is a shame. I have never voted for a Democrat for President, and probably never will, but it woulod be nice to have some real competition to help keep the Republicans honest, and at this rate, I think we're looking at another 1964 or even 1984. No offense to Democrats, but your party is self-destructing. Too bad they can't put the good Democrats (and there are many) on the top instead of the nutcakes and droners.
Modern day prostitution comes with those things because it's illegal.
You're right. They legalized gambling in Nevada and all the related crime went away.
Wow. There's a Channel FIVE now? What progress. ;-)
Well there is some impressive and dense prose up there but you did wander off the deep end enough times that yea I think it probably does suggest wacko more than statesman.
Thank you. I'd hate to be thought of as a statesman.
You rambled so much, and made some giant leaps where its not even clear what you are talking about exactly and its probably dangerous for me to even try to rebut it but there are few points that probably should be made.
Well, this was primarily because I was responding to your largely ad hominem comments about President Bush and Christians. Given that there was nothing specific to respond to, I did in fact ramble quite a bit.
You see I want, and I think our founding fathers wanted a country where if you wanted to be a religious fanatic and stay married for life to someone you hate because your beliefs say you can't divorce, and have 10 children you can and no one should ever say you cant.
Not all of us hate our spouses. I for one am totally infatuated with my wife of 12 years. She's my best friend and soulmate. And I only have 4 kids, because we haven't been able to have a fifth.
But then too the framework they founded suggests that if you choose to not subscribe to a religion or subscribe to one that is abhorred by the majority that is your right too and you should not be discriminated against or persecuted for making that choice. If, for whatever reason, monogomous heterosexual marriage is not suited to your view on life, well that should be your right too, and it is fundementally wrong for people like you to start railing against anyone who chooses to not subscribe to your rigid view of acceptable societal building blocks.
You do in fact have the right to do what you choose, however, I see no reason to redefine marriage which has been defined constantly in Western society for thousands of years. If precedence is any basis, there's much more reason to accept polygamy, but no one (aside from some Utah nutcakes) is calling for that. However, if gay marriage is ever passed, polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, marriage to siblings and just about anything else cannot be denied. The institution then becomes meaningless, as people will exercise it merely for financial benefit (as opposed to a small minority today).
To summarize I don't have the right to tell you to not follow your religion, nor do you have the right to tell me I must have a religion. If I take action that precludes you from following your religion I'm in the wrong, if you take action to attempt to inflict your religion on me, against my will and in the public square, you are equally in the wrong.
Fair enough.
Our founding fathers established the concept of separation of church and state because many of them fled religious persecution in Europe, persecution that arose precisely because a single religion established itself as the state religion and any citizen of the state that didn't accept that religion would be subjected to both religious and civil persecution.
Specifically they said that the government would not establish or require a religion. As far as I'm concerned, and on the basis of everything up to about 40 years ago, this has been taken way farther than was ever meant or needed.
The thing most rabid Christians completely don't get
I don't know any so I can't say...
Religion and family beliefs like sexual preference are personal and private and they should stay personal and private between your family and your church.
Yeah, we don't want to force those Christian morals on others. You know, all that archaic stuff like "You shall not kill." or "You shall not steal." That's so first millenium.
As soon as you start putting the ten commandments or the Koran in a courtroom you are saying to people who aren't Judeo-Christian or Muslim respectively that justice, rather
Whadaya expect from a country that has FOUR channels?!
We Americans lead the world in quantities of cheap, mindless TV. We are the envy of the world! And half of it is copied from British TV in the first place.
That would require forgetting 25 years of allowing applications to act like they own the entire machine and OS.
This would have never happened if MS had put a little thought into developing apps for user accounts. Since they didn't bother, neither did anyone else, and you can't do diddly on Windows without being an admin.
I actually discovered how bad it is in 2003 when, for the first time ever, I had a computer at work on which I was not alllowed to be an admin. This wouldn't have been so bad if the IT department hadn't consisted of a bunch of arrogant no-nothings who had no idea what they were doing. Fortunately, for my sanity, I got laid off. It's not a good idea to quit a job that sucks after being out of work for a year, but it's also not good to go postal either.
A reporter (and copy writer and editor) that can't do math?! Get outta here.
Next thing, you'll tell me they're biased. Or that good video game reviews are bought and sold. Or that the radio industry is still engaging in payola.
What does history have to do with it, we are talking about current events here?
Yes, clearly you have completely missed my point. No wonder you think I'm a wacko since you seem incapable of piecing anything together.
Let me state it again.
Upon what basis do you conclude that the "religious right" has "declared war"?
The fact that almost every institution of the past two centries in this country are being attempted to be dismantled by deconstructionists, moral relativists and nihilists posing as modern, enlightened thinkers?
That such a dismantling has coincided with significant declines in the moral and economic well-being of many in this country?
That the basic building block of society, the family is being systematically attacked, denigrated and choked off by a system of beliefs based on a coreless amoral hubris that elevates hedonism, egotism and entitlement while scorning merit, hard work and accomplishment, and most importantly, the concept of objective truth?
That there is a large majority of people that do not want an unaccountable, so-called enlightened few to completely redefine the basic building blocks of society?
There is indeed a cultural cold war in this country. If you consider the history of this country, the ideals and assumptions upon which it was based, and compare that to what is happening now, you will see that along with those bad things that we have cast aside (slavery, for instance), we are also casting aside those principles that no less than the Founding Fathers found to absolutely necessary to the continued existence of our democratic republic. First and foremost among these is a recognition of and reverence to the Creator of the universe.
Yes, I know, history is irrelevant to you, but to thoughtful people, it is a great source of insight. I'm trying to take your claims of "declaring war" in the context in which they exist. You might sneer at the thoughts of such luminaries as Washington, Jefferson and Madison (although you seem to be the kind of guy who might respect them), but I think they would not recognize the United States as the country they founded. You would probably agree with me on that. But if you compare the visions of religious right and the atheistic left, I think you cannot deny which ideal is closer to that upon which this great nation was formed.
Oh, I know, Bush has launched an imperialist, pre-emptive war against Iraq. I love the way we have all this cheap oil because of it. That's why he did it, right?
Yes, I know, the only reason the Muslims attacked us on 9/11 because we continue to interfere in their affairs. We have no business interfering with their aggression and genocide.
I know that if we all sat down and talked we could come to an agreement that everyone could live with. Except for maybe the Jews that would be driven into the sea. If those idiots hadn't given them their own country in the first place all this wouldn't be a problem. You know those idiots, the U.N.
I know how evil the Americans are, trying to enforce the demands of an impotent and corrupt United Nations (that screwed up so well trying to give the Jews a break after a third of them were slaughtered), while millions are murdered in the name of the so-called religion of peace. I know how foolish it is to show strength to an enemy that only respects force and called for our destruction for many years. My! How 10th century of us. (And yes, I recognize the irony of criticizing the Muslims for being violent in light of the Crusades, which only happened about 800> years ago.)
Last time we tried making nice with the bad guys, tanks were rolling across Poland and millions were slaughtered in ovens. But nowadays it's all our fault that a bunch of barbarians are trying to unleash a nuclear holocaust. Isn't it ironic that all the folks (China, Russia, France, the U.N.) who wanted to "work things out" in Iraq were getting kickbacks from the Oil for Food program? Ho