...if this isn't "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that matters" then I don't know what is:
Tarantino's Kill Bill sliced into two movies
BBC News is carrying a story that Kill Bill, Quentin Tarantino's forthcoming martial arts movie Kill Bill is to be divided into two films. The film, starring Uma Thurman as a female assassin, is being released as two separate 90-minute movies after the early version weighed in at three hours. Miramax decided to divide the film over fears it would lose ticket sales because of its original length. Aren't we all annually queuing up to watch The Lord Of The Rings movies, running at 178 and 179 minutes? Wasn't in just a few years ago we had Titanic running at 194 minutes? And weren't all those blockbusters of yesteryear - eg, Ben Hur (212-222 minutes) and The Ten Commandments (220 minutes) - all about 3 hours in length?
So Kill Bill doesn't register on Slashdot's radar? Yeah right. Want to bet that we see a review of the movie on the front page as soon as it's released?
Tell your friend to go out on a date with the woman. On that date, have him drop some pretty major hints that he's one of the following:
1. closet gay, shy about coming out; 2. still recovering from a STD; 3. unable to sustain an erection because of a personal trauma; 4. maintaining a long distance relationship with a girl he's never met but hopes to meet up with in a year a so; 5. currently celibate because of a bad breakup; 6. saving himself for when he's married.
Any of these give him plenty of reasons not to take up her advances yet give her slim hope for the future. With any luck, that slim hope will translate into getting your friend more work beyond his current contract but lessening the attention that he'll get from his supervisor.
Remember, the trick is getting her to back off from being all over him but without making her feel totally rejected. If she thinks the door might be open for her just a crack, or that it might open for her down the line, then she'll have a reason to keep him around.
At the very least, your friend should try to avoid a confrontation at any cost. If he doesn't "break her heart" then she might keep him on as eye candy. If he does, then she might just bitch about him "not being a team player" or "having an attitude" to other potential employers.
"Petty and childish"? You're original post was just a "suxx to be European" rant and you have the gall to call someone else petty and childish?
Wonder why that post was modded down as both a troll and flamebait. Because it was a troll and flamebait. That somebody pointed it out and that others moderated it as such isn't surprising and it certainly isn't anything new - the same thing happens to a couple of posts on almost every story.
Do you really think that your post wouldn't have been moderated down if aspervius hadn't written anything? Do you not think that any of the people who modded it down have brains of their own and were able to come to their own conclusions as to how (if at all) it should be moderated? Do you really not understand why it is a troll or why it is flamebait? Do you not understand what those words mean?
The very fact that pointing out the obvious reduces you to the level of personal attacks indicates how mature you are. "Super Dork - Defender Of The Lame Post"? Wow. I am so hurt. How will I ever recover from your vicious barb?
Don't want to be moderated down? Well, post more sensible comments then. Better still, if this is as intelligent and as coherent as your posts get then stop posting altogether.
Yeah, criticise aepervius's poor spelling. Let him know how badly it "suxx".
Apart from the US spelling of "humor" the only mispelt word in his entire post is the typo of "speech". Granted, his grammar might not be perfect but, as English most probably isn't his first language, that's excusable.
I'd like to see your French, German or Spanish grammar stand up to a rigorous inspection but I doubt that you're able to speak any foreign languages at all.
Ryan Kingsbury writes "The world's longest solar car race kicked off to a sunny start today in Chicago! The American Solar Challenge, which is only held every two years, runs 11 gruelling days along historic Route 66. Race updates can be found at the official site. One big surprise was that last year's winner (University of Michigan) didn't make it through prerace qualifications. This will certainly give some lower budget teams a chance at gold. Details of qualifications can be found here."
So, the race is held every two years. It kicked off today. But last year's winner didn't qualify?
Perhaps that's because they were expecting the next race to be in 2004?
For example, your claim that "millions" died b/c of the bombing of a Sudanese pharma plant comes straight from Chomsky, whether you know it or not, and is complete b*llsh*t speculation.
You really should learn to read. What I said was this:
"Bombing pharmaceutical factories, thereby denying basic medicines to millions..."
I wrote "denying basic medicines", you read "died". If you're going to attack what I have to say at least have the courtesy to actually read what I've said and attack that with facts, not your twisted version of what I've said.
Clinton didn't intervene until he had no choice, but the fact remains that once the US started bombing in Bosnia and then Kosovo the fighting soon stopped. Better than the Eurotrash record, no?, which was to act as concentration camp kapos for the Serbs: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica
First of all, while it won't make a blind bit of difference to this argument, I'll tell you how I felt at the time when the events were actually taking place: sick and disgusted. Not just because of what was going on but because the world, including my own government, seemed almost happy to ignore the issue.
But let's not pretend that the US came charging in on a white knight to rescue those thousands and to punish their murderers - the US like the rest of the world did nothing to intervene. And, let's not forget that the incident wasn't exactly hushed up, it was thoroughly investigated.
In fact, the Dutch, whose peacekeepers were policing the area were so ashamed by the whole affair that the resultant investigation forced the resignation of their Prime Minister and other members of government. When was the last time an American President or politician displayed a similar act of contrition?
But back to Sudan, which was the original topic of dicussion before you tried to sidetrack us with the smoke and mirrors.
On August 20, 1998, the US bombed Sudan, targetting a pharmaceutical factory, which it said was linked to Osama bin Laden and was being used to make VX nerve gas. The US accusations were strongly denied by Sudan and condemned by many in the US and in the international community as an attempt by Bill Clinton to distract attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
How many Sudanese lives were lost as a result of the bombing? Well, given that it was responsible for producing 60 percent of the medicines available in Sudan, that Sudan was suffering from famine and a civil war at the time, and that the country was heavily in debt and under a trade embargo from the US, it's fair to say that the disruption in the supply of vital medicines cost thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of lives. This was a plant that produced everything from antibiotics, malaria tablets and syrups, to drugs for hypertension, diabetes, ulcer, tuberculosis and rheumatism.
And, of course, 300 night shift workers were killed when the bombs struck.
Once again, feel free to attack any of this - if you can come up with facts to back up your words.
(And, by the way, I've used links from CNN.com intentionally. Last time I checked, they weren't being dismissed as being "a left-wing rag".)
God, Chomskyites are really degenerate. They wet themselves imagining how they would have bravely stood up to fascism if they had been around in the '30's, yet when the greatest act of barbarism in Europe since WW II occurred (I mean genocide in the Balkans, not the Eurovision Song contest) they sided with the barbarians b/c they so hate America.
"Like I said, educate yourself. You'll be shocked by what you'll find out."
And of course the unpopularity of their positions is b/c they only know the truth, and everyone else has been brain-washed. Yeah, go on about how the New York Times exaggerated the Cambodian Marxist genocide.
There's a reason why you posted as an AC, it's because you prefer to stay anonymous, and you are a coward.
First of all, I've never read (or heard) a single word of Chomsky. I'm not from the US, I'm from Britain and, as I've said before, I prefer to look for news sources that give me unbiased facts.
My post didn't mention the Balkans once, it touched on Sudan, Chile, Cuba and Iraq, so why aren't you talking about any of those places? Is it because overzealous US action in those countries showed clearly how US intervention isn't always wanted or benevolent?
But now that you've mentioned the Balkans let's talk about them. How many troops did the US commit in Bosnia, Croatia or elsewhere in the former Yougoslavia? None. US involvement in that horrific civil war was at a distance and token at best when compared to the efforts of its NATO allies. To suggest that the US was committed to preventing genocide in that conflict is a joke - commitment would have meant intervention, and that's one thing the US avoided like the plague.
Please feel free to provide any facts - yes, facts - that you want to that counter anything that I've said here or elsewhere or to that support your argument. I doubt that you'll do so though - you seem to be real big on avoiding the truth.
Seriously, would it kill you to do what Colin Powell did when asked about Chile and admit that you got it wrong?
I don't hate America, in fact I greatly admire the ideal behind it. It's the peversion of that ideal and its "might is right" foreign policy that I question. Why is it that you put freedom on such a pedestal but are so quick to attack others for execising free speech? Are you really that afraid of what they have to say?
Actualy, it has been reported quite widely that the Iraqi public supported the removal of saddam, their only qualm with the US is that tehy want to begin running their country soon.
Didn't I say that? What do you think this paragraph meant?:
I think it's fair to say that Saddam Hussein wasn't universally loved but it's also fair to say that the Iraqi people are highly suspicious of liberators who have denied them electricity and running water, who restrict their movements, who conduct house-to-house searches and who's actions in many ways are almost as oppressive as those of the regime that they displaced.
And as for where I get my news from, well let's just say it's not from anyone who wants to give me just one side of the story, which is what you'll get on Fox, CNN, etc. If you think that their coverage of the war is fair and even then perhaps you should reread the last paragraph of my post:
You might switch on your TV today and hear that another US soldier has been killed by Iraqis but how often do you switch on your TV and hear how many Iraqis were killed by US soldiers today?
By the way, I have no idea what ANSWER is. I think I'll go find out for myself what you're talking about. Can you honestly say that you'll make the same effort to educate yourself on the issues on which you're so in the dark?
The only way to handle it is to make the price of terrorism too high. Nothing to gain and everything to lose. And that goes for anyone aiding, funding, or supporting those activities.
Well "aiding, fundnig or supporting" terrorists has been the modus operandi for the CIA for half a century. Osama bin Laden's just one of many terrorists that the US has funded, backed and supplied with arms and training.
And, the US government which argues that "you're either with us or you're against us" in fighting terrorism now hasn't always been so supportive of the terrorist threats faced by its allies. When Margeret Thatcher asked then President George Bush Sr. to help stem the flow of money to the IRA from its US supporters she was told to take a hike. Why? Because denying Americans the right to fund a terrorist organisation that's killed, maimed and attacked thousands of British men, women and children - including civilians, the military, the police, the royal family and politicians including Thatcher herself - is, get this, "unconstitutional" as it's a violation of "free speech". Yeah right.
I'm not going to start arguing with you about every last detail of what you've said (quite simply because I don't have the time) but I will quickly respond to one comment you made.
The US isn't spending $4 billion a month on the rebuilding of Iraq. If anyone's spending billions on rebuilding in Iraq it's the Iraqi people - it's their oil that's paying for the repair of the damage done by the US. And it's predominantly American companies that are doing the rebuilding.
So, in a way, Dubya's using the destruction and reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure to kickstart the stagnant US economy - military contractors win new business and so do civilian contractors. But don't kid yourself into believing that American money is paying for it.
if EVERY person in Iraq were against the US then yes, unfortunatly it is a very small minority of Iraqis who were very loyal to sadam becasue of their relationship with his regime that are fighting...those people as well as forgin fighters and Iranian agents are at the source of the trouble.....the Iraqi population liked what the US did and right now just wants a greater voice (which they are begining to get) in the running of the US interum athority.
And you know this because:
i) Fox News told you it's true; ii) The US government (the same one that's admitted to distorting the fact before, during and after the war) says it's true; iii) You've carried out an extensive survey of Iraqi puclic opinion; or iv) You're guessing?
Face facts, you don't have any idea what percentage of the Iraqi people are pro- or anti-US. To turn your argument on its head, just because you saw a few hundred or a few thousand people out in the streets celebrating the fall of Saddam Hussein's government it doesn't mean thet Iraqi people supported the invasion.
I think it's fair to say that Saddam Hussein wasn't universally loved but it's also fair to say that the Iraqi people are highly suspicious of liberators who have denied them electricity and running water, who restrict their movements, who conduct house-to-house searches and who's actions in many ways are almost as oppressive as those of the regime that they displaced.
You might switch on your TV today and hear that another US soldier has been killed by Iraqis but how often do you switch on your TV and hear how many Iraqis were killed by US soldiers today?
France has its own carrier fleet and Germany, for historic reasons, doesn't.
You act like terrorism is something that uniquely affects the US when it clearly isn't. France, Germany and just about every country in Europe faced the threat of terrorism way before September 11th or the Oklohoma City bombing.
Why is it that the only response you can think of to a terrorist threat is aggression? Isn't diplomacy ever worth trying?
Should the British government have turned Northern Ireland into a killing zone and put a tank on every street corner? Is the Northern Ireland peace process selling out to terrorists, or is it a genuine attempt to deal with the issues that caused the troubles in the first place?
The total number of people killed by the British security forces in over 30 years of terrorist activity by the IRA and others is only 40. If the British government had been as aggressive as Israel in responding to even the smallest terrorist incident then Britain and Ireland would be no better than Israel, the occupied territories and Lebanon.
Which government do you think has dealt with the problem better, Britain or Israel? Where would you feel safer living, London or Tel Aviv?
And I haven't even mentioned how futile it is to think that you can eliminate terrorism through force - bombing people to hell and back doesn't win you friends, only more enemies.
And following that logic, the next one will be named the USS William Clinton, right?
Who knows. But it's exactly this sort of naming convention that will seriously embarrass the US sooner or later. Imagine a vessel named after a President who later turns out to have stolen millions, or the sort of fuss that'll be kicked up when one's sent to a country that the CinC it's named after had attacked several years earlier?
How good would it look if their was an aircraft carrier called the USS Richard Nixon?
people defending their homeland from an illegal invasion are political radicals?
I think you've just hung yourself there, buddy. Aren't the Iraqis who are resisting the US/UK presence in their own country just "people defending their homeland from an illegal invasion"?
I'm British, and I'm sorry to say that my Government has sent our soldiers to Iraq to kill and to die in an illegal war that need not have happened. That's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of most the British people, most NATO countries, most of the western world, and most of the world period. Oh, and not every American's in favour of the war either.
Why don't you take this as an opportunity to educate yourself? Do that and you'll be able to give a more balanced response in future.
Right now, you really have no idea what has been and what is being done by your government. 1998 was only five years ago and yet you have no idea what the US did to Sudan that year.
Bombing pharmaceutical factories, thereby denying basic medicines to millions, because your faulty intelligence told you that they're chemical weapons plants, and then blocking all efforts by the United Nations to independently verify the facts isn't the kind of action that gets a lot of front page coverage. Indeed, it's just the kind of action that gets quietly swept under the carpet and forgotten, which is why you have no clue about why Sudan is on this list.
Seriously, don't take my word for it, go find out yourself.
Educate yourself on all the issues here, because even the ones that you think you know about you seem to be pretty ignorant about too. For example, Iraq 1990-1:
The US didn't want to get involved after the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, it was the British government's tough stance that drew George Bush Sr. into that war. Previously, the US had backed Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, supplied it with chemical weapons, etc and hadn't given a damn for any of millions that he had oppressed or killed. None of that mattered when he was the US's buddy and if you think the US went to war over mass graves then you are either very naive, or stupid.
Like I said, educate yourself. You'll be shocked by what you'll find out.
Err, why don't you check the facts as available from the US Department of Defense, CIA, State Department, etc.
You want killing?
The US forces in Vietnam alone killed 3-4 million South East Asians (including many from the neighbouring nations).
There's your millions dead.
You want agony, poverty and despair?
Well, try one of the countless Latin American countries either invaded or destabilised by US forces since WW2. Chile, for example, where the CIA assassinated a democratically elected President and replaced him with a military dictator, General Pinochet. Pinochet tortured and oppressed his people, murdered what few political opponents were left, and he did all this with the full-backing of the US.
Cuba's a poor, economically depressed nation. Why? Because of US sanctions and the US's aggressive stance towards nations that will do business with Castro's government. Why are the people of Cuba still being punished for a revolution that took place almost 50 years ago?
Right now, even as we speak, the people of Iraq are still without electricity (and in most cases, running water) months after the fall of Baghdad. Why is that? It's not because they don't have enough oil to fire up the power plants is it? It's because all the power plants were destroyed by US forces during the war and the US interim administration still hasn't done anything to restore power supplies.
Hmmm, perhaps I haven't made myself 100 percent clear on why I think "tainted" is perhaps a poor description for a kernel that isn't fully open source.
As I said in my lengthy (because it of some cut and paste dictionary definitions) reply to another poster, "tainted" is a synonym of "infected".
Now, which of these is worse:
1. A Windows PC that's been infected by a virus.
2. A Linux PC that's been "tainted" by a video card driver from ATi.
Obviously, the first scenario's worse than the second one because in the first one, something's definitely wrong whereas in the second one, there's only the very slim possibility that something might be wrong.
Now let's introduce a third PC to our world:
3. A Linux PC running fully open source code.
Now is this system any more secure than the second one? In theory the answer is yes but in reality the answer is perhaps. Just because this you can the code running on this new machine is openly available for public inspection, it doesn't mean that every single line of code has been thoroughly inspected and verified problem free.
Let's not forget that Linux vulnerabilities are found from time to time, which means that it's highly likely that this latest machine isn't truly problem free. (And let's not rehash old ground - I know and you know that most of these vulnerabilities are found and/or tracked down faster because the source code is readily available, which is a good thing.)
Obviously, ATi has its reasons for not making its drivers open source, no doubt commercial ones. But at the same time, ATi must know that its Linux code must be whiter than white, otherwise its reputation (on that platform at least) will be irrevokably damaged.
If I'm the guy in charge of the Linux drivers for ATi, I'm making damn sure that those drivers aren't released until they've been checked, rechecked and then rechecked again by my own people, then verified as secure by an independent team of coders before I even think of releasing them to the Linux community. Remember, I know that Linux users are like elephants - they never forget - so the last thing I want to do is release code that I'm not 100 percent confident in.
Now I'm not the guy who's in charge of ATi's code (and I don't work for them or any other hardware or software manufacturer) but I have no doubt that the guy who is making these decisions knows just as well as I do how important it is that ATi's Linux code is clean. After all, if he's the guy who responsible for giving a script kiddie root access to hundreds of thousands PCs then he's going to have a hard time ever getting a job in the industry again - that alone is a pretty big incentive to get things right.
Anyhow, let's look at how secure our three PCs really are:
1. Virus infected Windows PC - badly compromised, in need of immediate attention.
2. Linux PC with some closed source drivers - OK but potentially compromised (if we're being paranoid).
3. Linux PC running fully open source code - ideal but potentially compromised (if we're being paranoid).
For all practical purposes, 2 and 3 are just as secure as each other. You can argue until you're blue in the face that the opposite is true but if you're that paranoid about a couple of MB of worth closed source drivers then you've can't ignore the potential threats that might be present in hundreds of MB of open source code.
Grrr. And I've said more than once that I didn't want to talk about open vs closed source code.
Anyhow the my point again is this: "tainted" to most people is the same thing as "infected", so when you turn around to your non-technical CEO or CFO and describe your latest server as "tainted", he's not going to be worrying about closed source code he's going to be worrying about his business being severely disrupted and/or melting down right then and there.
I apologise for the long answer but I wanted to respond to your comment with accurate facts. Here we go:
"Taint" seems quite apt to me. Sure, it isn't positive, but you associate "taint" with "very negative images". Are you really Ned Flanders? This isn't the F-word. It stems from a word meaning "to dye". It evokes corruption only in the sense of adding something foreign to something pure -- like a stain, or pee in a pool. That's hardly "dramatic" or "apocalyptic". I doubt anyone will "panic" over this.
taint v. tainted, tainting, taints v. tr. To affect with or as if with a disease. To affect with decay or putrefaction; spoil. See Synonyms at contaminate. To corrupt morally. To affect with a tinge of something reprehensible.
v. intr. To become affected with decay or putrefaction; spoil.
n. A moral defect considered as a stain or spot. See Synonyms at stain. An infecting touch, influence, or tinge.
[Partly from obsolete taynt, to color, dye (from Anglo-Norman teint, from past participle of teindre, from Latin tingere), and partly from Middle English tainten, to convict (short for atteinten, from Old French ataint, past participle of ataindre, to attain, touch upon. See attain).] taintless adj. taintlessly adv. taintlessness n.
So, "taint" doesn't mean "dye", unless you're from 11th century England. It does, however, is shown to have a lot of negative meanings.
If I wanted a New York Yankees cap I could find one in practically every major sports shop, ditto a Dallas Cowboys or Chicago Bulls cap. I find it more than annoying that if you happen to support a team that doesn't have a recent near-monopoly on success finding a cap is nigh on impossible.
In the last twelve years, that being the period for which I've followed major US sports, I've only ever seen a Houston Astros cap once, I've only seen Houston Rockets merchandise after they won back-to-back championships (but not since), and I've yet to see a Tennessee cap one either. (I do, however, have an old Houston Oilers cap.)
It's got to the point where my choices are buying a cap for £20 ($30) from an sporting goods importer and waiting four weeks for the priviledge or asking a relative in the US to buy a $10 one locally and mail it to me, which even with the shipping would be half the price that the damn thing would cost me here.
And, for the record, I don't support Manchester United either. I am, and always will be, devoted to The Mighty Reds, Liverpool.
The fault is only present in the Sony VAIO FR and FRV models. Of the 18,000 most are in Japan, with only 3,000 in the US and 2,000 in Europe. The actual part in question is the modem.
I'm not sure if 18,000 represents the total number of the FR and FRV series shipped in total or if that's the number of units that shipped with this particular modem but I'm sure that via batch testing, etc Sony is recalling the right number of units.
Why? Because now that they are going to the trouble of a recall it makes very little sense to recall fewer units than might be possibly affected, if only because of the potential of litigation if a non-recalled unit were to harm a person.
If a non-recalled unit hurt someone, Sony would have a very weak position in court as it has already conceded that this problem exists, that it isn't isolated, that it knows about it and that it's potentially dangerous.
Anyhow, read the BBC article (which I referenced when I submitted the same story earlier today) for more info.
Taint may well be a technical term but the common usage of the word evokes very negative images, and its usage here is clumsy at best.
Tell someone who doesn't know this technical term that their system is tainted and they'll probably panic, imagining that their PC has been hit by a virus, trojan horse or other undesirable event, where the reality couldn't be further from the truth. (We'll leave the debate about the pros and cons of closed source drivers to another discussion.)
There's got to be a better way of describing a kernel that contains closed source software that isn't so dramatic or apocalyptic. How about "ajar"? At least "ajar" is a better, less ambiguous, description - to me it says "not 100 percent open, and not 100 pecent closed", which is what we're talking about.
One quick way to remedy that: have the US declare war on Hungary. Before September 11th, most Americans couldn't tell you where Afghanistan was on a map and I'd bet that most of them couldn't tell you today the name of its capital (and this only a year or so after a US invasion).
I visited my cousin in US during the summer of 1989. I was shocked to hear a contestant on a game show who was asked to name five countries in South America include Spain and Portugal in his answer. Similarly, a poll in the paper at the time showed that most American high school students thought that Britain was off the coast of Florida. I can't help but think that another 14 years has made the situation worse rather than better, especially with the US public education system in such a sorry state.
There are ignorant people everywhere but it does the US no favours to pretend that they don't flourish within its boundaries. For proof you only have to look at George W Bush, who can't even string together two intelligent sentences if his words haven't been scripted for him by a speechwriter beforehand - and he has the benefit of an Ivy league education.
Unfortunately, to most US companies "international" means "we sell to Canada" or perhaps even just "we ship to Hawaii".
I find it ridiculous that I can't buy something as simple as a baseball cap from the official MLB.com site because I'm not in North America. I mean, how much harder is it to ship a baseball cap to London than Los Angeles? Where's the support issue with a one-size piece of clothing?
Slashdot Mirror
...if this isn't "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that matters" then I don't know what is:
Tarantino's Kill Bill sliced into two movies
BBC News is carrying a story that Kill Bill, Quentin Tarantino's forthcoming martial arts movie Kill Bill is to be divided into two films. The film, starring Uma Thurman as a female assassin, is being released as two separate 90-minute movies after the early version weighed in at three hours. Miramax decided to divide the film over fears it would lose ticket sales because of its original length. Aren't we all annually queuing up to watch The Lord Of The Rings movies, running at 178 and 179 minutes? Wasn't in just a few years ago we had Titanic running at 194 minutes? And weren't all those blockbusters of yesteryear - eg, Ben Hur (212-222 minutes) and The Ten Commandments (220 minutes) - all about 3 hours in length?
So Kill Bill doesn't register on Slashdot's radar? Yeah right. Want to bet that we see a review of the movie on the front page as soon as it's released?
Tell your friend to go out on a date with the woman. On that date, have him drop some pretty major hints that he's one of the following:
1. closet gay, shy about coming out;
2. still recovering from a STD;
3. unable to sustain an erection because of a personal trauma;
4. maintaining a long distance relationship with a girl he's never met but hopes to meet up with in a year a so;
5. currently celibate because of a bad breakup;
6. saving himself for when he's married.
Any of these give him plenty of reasons not to take up her advances yet give her slim hope for the future. With any luck, that slim hope will translate into getting your friend more work beyond his current contract but lessening the attention that he'll get from his supervisor.
Remember, the trick is getting her to back off from being all over him but without making her feel totally rejected. If she thinks the door might be open for her just a crack, or that it might open for her down the line, then she'll have a reason to keep him around.
At the very least, your friend should try to avoid a confrontation at any cost. If he doesn't "break her heart" then she might keep him on as eye candy. If he does, then she might just bitch about him "not being a team player" or "having an attitude" to other potential employers.
...you get first dibs on slashdotting everyones servers!
"Petty and childish"? You're original post was just a "suxx to be European" rant and you have the gall to call someone else petty and childish?
Wonder why that post was modded down as both a troll and flamebait. Because it was a troll and flamebait. That somebody pointed it out and that others moderated it as such isn't surprising and it certainly isn't anything new - the same thing happens to a couple of posts on almost every story.
Do you really think that your post wouldn't have been moderated down if aspervius hadn't written anything? Do you not think that any of the people who modded it down have brains of their own and were able to come to their own conclusions as to how (if at all) it should be moderated? Do you really not understand why it is a troll or why it is flamebait? Do you not understand what those words mean?
The very fact that pointing out the obvious reduces you to the level of personal attacks indicates how mature you are. "Super Dork - Defender Of The Lame Post"? Wow. I am so hurt. How will I ever recover from your vicious barb?
Don't want to be moderated down? Well, post more sensible comments then. Better still, if this is as intelligent and as coherent as your posts get then stop posting altogether.
Yeah, criticise aepervius's poor spelling. Let him know how badly it "suxx".
Apart from the US spelling of "humor" the only mispelt word in his entire post is the typo of "speech". Granted, his grammar might not be perfect but, as English most probably isn't his first language, that's excusable.
I'd like to see your French, German or Spanish grammar stand up to a rigorous inspection but I doubt that you're able to speak any foreign languages at all.
Stop being a petty little man and grow up.
Ryan Kingsbury writes "The world's longest solar car race kicked off to a sunny start today in Chicago! The American Solar Challenge, which is only held every two years, runs 11 gruelling days along historic Route 66. Race updates can be found at the official site. One big surprise was that last year's winner (University of Michigan) didn't make it through prerace qualifications. This will certainly give some lower budget teams a chance at gold. Details of qualifications can be found here."
So, the race is held every two years. It kicked off today. But last year's winner didn't qualify?
Perhaps that's because they were expecting the next race to be in 2004?
For example, your claim that "millions" died b/c of the bombing of a Sudanese pharma plant comes straight from Chomsky, whether you know it or not, and is complete b*llsh*t speculation.
You really should learn to read. What I said was this:
"Bombing pharmaceutical factories, thereby denying basic medicines to millions..."
I wrote "denying basic medicines", you read "died". If you're going to attack what I have to say at least have the courtesy to actually read what I've said and attack that with facts, not your twisted version of what I've said.
Clinton didn't intervene until he had no choice, but the fact remains that once the US started bombing in Bosnia and then Kosovo the fighting soon stopped. Better than the Eurotrash record, no?, which was to act as concentration camp kapos for the Serbs: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica
First of all, while it won't make a blind bit of difference to this argument, I'll tell you how I felt at the time when the events were actually taking place: sick and disgusted. Not just because of what was going on but because the world, including my own government, seemed almost happy to ignore the issue.
But let's not pretend that the US came charging in on a white knight to rescue those thousands and to punish their murderers - the US like the rest of the world did nothing to intervene. And, let's not forget that the incident wasn't exactly hushed up, it was thoroughly investigated.
In fact, the Dutch, whose peacekeepers were policing the area were so ashamed by the whole affair that the resultant investigation forced the resignation of their Prime Minister and other members of government. When was the last time an American President or politician displayed a similar act of contrition?
But back to Sudan, which was the original topic of dicussion before you tried to sidetrack us with the smoke and mirrors.
On August 20, 1998, the US bombed Sudan, targetting a pharmaceutical factory, which it said was linked to Osama bin Laden and was being used to make VX nerve gas. The US accusations were strongly denied by Sudan and condemned by many in the US and in the international community as an attempt by Bill Clinton to distract attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
A year later, once the link with bin Laden and nerve gas manufacture had been proven to be incorrect, Sudan was still repeating its calls for a UN investigation into the unprovoked attack. That investigation never got started, because it was continually blocked by the US. Later still, the owner of the factory threatened legal action against the US for the destruction.
How many Sudanese lives were lost as a result of the bombing? Well, given that it was responsible for producing 60 percent of the medicines available in Sudan, that Sudan was suffering from famine and a civil war at the time, and that the country was heavily in debt and under a trade embargo from the US, it's fair to say that the disruption in the supply of vital medicines cost thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of lives. This was a plant that produced everything from antibiotics, malaria tablets and syrups, to drugs for hypertension, diabetes, ulcer, tuberculosis and rheumatism.
And, of course, 300 night shift workers were killed when the bombs struck.
Once again, feel free to attack any of this - if you can come up with facts to back up your words.
(And, by the way, I've used links from CNN.com intentionally. Last time I checked, they weren't being dismissed as being "a left-wing rag".)
God, Chomskyites are really degenerate. They wet themselves imagining how they would have bravely stood up to fascism if they had been around in the '30's, yet when the greatest act of barbarism in Europe since WW II occurred (I mean genocide in the Balkans, not the Eurovision Song contest) they sided with the barbarians b/c they so hate America.
"Like I said, educate yourself. You'll be shocked by what you'll find out."
And of course the unpopularity of their positions is b/c they only know the truth, and everyone else has been brain-washed. Yeah, go on about how the New York Times exaggerated the Cambodian Marxist genocide.
There's a reason why you posted as an AC, it's because you prefer to stay anonymous, and you are a coward.
First of all, I've never read (or heard) a single word of Chomsky. I'm not from the US, I'm from Britain and, as I've said before, I prefer to look for news sources that give me unbiased facts.
My post didn't mention the Balkans once, it touched on Sudan, Chile, Cuba and Iraq, so why aren't you talking about any of those places? Is it because overzealous US action in those countries showed clearly how US intervention isn't always wanted or benevolent?
But now that you've mentioned the Balkans let's talk about them. How many troops did the US commit in Bosnia, Croatia or elsewhere in the former Yougoslavia? None. US involvement in that horrific civil war was at a distance and token at best when compared to the efforts of its NATO allies. To suggest that the US was committed to preventing genocide in that conflict is a joke - commitment would have meant intervention, and that's one thing the US avoided like the plague.
Please feel free to provide any facts - yes, facts - that you want to that counter anything that I've said here or elsewhere or to that support your argument. I doubt that you'll do so though - you seem to be real big on avoiding the truth.
Seriously, would it kill you to do what Colin Powell did when asked about Chile and admit that you got it wrong?
I don't hate America, in fact I greatly admire the ideal behind it. It's the peversion of that ideal and its "might is right" foreign policy that I question. Why is it that you put freedom on such a pedestal but are so quick to attack others for execising free speech? Are you really that afraid of what they have to say?
Actualy, it has been reported quite widely that the Iraqi public supported the removal of saddam, their only qualm with the US is that tehy want to begin running their country soon.
Didn't I say that? What do you think this paragraph meant?:
I think it's fair to say that Saddam Hussein wasn't universally loved but it's also fair to say that the Iraqi people are highly suspicious of liberators who have denied them electricity and running water, who restrict their movements, who conduct house-to-house searches and who's actions in many ways are almost as oppressive as those of the regime that they displaced.
And as for where I get my news from, well let's just say it's not from anyone who wants to give me just one side of the story, which is what you'll get on Fox, CNN, etc. If you think that their coverage of the war is fair and even then perhaps you should reread the last paragraph of my post:
You might switch on your TV today and hear that another US soldier has been killed by Iraqis but how often do you switch on your TV and hear how many Iraqis were killed by US soldiers today?
By the way, I have no idea what ANSWER is. I think I'll go find out for myself what you're talking about. Can you honestly say that you'll make the same effort to educate yourself on the issues on which you're so in the dark?
The only way to handle it is to make the price of terrorism too high. Nothing to gain and everything to lose. And that goes for anyone aiding, funding, or supporting those activities.
Well "aiding, fundnig or supporting" terrorists has been the modus operandi for the CIA for half a century. Osama bin Laden's just one of many terrorists that the US has funded, backed and supplied with arms and training.
And, the US government which argues that "you're either with us or you're against us" in fighting terrorism now hasn't always been so supportive of the terrorist threats faced by its allies. When Margeret Thatcher asked then President George Bush Sr. to help stem the flow of money to the IRA from its US supporters she was told to take a hike. Why? Because denying Americans the right to fund a terrorist organisation that's killed, maimed and attacked thousands of British men, women and children - including civilians, the military, the police, the royal family and politicians including Thatcher herself - is, get this, "unconstitutional" as it's a violation of "free speech". Yeah right.
I'm not going to start arguing with you about every last detail of what you've said (quite simply because I don't have the time) but I will quickly respond to one comment you made.
The US isn't spending $4 billion a month on the rebuilding of Iraq. If anyone's spending billions on rebuilding in Iraq it's the Iraqi people - it's their oil that's paying for the repair of the damage done by the US. And it's predominantly American companies that are doing the rebuilding.
So, in a way, Dubya's using the destruction and reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure to kickstart the stagnant US economy - military contractors win new business and so do civilian contractors. But don't kid yourself into believing that American money is paying for it.
if EVERY person in Iraq were against the US then yes, unfortunatly it is a very small minority of Iraqis who were very loyal to sadam becasue of their relationship with his regime that are fighting...those people as well as forgin fighters and Iranian agents are at the source of the trouble.....the Iraqi population liked what the US did and right now just wants a greater voice (which they are begining to get) in the running of the US interum athority.
And you know this because:
i) Fox News told you it's true;
ii) The US government (the same one that's admitted to distorting the fact before, during and after the war) says it's true;
iii) You've carried out an extensive survey of Iraqi puclic opinion; or
iv) You're guessing?
Face facts, you don't have any idea what percentage of the Iraqi people are pro- or anti-US. To turn your argument on its head, just because you saw a few hundred or a few thousand people out in the streets celebrating the fall of Saddam Hussein's government it doesn't mean thet Iraqi people supported the invasion.
I think it's fair to say that Saddam Hussein wasn't universally loved but it's also fair to say that the Iraqi people are highly suspicious of liberators who have denied them electricity and running water, who restrict their movements, who conduct house-to-house searches and who's actions in many ways are almost as oppressive as those of the regime that they displaced.
You might switch on your TV today and hear that another US soldier has been killed by Iraqis but how often do you switch on your TV and hear how many Iraqis were killed by US soldiers today?
France has its own carrier fleet and Germany, for historic reasons, doesn't.
You act like terrorism is something that uniquely affects the US when it clearly isn't. France, Germany and just about every country in Europe faced the threat of terrorism way before September 11th or the Oklohoma City bombing.
Why is it that the only response you can think of to a terrorist threat is aggression? Isn't diplomacy ever worth trying?
Should the British government have turned Northern Ireland into a killing zone and put a tank on every street corner? Is the Northern Ireland peace process selling out to terrorists, or is it a genuine attempt to deal with the issues that caused the troubles in the first place?
The total number of people killed by the British security forces in over 30 years of terrorist activity by the IRA and others is only 40. If the British government had been as aggressive as Israel in responding to even the smallest terrorist incident then Britain and Ireland would be no better than Israel, the occupied territories and Lebanon.
Which government do you think has dealt with the problem better, Britain or Israel? Where would you feel safer living, London or Tel Aviv?
And I haven't even mentioned how futile it is to think that you can eliminate terrorism through force - bombing people to hell and back doesn't win you friends, only more enemies.
And following that logic, the next one will be named the USS William Clinton, right?
Who knows. But it's exactly this sort of naming convention that will seriously embarrass the US sooner or later. Imagine a vessel named after a President who later turns out to have stolen millions, or the sort of fuss that'll be kicked up when one's sent to a country that the CinC it's named after had attacked several years earlier?
How good would it look if their was an aircraft carrier called the USS Richard Nixon?
people defending their homeland from an illegal invasion are political radicals?
I think you've just hung yourself there, buddy. Aren't the Iraqis who are resisting the US/UK presence in their own country just "people defending their homeland from an illegal invasion"?
I'm British, and I'm sorry to say that my Government has sent our soldiers to Iraq to kill and to die in an illegal war that need not have happened. That's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of most the British people, most NATO countries, most of the western world, and most of the world period. Oh, and not every American's in favour of the war either.
My history is too poor for: ...
Why don't you take this as an opportunity to educate yourself? Do that and you'll be able to give a more balanced response in future.
Right now, you really have no idea what has been and what is being done by your government. 1998 was only five years ago and yet you have no idea what the US did to Sudan that year.
Bombing pharmaceutical factories, thereby denying basic medicines to millions, because your faulty intelligence told you that they're chemical weapons plants, and then blocking all efforts by the United Nations to independently verify the facts isn't the kind of action that gets a lot of front page coverage. Indeed, it's just the kind of action that gets quietly swept under the carpet and forgotten, which is why you have no clue about why Sudan is on this list.
Seriously, don't take my word for it, go find out yourself.
Educate yourself on all the issues here, because even the ones that you think you know about you seem to be pretty ignorant about too. For example, Iraq 1990-1:
The US didn't want to get involved after the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, it was the British government's tough stance that drew George Bush Sr. into that war. Previously, the US had backed Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, supplied it with chemical weapons, etc and hadn't given a damn for any of millions that he had oppressed or killed. None of that mattered when he was the US's buddy and if you think the US went to war over mass graves then you are either very naive, or stupid.
Like I said, educate yourself. You'll be shocked by what you'll find out.
Worse, the next Nimitz class ship, which is currently under construction, is named after George Bush.
Err, why don't you check the facts as available from the US Department of Defense, CIA, State Department, etc.
You want killing?
The US forces in Vietnam alone killed 3-4 million South East Asians (including many from the neighbouring nations).
There's your millions dead.
You want agony, poverty and despair?
Well, try one of the countless Latin American countries either invaded or destabilised by US forces since WW2. Chile, for example, where the CIA assassinated a democratically elected President and replaced him with a military dictator, General Pinochet. Pinochet tortured and oppressed his people, murdered what few political opponents were left, and he did all this with the full-backing of the US.
Cuba's a poor, economically depressed nation. Why? Because of US sanctions and the US's aggressive stance towards nations that will do business with Castro's government. Why are the people of Cuba still being punished for a revolution that took place almost 50 years ago?
Right now, even as we speak, the people of Iraq are still without electricity (and in most cases, running water) months after the fall of Baghdad. Why is that? It's not because they don't have enough oil to fire up the power plants is it? It's because all the power plants were destroyed by US forces during the war and the US interim administration still hasn't done anything to restore power supplies.
There's your agony, poverty and despair.
Hmmm, perhaps I haven't made myself 100 percent clear on why I think "tainted" is perhaps a poor description for a kernel that isn't fully open source.
As I said in my lengthy (because it of some cut and paste dictionary definitions) reply to another poster, "tainted" is a synonym of "infected".
Now, which of these is worse:
1. A Windows PC that's been infected by a virus.
2. A Linux PC that's been "tainted" by a video card driver from ATi.
Obviously, the first scenario's worse than the second one because in the first one, something's definitely wrong whereas in the second one, there's only the very slim possibility that something might be wrong.
Now let's introduce a third PC to our world:
3. A Linux PC running fully open source code.
Now is this system any more secure than the second one? In theory the answer is yes but in reality the answer is perhaps. Just because this you can the code running on this new machine is openly available for public inspection, it doesn't mean that every single line of code has been thoroughly inspected and verified problem free.
Let's not forget that Linux vulnerabilities are found from time to time, which means that it's highly likely that this latest machine isn't truly problem free. (And let's not rehash old ground - I know and you know that most of these vulnerabilities are found and/or tracked down faster because the source code is readily available, which is a good thing.)
Obviously, ATi has its reasons for not making its drivers open source, no doubt commercial ones. But at the same time, ATi must know that its Linux code must be whiter than white, otherwise its reputation (on that platform at least) will be irrevokably damaged.
If I'm the guy in charge of the Linux drivers for ATi, I'm making damn sure that those drivers aren't released until they've been checked, rechecked and then rechecked again by my own people, then verified as secure by an independent team of coders before I even think of releasing them to the Linux community. Remember, I know that Linux users are like elephants - they never forget - so the last thing I want to do is release code that I'm not 100 percent confident in.
Now I'm not the guy who's in charge of ATi's code (and I don't work for them or any other hardware or software manufacturer) but I have no doubt that the guy who is making these decisions knows just as well as I do how important it is that ATi's Linux code is clean. After all, if he's the guy who responsible for giving a script kiddie root access to hundreds of thousands PCs then he's going to have a hard time ever getting a job in the industry again - that alone is a pretty big incentive to get things right.
Anyhow, let's look at how secure our three PCs really are:
1. Virus infected Windows PC - badly compromised, in need of immediate attention.
2. Linux PC with some closed source drivers - OK but potentially compromised (if we're being paranoid).
3. Linux PC running fully open source code - ideal but potentially compromised (if we're being paranoid).
For all practical purposes, 2 and 3 are just as secure as each other. You can argue until you're blue in the face that the opposite is true but if you're that paranoid about a couple of MB of worth closed source drivers then you've can't ignore the potential threats that might be present in hundreds of MB of open source code.
Grrr. And I've said more than once that I didn't want to talk about open vs closed source code.
Anyhow the my point again is this: "tainted" to most people is the same thing as "infected", so when you turn around to your non-technical CEO or CFO and describe your latest server as "tainted", he's
not going to be worrying about closed source code he's going to be worrying about his business being severely disrupted and/or melting down right then and there.
Now do you see what I'm getting at?
I apologise for the long answer but I wanted to respond to your comment with accurate facts. Here we go:
"Taint" seems quite apt to me. Sure, it isn't positive, but you associate "taint" with "very negative images". Are you really Ned Flanders? This isn't the F-word. It stems from a word meaning "to dye". It evokes corruption only in the sense of adding something foreign to something pure -- like a stain, or pee in a pool. That's hardly "dramatic" or "apocalyptic". I doubt anyone will "panic" over this.
1. Dictionary.com definition of "tainted":
taint
v. tainted, tainting, taints
v. tr.
To affect with or as if with a disease.
To affect with decay or putrefaction; spoil. See Synonyms at contaminate.
To corrupt morally.
To affect with a tinge of something reprehensible.
v. intr.
To become affected with decay or putrefaction; spoil.
n.
A moral defect considered as a stain or spot. See Synonyms at stain.
An infecting touch, influence, or tinge.
[Partly from obsolete taynt, to color, dye (from Anglo-Norman teint, from past participle of teindre, from Latin tingere), and partly from Middle English tainten, to convict (short for atteinten, from Old French ataint, past participle of ataindre, to attain, touch upon. See attain).]
taintless adj.
taintlessly adv.
taintlessness n.
So, "taint" doesn't mean "dye", unless you're from 11th century England. It does, however, is shown to have a lot of negative meanings.
1. Thesaurus.com definition of "tainted":
Entry: corrupt
Function: adjective
Definition: polluted
Synonyms: adulterated, altered, contaminated, decayed, defiled, distorted, doctored, falsified, foul, infected, noxious, putrescent, putrid, rotten, tainted
Antonyms: clean, pure, purified, sound, unaltered
Concept: dirtiness
Entry: defiled
Function: adjective
Definition: violated
Synonyms: besmirched, common, cooked, corrupted, desecrated, dirty, dishonored, exposed, impure, mucked up, polluted, profaned, ravished, spoilt, tainted, trashed, unclean
Antonyms: cleansed, hallowed, pure, purified, sanctified
Concept: dirtiness
Entry: diseased
Function: adjective
Definition: unhealthy
Synonyms: afflicted, ailing, catching, communicable, contagious, endemic, epidemic, indisposed, infected, infectious, infirm, rotten, sick, sickly, tainted, unsound, unwell, unwholesome
Antonyms: fit, healthy, well
Concept: health (poor)
Entry: faulty
Function: adjective
Definition: not working
Synonyms: adulterated, amiss, awry, bad, below par, blamable, blemished, botched, broken, cracked, damaged, debased, defective, deficient, distorted, erroneous, fallacious, fallible, false, flawed, frail, impaired, imperfect, imprecise, inaccurate, inadequate, incomplete, incorrect, inexact, injured, insufficient, invalid, lame, leaky, lemon, maimed, malformed, malfunctioning, marred, rank, sick, tainted, unfit, unreliable, unretentive, unsound, warped, weak, wrong
Antonyms: flawless, perfect, sound, working
Concept: error
Entry: foul
Function: adjective
Definition: disgusting
Synonyms: abhorrent, abominable, barn, base, contaminated, despicable, detestable, dirty, disgraceful, dishonorable, egregious, fetid, filthy, hateful, heinous, horrid, icky, impure, infamous, iniquitous, loathsome, malodorous, mucky, nasty, nauseating, nefarious, noisome, notorious, offensive, pigpen, polluted, putrid, rank, raunchy, repellent, repulsive, revolting, rotten, scandalous, shameful, squalid, stable, stinking, sullied, tainted, unclean, vicious, vile, wicked, yecchy, yucky
Concept: dirtiness
Entry: impure
Function: adjective
Definition: unclean
Synonyms: admixed, adulterated, alloyed, black, carnal, coarse, common, contaminated, corrupt, debased, defiled, desecrated, diluted, dirty, docto
If I wanted a New York Yankees cap I could find one in practically every major sports shop, ditto a Dallas Cowboys or Chicago Bulls cap. I find it more than annoying that if you happen to support a team that doesn't have a recent near-monopoly on success finding a cap is nigh on impossible.
In the last twelve years, that being the period for which I've followed major US sports, I've only ever seen a Houston Astros cap once, I've only seen Houston Rockets merchandise after they won back-to-back championships (but not since), and I've yet to see a Tennessee cap one either. (I do, however, have an old Houston Oilers cap.)
It's got to the point where my choices are buying a cap for £20 ($30) from an sporting goods importer and waiting four weeks for the priviledge or asking a relative in the US to buy a $10 one locally and mail it to me, which even with the shipping would be half the price that the damn thing would cost me here.
And, for the record, I don't support Manchester United either. I am, and always will be, devoted to The Mighty Reds, Liverpool.
I'm surprised that this issue only afflicts 18k laptops.
In this era of mass production, how come the glitch only affects a few? Since the Reuters link is down, I can't read the article, but...
How can a hardware glitch be confined to such few laptops? It can't be cost effective to design something replicated only 18k times
BBC News also has the story.
The fault is only present in the Sony VAIO FR and FRV models. Of the 18,000 most are in Japan, with only 3,000 in the US and 2,000 in Europe. The actual part in question is the modem.
I'm not sure if 18,000 represents the total number of the FR and FRV series shipped in total or if that's the number of units that shipped with this particular modem but I'm sure that via batch testing, etc Sony is recalling the right number of units.
Why? Because now that they are going to the trouble of a recall it makes very little sense to recall fewer units than might be possibly affected, if only because of the potential of litigation if a non-recalled unit were to harm a person.
If a non-recalled unit hurt someone, Sony would have a very weak position in court as it has already conceded that this problem exists, that it isn't isolated, that it knows about it and that it's potentially dangerous.
Anyhow, read the BBC article (which I referenced when I submitted the same story earlier today) for more info.
Taint may well be a technical term but the common usage of the word evokes very negative images, and its usage here is clumsy at best.
Tell someone who doesn't know this technical term that their system is tainted and they'll probably panic, imagining that their PC has been hit by a virus, trojan horse or other undesirable event, where the reality couldn't be further from the truth. (We'll leave the debate about the pros and cons of closed source drivers to another discussion.)
There's got to be a better way of describing a kernel that contains closed source software that isn't so dramatic or apocalyptic. How about "ajar"? At least "ajar" is a better, less ambiguous, description - to me it says "not 100 percent open, and not 100 pecent closed", which is what we're talking about.
No one in the US can find Hungary on a map.
One quick way to remedy that: have the US declare war on Hungary. Before September 11th, most Americans couldn't tell you where Afghanistan was on a map and I'd bet that most of them couldn't tell you today the name of its capital (and this only a year or so after a US invasion).
I visited my cousin in US during the summer of 1989. I was shocked to hear a contestant on a game show who was asked to name five countries in South America include Spain and Portugal in his answer. Similarly, a poll in the paper at the time showed that most American high school students thought that Britain was off the coast of Florida. I can't help but think that another 14 years has made the situation worse rather than better, especially with the US public education system in such a sorry state.
There are ignorant people everywhere but it does the US no favours to pretend that they don't flourish within its boundaries. For proof you only have to look at George W Bush, who can't even string together two intelligent sentences if his words haven't been scripted for him by a speechwriter beforehand - and he has the benefit of an Ivy league education.
Unfortunately, to most US companies "international" means "we sell to Canada" or perhaps even just "we ship to Hawaii".
I find it ridiculous that I can't buy something as simple as a baseball cap from the official MLB.com site because I'm not in North America. I mean, how much harder is it to ship a baseball cap to London than Los Angeles? Where's the support issue with a one-size piece of clothing?