Hmmm...I just upped to FF 1.01, on 1.0/. looked fine (well, sometimes it was garbled up and smashed together, but a reload would fix it). Now it doesn't smash the sections together, but the one side (left) only started "overlapping" since going to 1.01. Not a huge deal, but I was rather surprised that a site like/. didn't display right on a browser like FF.
I'd still pick FF over IE any day of the week and twice on Sunday:)
4. Osama Bin Laden has stated that it (yes, "it") wants Kerry to win.
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked." - Osama bin Laden (from translation of tape aired on Al-Jazeera on 29 October 2004)
That was his only mention of Kerry in the entire tape. Read the transcript, if you are curious. Can't say that it was an endorsement of either candidate (though he seemed somewhat critical of Bush, he didn't come across as pro-Kerry, either).
I not only think it should be allowed, I sometimes loathe the military myself.
And I'm in it, too.
Those who resented/hated Clinton in the military were generally like much of the military...uninformed idiots who latched on to the "he's gonna let them fags in the service" idea.
Sadly there are a lot of people in the military these days that are of the same caliber as those who gave us Abu Ghraib. Shallow-minded redneck macho nitwits who see the world in the same simpleton terms Bush does..."you are either with us or with the terrorists" attitudes. They are by and large bigots, racists, homophobes, and generally losers. I see it every day, and am thankful that I'm in a community (submarine engineering) where there is at least less of a moron factor. But, as I said, I see the pond scum of the military on a daily basis, and it's scary they even think of giving some of these guys any kind of authority or weapons.
Interesting. But our justifications for the Iraq invasion were links to al Qaeda and WMDs. I'm not defending Hussein's regime, mind you...I'm saying our reasoning for the invasion was flawed. Without significant change (i.e., massive beef-up in size) to our military, we can't invade every country with a group of terrorists in it. Our main beef (due to 9/11) was al Qaeda, which we seem to have forgotten about in the rush to Baghdad. We've still not run down ObL, and according to all the intel/terror alerts al Qaeda is still out there making threats against us and planning attacks (or at least keeping the Dept. of Homeland Security busy flipping the lights of the color coded alert system).
But we've been concentrating on Iraq, which, by all the post-invasion data, had nothing to do with 9-11/al Qaeda and no longer had the much-debated WMD's.
You'll get no arguement from me as to Iraq under Hussein being a bad seed, or them likely being better off without him. But...there is no credible evidence showing any real links between Hussein's government and al Qaeda. Were there al Qaeda members in Iraq? Probably, like there are al Qaeda groups in nearly every predominantly Muslim nation in the Middle East (and elsewhere). But was Hussein supporting them, sponsoring them, or did he have contacts with them? The 9/11 report says no.
So did he have the WMD's, in blatant defiance of UN resolutions? Again, the data now shows he did not. Hey, maybe he *did* comply with UN resolutions to rid Iraq of WMDs...
So, he wasn't harboring/sponsoring al Qaeda (the presence of al Qaeda groups does not equal "harboring", unless we want to invade about 75% of the planet). He no longer had the WMD's. Not saying he was not an evil guy (he was/is), but every reason we had to invade Iraq under the global war on terror (or under the banner of "we're enforcing UN resolutions") was wrong. We blew it. Sooner we admit that an learn from the mistake, the better.
The strategic message our Iraq blunder sends? That we didn't learn our lesson in misguided wars in Vietnam.
Bush is respected by almost all the current and former US military personnel I know, in distinct contrast to Bill Clinton.
You must have been out a while.
While there are still a large number of military who are pretty firmly GOP, I'd have to disagree with that "almost all" assessment. I'm active duty, and I've gotten into many a political conversation at my command, only to be surprised by just how many of my fellow servicemen are not Bush supporters at all. There are a surprising number (I'd estimate about 1/3 to 1/2 of those I've discussed it with) that are backing Kerry, mainly due to the Iraq war, which isn't supported as whole-hog in the military as some would think.
From my (admittedly anecdotal and unscientific) observations, the staunchly GOP ones in ranks are usually the older, more senior enlisteds and officers (I'm Navy, so for me that is the senior CPO's and Commanders/Captains/Admirals). But many "blueshirts" and junior officers, I'd hazard to say a majority, are against a second Bush term...even those who normally roger up Republican. The Iraq war is a big hot-button issue driving this.
It's interesting to me, in fact, to see how some reacted recently to the new "Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal" and "Global War on Terrorism Service Medal". These were awarded to those who served in units that were in certain actions listed as being under the GWOT. One of these was Operation Iraqi Freedom. I know several people who questioned the award of the GWOT medals for Operation Iraqi Freedom, as they didn't believe OIF was part of the GWOT. This started a rather heated debate recently (I managed to get right in the middle), with one officer telling people to jolly well not wear the medal if they didn't agree with it. I've not decided yet...I rate the medal since I served on a ship involved directly in OIF, but I question OIF being part of the GWOT myself. I don't wear the ribbon yet (though honestly I rarely wear a uniform that includes ribbons/medals...we don't wear ribbons/medals in our everyday working uniforms).
But to get back on topic, the military isn't as solidly GOP as people would think. Many junior soldiers/sailors won't come out and say it for fear of publicly disagreeing with the brass, but if you get a fly-on-the-wall perspective of deckplate discussions you'd see there is a lot of Kerry support in the ranks.
1. Your mail server demands a shrubbery before it allows the mail to pass (no shrubbery=NI!). 2. The email must answer me these questions three, 'ere the other side it sees...(starting with the capital of Assyria).
Funny how much that looks like Google's Main Page...and how much Yahoo's Toolbar Page looks like Google's...down to the features (i.e., popup blocking).
Yes. It has. Which is why, after using a Palm for a year or so (it was a freebie with my job) I switched to a Pocket PC when I bought my own. Palms are cute, but IMO little more than an electronic pocket notepad. My iPaq is like a pocket sized laptop.
Having used a Palm, HP Jornada, and now an iPaq (the Jornada was great, and apparently popular...it got stolen), I'd have to say the PocketPC's are miles ahead of the 8 MB Palms. Windows on the desktop may have it's issues, but Windows in the hand...great system.
Add a feature to a PDA...battery life, and storage. Two best things you can do to make the PDA last longer.
Tapping underwater lines has been successful in the past. Parche and Seawolf did it, among others, and gained immense amounts of intelligence against the USSR in the Cold War. Sure, we could do it other more obvious ways, but the whole point was/is to not let the other guy know.
FWIW, the Jimmy Carter was intended as a special ops boat from the beginning, to replace Parche. Parche is showing her years, being originally a 637 class boat, and Jimmy Carter is a newer SSN-21 class (in fact the last of the short lived SSN-21 class...but there is talk of turning one of the early 774 class boats into a special ops boat as well, to complement Jimmy Carter...we used to run 3-5 of 'em back in the Cold War, but all except Parche have been decommissioned.)
Spy games are nothing new for us in the sub force (yes, us...I'm on Cheyenne (SSN-773), and am a 11 year sub vet).
Slashdot Mirror
Or back in 2006...
/. carrying a story that is over a year stale?
Oh, wait, that's THIS incident...
(Yes, this is OLD news...and yes, any even moderately capable sub can sneak up on a carrier...trust me, I did this sub thing for a career...)
Seriously, though, why is
Hmmm...I just upped to FF 1.01, on 1.0 /. looked fine (well, sometimes it was garbled up and smashed together, but a reload would fix it). Now it doesn't smash the sections together, but the one side (left) only started "overlapping" since going to 1.01. Not a huge deal, but I was rather surprised that a site like /. didn't display right on a browser like FF.
:)
I'd still pick FF over IE any day of the week and twice on Sunday
Why does the left sidebar on /. run over into the comments/articles when viewed on Firefox, but not when viewed on IE?
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked." - Osama bin Laden (from translation of tape aired on Al-Jazeera on 29 October 2004)
That was his only mention of Kerry in the entire tape. Read the transcript, if you are curious. Can't say that it was an endorsement of either candidate (though he seemed somewhat critical of Bush, he didn't come across as pro-Kerry, either).
Same here...http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/ default.mspx was the site linked in the ZD article, and I didn't see this link anywhere.
I not only think it should be allowed, I sometimes loathe the military myself.
And I'm in it, too.
Those who resented/hated Clinton in the military were generally like much of the military...uninformed idiots who latched on to the "he's gonna let them fags in the service" idea.
Sadly there are a lot of people in the military these days that are of the same caliber as those who gave us Abu Ghraib. Shallow-minded redneck macho nitwits who see the world in the same simpleton terms Bush does..."you are either with us or with the terrorists" attitudes. They are by and large bigots, racists, homophobes, and generally losers. I see it every day, and am thankful that I'm in a community (submarine engineering) where there is at least less of a moron factor. But, as I said, I see the pond scum of the military on a daily basis, and it's scary they even think of giving some of these guys any kind of authority or weapons.
Don't think so, though I'm adopted so it's difficult to really be sure...
Interesting. But our justifications for the Iraq invasion were links to al Qaeda and WMDs. I'm not defending Hussein's regime, mind you...I'm saying our reasoning for the invasion was flawed. Without significant change (i.e., massive beef-up in size) to our military, we can't invade every country with a group of terrorists in it. Our main beef (due to 9/11) was al Qaeda, which we seem to have forgotten about in the rush to Baghdad. We've still not run down ObL, and according to all the intel/terror alerts al Qaeda is still out there making threats against us and planning attacks (or at least keeping the Dept. of Homeland Security busy flipping the lights of the color coded alert system).
But we've been concentrating on Iraq, which, by all the post-invasion data, had nothing to do with 9-11/al Qaeda and no longer had the much-debated WMD's.
No, I'm quite American. And on shore duty, though I am a submariner. Stationed in Pearl Harbor, if you really must know.
How did you figure me as being English?
You'll get no arguement from me as to Iraq under Hussein being a bad seed, or them likely being better off without him. But...there is no credible evidence showing any real links between Hussein's government and al Qaeda. Were there al Qaeda members in Iraq? Probably, like there are al Qaeda groups in nearly every predominantly Muslim nation in the Middle East (and elsewhere). But was Hussein supporting them, sponsoring them, or did he have contacts with them? The 9/11 report says no.
So did he have the WMD's, in blatant defiance of UN resolutions? Again, the data now shows he did not. Hey, maybe he *did* comply with UN resolutions to rid Iraq of WMDs...
So, he wasn't harboring/sponsoring al Qaeda (the presence of al Qaeda groups does not equal "harboring", unless we want to invade about 75% of the planet). He no longer had the WMD's. Not saying he was not an evil guy (he was/is), but every reason we had to invade Iraq under the global war on terror (or under the banner of "we're enforcing UN resolutions") was wrong. We blew it. Sooner we admit that an learn from the mistake, the better.
The strategic message our Iraq blunder sends? That we didn't learn our lesson in misguided wars in Vietnam.
You must have been out a while.
While there are still a large number of military who are pretty firmly GOP, I'd have to disagree with that "almost all" assessment. I'm active duty, and I've gotten into many a political conversation at my command, only to be surprised by just how many of my fellow servicemen are not Bush supporters at all. There are a surprising number (I'd estimate about 1/3 to 1/2 of those I've discussed it with) that are backing Kerry, mainly due to the Iraq war, which isn't supported as whole-hog in the military as some would think.
From my (admittedly anecdotal and unscientific) observations, the staunchly GOP ones in ranks are usually the older, more senior enlisteds and officers (I'm Navy, so for me that is the senior CPO's and Commanders/Captains/Admirals). But many "blueshirts" and junior officers, I'd hazard to say a majority, are against a second Bush term...even those who normally roger up Republican. The Iraq war is a big hot-button issue driving this.
It's interesting to me, in fact, to see how some reacted recently to the new "Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal" and "Global War on Terrorism Service Medal". These were awarded to those who served in units that were in certain actions listed as being under the GWOT. One of these was Operation Iraqi Freedom. I know several people who questioned the award of the GWOT medals for Operation Iraqi Freedom, as they didn't believe OIF was part of the GWOT. This started a rather heated debate recently (I managed to get right in the middle), with one officer telling people to jolly well not wear the medal if they didn't agree with it. I've not decided yet...I rate the medal since I served on a ship involved directly in OIF, but I question OIF being part of the GWOT myself. I don't wear the ribbon yet (though honestly I rarely wear a uniform that includes ribbons/medals...we don't wear ribbons/medals in our everyday working uniforms).
But to get back on topic, the military isn't as solidly GOP as people would think. Many junior soldiers/sailors won't come out and say it for fear of publicly disagreeing with the brass, but if you get a fly-on-the-wall perspective of deckplate discussions you'd see there is a lot of Kerry support in the ranks.
Until said megacompany controls the utilities and grocery stores (unless, of course, you are a good gardener...)
NI! NI! NI! NI!
Simple tests to determine if the sender is human:
1. Your mail server demands a shrubbery before it allows the mail to pass (no shrubbery=NI!).
2. The email must answer me these questions three, 'ere the other side it sees...(starting with the capital of Assyria).
I knew I was backing the General for a good reason...and this be it!
Funny how much that looks like Google's Main Page...and how much Yahoo's Toolbar Page looks like Google's...down to the features (i.e., popup blocking).
Per the limitations of the law he can hold a job (PDF), and get married. Looks like he could be considered an adult if he wanted to be, as well.
Yes. It has. Which is why, after using a Palm for a year or so (it was a freebie with my job) I switched to a Pocket PC when I bought my own. Palms are cute, but IMO little more than an electronic pocket notepad. My iPaq is like a pocket sized laptop.
Having used a Palm, HP Jornada, and now an iPaq (the Jornada was great, and apparently popular...it got stolen), I'd have to say the PocketPC's are miles ahead of the 8 MB Palms. Windows on the desktop may have it's issues, but Windows in the hand...great system.
Add a feature to a PDA...battery life, and storage. Two best things you can do to make the PDA last longer.
Tapping underwater lines has been successful in the past. Parche and Seawolf did it, among others, and gained immense amounts of intelligence against the USSR in the Cold War. Sure, we could do it other more obvious ways, but the whole point was/is to not let the other guy know. FWIW, the Jimmy Carter was intended as a special ops boat from the beginning, to replace Parche. Parche is showing her years, being originally a 637 class boat, and Jimmy Carter is a newer SSN-21 class (in fact the last of the short lived SSN-21 class...but there is talk of turning one of the early 774 class boats into a special ops boat as well, to complement Jimmy Carter...we used to run 3-5 of 'em back in the Cold War, but all except Parche have been decommissioned.) Spy games are nothing new for us in the sub force (yes, us...I'm on Cheyenne (SSN-773), and am a 11 year sub vet).
Shhh...WinMX gets very little press/notice by the RIAA. Let's keep it that way, shall we.
Oh, yeah, v3.1 is pretty damn good. Anyone want Star Wars Episode II?