I think it's pretty clear that the original parent poster was pointing out the redundancy in the story text. Why was there a need to point out that the 11 chapters were unevenly distributed? It's not as if they could be evenly distributed is it? That's what the guy was saying.
Would you prefer RIAA math?
on
Linux Clustering
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
...the book is divided into eleven chapters, unevenly distributed among three sections...
Last time I checked, 11/3 didn't yield an integer result. Perhaps, if you worked for RIAA or the USB Forum it would be possible to divide eleven chapters into three sections evenly, but it's asking a bit much for professional authors and publishers to be asked to jump through such challenging mathematical hoops.
...offers near-native (or better) speed "virtualization" of a Windows box...
Surely you're not suggesting that some tree-loving hippies can generate faster code than the world's biggest software maker? Quick, subsidise Microsoft so that it can compete more fairly! Better still, pass a law to make open source illegal!
Gee, well isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Why don't you tell me why it's OK to play by one set of rules but expect everyone else to play by a different set. Why it's OK to do one thing but demand that other countries do another.
Where I come from this is called hypocrisy. In Dubya's America it's called policy.
Why do liberals defend murderous dictators at the expense of their own country? I weep for America if you guys ever get back in power. You'll trade more nukes to China.
China developed its own nukes, it didn't get them from the US. You want to explain just which US post-WWII administration you think gave nukes to a communist country without anyone actually knowing about it?
Trading nukes to China? Just how stupid are you? Is your name Ralph Wiggum by any chance?
Oh, so now you want level labour costs and conditions around the globe?
Well, I'm sue that'll be real popular with Nike, Gap, etc who pay workers in the third world a fraction of a dollar a day to manufacture their goods in totalitarian conditions. Work at a Nike factory and get ill or even pregnant? Well, kiss your job goodbye.
If you want to pay $50 for even a basic no-name t-shirt then you can complain about dirt-cheap labour overseas. Else, live with the realities of a free-market economy - good and bad.
I'm guessing that if there was a natural disaster that was so large that it knocked out all the major ports on either coast then getting hold of your latest steel imports would be the least of your worries. I'd think there would be the minor matter of a major earthquake/tsunami/meteor impact/whatever to worry about first.
Your enemy attack scenario is just as laughable - if Al Qaeda/whoever could mobilise the forces to knock out all those seaports simutaneously then why waste those forces disabling docks when you could attack far more physically and pyschologically prominent targets? What would drive more fear into the hearts of your enemy: blowing up his civilian ports (leaving his military ones intact and available to merchant shipping), or blowing up his monuments and landmarks? Which would be the greater acheivement from the terrorists standpoint: blowing up the port of Portland or blowing up Mount Rushmore?
Seriously, if you want to debate whether steel tarriffs are good or bad then do that. But, please, come up with proper arguments as to why the US steel industry should be proped up at the expense of Canadian, Mexican and overseas industries. For bonus points, argue why when the US imposes illegal tarriffs on foreign goods it's a good thing but when other countries do the same to US goods it's so very bad.
What's good for the steel manufacturers (high tarriffs on foreign steel imports) isn't good for steel consumers.
Why should construction companies, etc have to pay an artificially inflated price for a vital commodity? Why should a shipyard on either coast have to support a steel mill in the Midwest?
What you forget is that by making the US steel manufacturers more competitive, you're making US steel consumers less competitive. Overnight, these steel tarriffs have made it harder for US shipbuilders to compete in the global market. The same is true of other industries too.
So, in essence, Dubya is robbing Peter to pay Paul in the hope that he can secure Paul's vote in the future and that Peter won't notice.
Steel tarriffs. US steel manufacturers weren't competitive, and it was much cheaper to import steel from elsewhere (eg, Russia) than to buy it from US makers.
The Dubya solution to this problem? Slap heavy tarriffs on imported steel.
So much for fair trade, a free market and a unhindered economy.
It's not like that's the only example either. US lumber mills are less productive and more expensive than their Canadian counterparts, who've spent considerable millions becoming more efficient and cost effective.
The reward for this Canadian efficiency? Tarriffs on soft-wood lumber.
So much for NAFTA.
Opinion on Dubya is heavily polarised (you either love him or hate him and I'm not going to get into that debate here) but even his staunchest supporters would have a hard time arguing that he's an advocate of free trade.
Basically, in the novel, the Earth is nearing ecological meltdown and the food chain has become compromised. To escape from hell on Earth and certain death on a dying planet, the filthy rich implement a plan to launch themselves into space and self-sustainability in space.
However, in a cruel twist of fate, they find that although they can escape the pollution on Earth, they can't escape the pollution in their souls.
Senator Hatch, Hilary Rosen and the SCO board spring immediately to mind (as well as a raft of other political figures, from the US and around the world), when I think of people I'd launch into orbit now so that the rest of us can live more freely and cleanly today.
Forgive me if I ask something stupid, but why would this need NASA's approval?
Because the International Space Station is just that - an international space station. NASA is one of the lead partners in the project and, as such, any missions/visits/whatever to the ISS must first be green stamped by NASA.
It's a bit like a shared cabin in the country - you ask the permission of the other owners, as much out of courtesy as anything else, before you head down there for the weekend.
This device has a physical keyboard as well as the 160 by 160 display in a friendly form-factor. A 320 by 320 display would have upped the cost and completely changed the form-factor from a phone-like one to a traditional PDA-like one.
Clearly, this Treo 600 has been designed to woe consumers looking for a phone/PDA/MP3 convergence device that isn't any bigger than a traditional mobile phone.
Close but no cigar? Hardly - you might not like it, but I'm willing to bet that the market will.
This is the shape of the future. Watch everyone else jump on the bandwagon and watch these babies fly off the shelves as soon as they ship.
Airbus was expecting to sell 175 aircraft this year. It's now revised its estimates upwards, to 300, despite the major downturn in the air travel business. Clearly, it's winning a lot of business and some of that business is being poached from Boeing.
The twin-deck, four-aisle A380, which can sit 800 passengers in an all-economy configuration or 550 in a mixed configuration, is already flying off the shelves (if you'll pardon the pun) - Emirates, one of the Middle East's biggest carriers has just ordered 41 of the aircraft in what should be a $12.5 billion deal, as reported by the BBC today.
No doubt that the Emirates deal will come in at lower than that figure (in bad times, aircraft manufacturers discount from their book prices) but it's a major win for Airbus and a major loss for Boeing at the same time.
Not only is Boeing trying to compete with what many consider is an inferior product but it's also having to compete in what's increasingly a hostile market - the recent war in Iraq, which was opposed by the majority of the world, won't have improved the chances of American firms trying to win business in the Middle East and elsewhere.
It might be time to dump your Boeing stock if you haven't already.
You know, this is getting boring. I'm not going to change your opinion and you're not going to change mine, so let's agree to disagree.
I could point out several things that you continue to ignore but I'll stick to just one: this isn't "their site", as you put it. Slashdot is a commercial property, and has been for some time now. It also charges people for premium content and services.
Asking for someone to spend the 60 seconds it would take to run each story through a spelling checker on what's now a charging commercial site isn't asking too much.
I'm replying to your message but, in essence, I'm replying to all the people (even the ACs) who responded to my original post.
First of all, let's all be clear what I said: that "behaviour is heavily influenced by observation". That quote's lifted from my original comment word-for-word, but I've emphasised the two key words here. I never said that behaviour is only influenced by observation, or that TV was the only source of input in a person's life, only that a person who sees x is far more likely to do x themselves.
That we learn from and copy what we see is fundamental to human development - if it wasn't then every generation would have to reinvent the wheel for itself. That some people will watch hour after hour of WWE and never feel inclined to body slam their friends isn't the issue. The issue is that some people will watch hour after hour of WWE and want to body slam their friends just to experience it for themselves.
Other people will have the same reaction to other stimuli, including yourself. Haven't you ever watched a Coke/McDonalds/Budweiser advert where a guy walks into a store buys the product and sates his appetite, only to repeat the same behaviour yourself at a later date? (This is basically how advertising works.)
Of course, the more risky the action, the less likely that you'll copy it. If you're intelligent (and wise), you're more likely to think twice before, say, carjacking someone stopped at a red light than you are flipping them the finger for almost running you over. Why? Because you know that the possible negative results of the former (capture, conviction, imprisonment), far outway the benefits, whereas in the latter case there's far less at risk (few people will get out of their cars to start a fight with a pedestrian).
In the case of TV violence there's also the desensitisation argument - the more times you see someone shot on TV, the less shocking it becomes, until it reaches the point where you don't even bat an eyelid at half the world being blown away in a pissing contest over who's national anthem sounds more jolly. Yet the reality of such actions is horrifying - unless you're a really cold fish the idea that your next door neighbour (or even you) could be gunned down by some guy that he didn't look at the right way in the local bar would make you sick to the bone.
Obviously, not everyone who watches NYPD Blue, Law and Order or The Equalizer feels the need to go buy a gun and shoot someone just to see what it feels like. But let's not pretend that TV violence has zero effect on everybody.
To prove that people will copy what they see, I'll quote from today's London Sunday Times, which includes this article on street racing in California hot on the heels of the cinematic release of the movie 2 Fast 2 Furious:
Drag racing dates back to the 1950s, but police claim it has become far more widespread since The Fast and the Furious turned Vin Diesel, a former bouncer, into a Hollywood star two years ago.
The sequel, 2 Fast 2 Furious, released in America last weekend and in Britain on Friday, has been accompanied by a rash of high-speed fatalities.
...
The outlaw thrill of street racing is tempered by the human cost and not just among the competitors: last weekend a 78-year-old man was knocked down by a speeding driver who told police officers he had just seen 2 Fast 2 Furious. In northern California police arrested six racers who blocked an interstate highway, driving at 120mph. Each had a ticket stub from the movie in their pocket.
...
âoeThe number of illegal races surged when the first film came out, quietened down, and then we get a sudden rush when the second (film) arrives. Coincidence? I am not so sure,â a [police] spokesman said.
Still unconvinced that some people will copy what they see?
deal with it, or move on. no one is going to listen to you especialy with that attitude.
Nobody's listening, huh? I beg to differ - this isn't the first time the subject of professionalism on the part of the Slashdot editors has come up and it probably won't be the last. And if nobody's listening, then who's modding me up when I raise the subject? And why's there a mention of the issue in the FAQ?
Attitude? Asking questions and providing feedback is considered attitude? Wow. I must have missed the sign saying that suggestions were not wanted and that any criticism however big or small was treasonous.
Anyway, why does it irk you so much that I (and many others) would like to see Slashdot tidied up around the edges?
Violence, crime and drug use are on the up. Was this inevitable, and what does it say about the influence of TV on Western cultures?
It says what we've always known: that behaviour is heavily influenced by observation. Put a kid in an environment where everyone throws their rubbish in the bin and he'll do the same. Put the same kid in an environment where everyone throws stones at people with red hair and he'll do that too.
Bombard a kid 24/7 with images of guns, explosions and murders left, right and centre and he'll want to join in the action. We learn by repeating what we've seen so it's a natural reaction. Why expect a kid that watches violent cop show after violent cop show to be a perfect angel?
You might not care about spelling (hey, way to go spelling "personally" incorrectly just to prove your point) but others do. It's particularly frustrating searching through the archive for an article on, say, a Philips flat panel monitor only to find that the story was posted with the misspelling "Phillips". This might not bother you, but it does me and countless others.
Slashdot isn't some pet project anymore, it's a full-blown professional website, with a readership in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. It even charges for premium content and features, so it isn't too much to ask that the site be professionally managed.
In the publishing industry (which is where Slashdot finds itself), the odd typo can be forgiven, but there's a world of difference between never checking spelling and the occasional one-that-got-away.
It's not my intention to "sit here and whine". It's my intention to give the editors some feedback so that they may further improve their site, just as I provide feedback to webmasters that run sites that try to set illegal cookies or are otherwise poorly coded.
Looking through the very FAQ that you brought up, I find the following extract:
Why is your grammar/spelling so bad?
We're more interested in getting the stories out quickly than we are in making sure every post passes the white glove test. These days we have a copy editor who catches most of the spelling and grammar mistakes, but things do sometimes slip through.
If you see a mistake in a story, email the author. We'll get it fixed pronto.
Answered by: CmdrTaco Last Modified: 6/8/00
So, just over three years ago, Taco and his fellow editors recognised the need to correct spelling and error mistakes. It's a pity that they've either forgotten about it or are just flat out doing a bad job spotting what are often pretty major mistakes.
Oh, and why do I expect the editors to do something about it rather than dealing with it myself? Well, without wanting to state the obvious, it's their website and their job, not mine.
In summary, it's not a free speech issue. It's not a "people don't care" issue either (or else it wouldn't be in the FAQ would it?). It's simply a "we just don't do a good enough job" issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's pretty clear that the original parent poster was pointing out the redundancy in the story text. Why was there a need to point out that the 11 chapters were unevenly distributed? It's not as if they could be evenly distributed is it? That's what the guy was saying.
...the book is divided into eleven chapters, unevenly distributed among three sections...
Last time I checked, 11/3 didn't yield an integer result. Perhaps, if you worked for RIAA or the USB Forum it would be possible to divide eleven chapters into three sections evenly, but it's asking a bit much for professional authors and publishers to be asked to jump through such challenging mathematical hoops.
...offers near-native (or better) speed "virtualization" of a Windows box...
Surely you're not suggesting that some tree-loving hippies can generate faster code than the world's biggest software maker? Quick, subsidise Microsoft so that it can compete more fairly! Better still, pass a law to make open source illegal!
I need to put on my thinking cap?
Gee, well isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Why don't you tell me why it's OK to play by one set of rules but expect everyone else to play by a different set. Why it's OK to do one thing but demand that other countries do another.
Where I come from this is called hypocrisy. In Dubya's America it's called policy.
Why do liberals defend murderous dictators at the expense of their own country? I weep for America if you guys ever get back in power. You'll trade more nukes to China.
China developed its own nukes, it didn't get them from the US. You want to explain just which US post-WWII administration you think gave nukes to a communist country without anyone actually knowing about it?
Trading nukes to China? Just how stupid are you? Is your name Ralph Wiggum by any chance?
Oh, so now you want level labour costs and conditions around the globe?
Well, I'm sue that'll be real popular with Nike, Gap, etc who pay workers in the third world a fraction of a dollar a day to manufacture their goods in totalitarian conditions. Work at a Nike factory and get ill or even pregnant? Well, kiss your job goodbye.
If you want to pay $50 for even a basic no-name t-shirt then you can complain about dirt-cheap labour overseas. Else, live with the realities of a free-market economy - good and bad.
I'm guessing that if there was a natural disaster that was so large that it knocked out all the major ports on either coast then getting hold of your latest steel imports would be the least of your worries. I'd think there would be the minor matter of a major earthquake/tsunami/meteor impact/whatever to worry about first.
Your enemy attack scenario is just as laughable - if Al Qaeda/whoever could mobilise the forces to knock out all those seaports simutaneously then why waste those forces disabling docks when you could attack far more physically and pyschologically prominent targets? What would drive more fear into the hearts of your enemy: blowing up his civilian ports (leaving his military ones intact and available to merchant shipping), or blowing up his monuments and landmarks? Which would be the greater acheivement from the terrorists standpoint: blowing up the port of Portland or blowing up Mount Rushmore?
Seriously, if you want to debate whether steel tarriffs are good or bad then do that. But, please, come up with proper arguments as to why the US steel industry should be proped up at the expense of Canadian, Mexican and overseas industries. For bonus points, argue why when the US imposes illegal tarriffs on foreign goods it's a good thing but when other countries do the same to US goods it's so very bad.
What's good for the steel manufacturers (high tarriffs on foreign steel imports) isn't good for steel consumers.
Why should construction companies, etc have to pay an artificially inflated price for a vital commodity? Why should a shipyard on either coast have to support a steel mill in the Midwest?
What you forget is that by making the US steel manufacturers more competitive, you're making US steel consumers less competitive. Overnight, these steel tarriffs have made it harder for US shipbuilders to compete in the global market. The same is true of other industries too.
So, in essence, Dubya is robbing Peter to pay Paul in the hope that he can secure Paul's vote in the future and that Peter won't notice.
Yay for free trade!
Steel tarriffs. US steel manufacturers weren't competitive, and it was much cheaper to import steel from elsewhere (eg, Russia) than to buy it from US makers.
The Dubya solution to this problem? Slap heavy tarriffs on imported steel.
So much for fair trade, a free market and a unhindered economy.
It's not like that's the only example either. US lumber mills are less productive and more expensive than their Canadian counterparts, who've spent considerable millions becoming more efficient and cost effective.
The reward for this Canadian efficiency? Tarriffs on soft-wood lumber.
So much for NAFTA.
Opinion on Dubya is heavily polarised (you either love him or hate him and I'm not going to get into that debate here) but even his staunchest supporters would have a hard time arguing that he's an advocate of free trade.
Ever read the Ben Elton novel Stark?
Basically, in the novel, the Earth is nearing ecological meltdown and the food chain has become compromised. To escape from hell on Earth and certain death on a dying planet, the filthy rich implement a plan to launch themselves into space and self-sustainability in space.
However, in a cruel twist of fate, they find that although they can escape the pollution on Earth, they can't escape the pollution in their souls.
Senator Hatch, Hilary Rosen and the SCO board spring immediately to mind (as well as a raft of other political figures, from the US and around the world), when I think of people I'd launch into orbit now so that the rest of us can live more freely and cleanly today.
Forgive me if I ask something stupid, but why would this need NASA's approval?
Because the International Space Station is just that - an international space station. NASA is one of the lead partners in the project and, as such, any missions/visits/whatever to the ISS must first be green stamped by NASA.
It's a bit like a shared cabin in the country - you ask the permission of the other owners, as much out of courtesy as anything else, before you head down there for the weekend.
This device has a physical keyboard as well as the 160 by 160 display in a friendly form-factor. A 320 by 320 display would have upped the cost and completely changed the form-factor from a phone-like one to a traditional PDA-like one.
Clearly, this Treo 600 has been designed to woe consumers looking for a phone/PDA/MP3 convergence device that isn't any bigger than a traditional mobile phone.
Close but no cigar? Hardly - you might not like it, but I'm willing to bet that the market will.
This is the shape of the future. Watch everyone else jump on the bandwagon and watch these babies fly off the shelves as soon as they ship.
Q: What do you call a GNOME in Ireland?
A: A leprechaun.
Methinks that the conference's local profile might benefit from a name change.
For a second there I thought you were talking about Dubya.
The first rule of Slashdot Club: never side with Microsoft.
The second rule of Slashdot Club: never side with Microsoft.
...that someone batoned down this loose Hatch.
Airbus was expecting to sell 175 aircraft this year. It's now revised its estimates upwards, to 300, despite the major downturn in the air travel business. Clearly, it's winning a lot of business and some of that business is being poached from Boeing.
The twin-deck, four-aisle A380, which can sit 800 passengers in an all-economy configuration or 550 in a mixed configuration, is already flying off the shelves (if you'll pardon the pun) - Emirates, one of the Middle East's biggest carriers has just ordered 41 of the aircraft in what should be a $12.5 billion deal, as reported by the BBC today.
No doubt that the Emirates deal will come in at lower than that figure (in bad times, aircraft manufacturers discount from their book prices) but it's a major win for Airbus and a major loss for Boeing at the same time.
Not only is Boeing trying to compete with what many consider is an inferior product but it's also having to compete in what's increasingly a hostile market - the recent war in Iraq, which was opposed by the majority of the world, won't have improved the chances of American firms trying to win business in the Middle East and elsewhere.
It might be time to dump your Boeing stock if you haven't already.
You know, this is getting boring. I'm not going to change your opinion and you're not going to change mine, so let's agree to disagree.
I could point out several things that you continue to ignore but I'll stick to just one: this isn't "their site", as you put it. Slashdot is a commercial property, and has been for some time now. It also charges people for premium content and services.
Asking for someone to spend the 60 seconds it would take to run each story through a spelling checker on what's now a charging commercial site isn't asking too much.
First of all, let's all be clear what I said: that "behaviour is heavily influenced by observation". That quote's lifted from my original comment word-for-word, but I've emphasised the two key words here. I never said that behaviour is only influenced by observation, or that TV was the only source of input in a person's life, only that a person who sees x is far more likely to do x themselves.
That we learn from and copy what we see is fundamental to human development - if it wasn't then every generation would have to reinvent the wheel for itself. That some people will watch hour after hour of WWE and never feel inclined to body slam their friends isn't the issue. The issue is that some people will watch hour after hour of WWE and want to body slam their friends just to experience it for themselves.
Other people will have the same reaction to other stimuli, including yourself. Haven't you ever watched a Coke/McDonalds/Budweiser advert where a guy walks into a store buys the product and sates his appetite, only to repeat the same behaviour yourself at a later date? (This is basically how advertising works.)
Of course, the more risky the action, the less likely that you'll copy it. If you're intelligent (and wise), you're more likely to think twice before, say, carjacking someone stopped at a red light than you are flipping them the finger for almost running you over. Why? Because you know that the possible negative results of the former (capture, conviction, imprisonment), far outway the benefits, whereas in the latter case there's far less at risk (few people will get out of their cars to start a fight with a pedestrian).
In the case of TV violence there's also the desensitisation argument - the more times you see someone shot on TV, the less shocking it becomes, until it reaches the point where you don't even bat an eyelid at half the world being blown away in a pissing contest over who's national anthem sounds more jolly. Yet the reality of such actions is horrifying - unless you're a really cold fish the idea that your next door neighbour (or even you) could be gunned down by some guy that he didn't look at the right way in the local bar would make you sick to the bone.
Obviously, not everyone who watches NYPD Blue, Law and Order or The Equalizer feels the need to go buy a gun and shoot someone just to see what it feels like. But let's not pretend that TV violence has zero effect on everybody.
To prove that people will copy what they see, I'll quote from today's London Sunday Times, which includes this article on street racing in California hot on the heels of the cinematic release of the movie 2 Fast 2 Furious:
Still unconvinced that some people will copy what they see?
deal with it, or move on. no one is going to listen to you especialy with that attitude.
Nobody's listening, huh? I beg to differ - this isn't the first time the subject of professionalism on the part of the Slashdot editors has come up and it probably won't be the last. And if nobody's listening, then who's modding me up when I raise the subject? And why's there a mention of the issue in the FAQ?
Attitude? Asking questions and providing feedback is considered attitude? Wow. I must have missed the sign saying that suggestions were not wanted and that any criticism however big or small was treasonous.
Anyway, why does it irk you so much that I (and many others) would like to see Slashdot tidied up around the edges?
Violence, crime and drug use are on the up. Was this inevitable, and what does it say about the influence of TV on Western cultures?
It says what we've always known: that behaviour is heavily influenced by observation. Put a kid in an environment where everyone throws their rubbish in the bin and he'll do the same. Put the same kid in an environment where everyone throws stones at people with red hair and he'll do that too.
Bombard a kid 24/7 with images of guns, explosions and murders left, right and centre and he'll want to join in the action. We learn by repeating what we've seen so it's a natural reaction. Why expect a kid that watches violent cop show after violent cop show to be a perfect angel?
Stay faaaaaar away from anything with the word 'BASIC' in it. You've been warned.
Where were you when I was 10 years old in my hobby shop buying my first Dungeons and Dragons set?
You might not care about spelling (hey, way to go spelling "personally" incorrectly just to prove your point) but others do. It's particularly frustrating searching through the archive for an article on, say, a Philips flat panel monitor only to find that the story was posted with the misspelling "Phillips". This might not bother you, but it does me and countless others.
Slashdot isn't some pet project anymore, it's a full-blown professional website, with a readership in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. It even charges for premium content and features, so it isn't too much to ask that the site be professionally managed.
In the publishing industry (which is where Slashdot finds itself), the odd typo can be forgiven, but there's a world of difference between never checking spelling and the occasional one-that-got-away.
It's not my intention to "sit here and whine". It's my intention to give the editors some feedback so that they may further improve their site, just as I provide feedback to webmasters that run sites that try to set illegal cookies or are otherwise poorly coded.
Looking through the very FAQ that you brought up, I find the following extract:
Why is your grammar/spelling so bad?
We're more interested in getting the stories out quickly than we are in making sure every post passes the white glove test. These days we have a copy editor who catches most of the spelling and grammar mistakes, but things do sometimes slip through.
If you see a mistake in a story, email the author. We'll get it fixed pronto.
Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 6/8/00
So, just over three years ago, Taco and his fellow editors recognised the need to correct spelling and error mistakes. It's a pity that they've either forgotten about it or are just flat out doing a bad job spotting what are often pretty major mistakes.
Oh, and why do I expect the editors to do something about it rather than dealing with it myself? Well, without wanting to state the obvious, it's their website and their job, not mine.
In summary, it's not a free speech issue. It's not a "people don't care" issue either (or else it wouldn't be in the FAQ would it?). It's simply a "we just don't do a good enough job" issue.
One safe shuttle mission.
Let's hope that Santa delivers.
Is this case the biggest turn-off or what?
You've got more chance of finding some action at www.whitehouse.com. Err, I mean www.whitehouse.gov.