MAC addresses can trivially (in both $ & time) be changed by changing your network card. Compare that to changing your processor/mobo.
Also, MAC addresses can (at least theoretically, I may be wrong here) be masked/transformed at the router level (thereby perserving anonymity to the rest of the world/internet).
This is an uninformed comment; it fundamentally assumes that politicians never change their minds, and always make their decisions within an unchanging bubble unaffected by circumstances.
the P. act (can't stand to call it by it's full acronym) was passed during a time of overwhelming stress and near hysteria in the U.S. We are in more sober times, now (thanks to two successful invasions and two failing post-invasion reconstructions).
Furthermore, the P. act was passed with an incredible lack of congressional overview; now that we are in more sobered times, politicians who supported the act based on recommendation rather than personally review are now getting around to that personal (well, staff) review (often prompted by consistuents) and are not happy with what they see.
Will the entire P. Act be thrown out? No, but there's now a substantial (and growing) cross-party body of reps who feel that they were duped by the Act i the first place, and they wish to at least neuter its worst provisions. Most laws get changed this way.
Yes, more support needs to be put behind this (growing and already seriously on the D.C. radar) movement, but it's stupid to profess apathy and despiar based on the fact that politicians sometimes act stupiuly. Ya gotta just keep trying.
Please try to have some awareness of the issue before commenting next time.;)
I've tried to write a response to this post outlining the factual errors and misconceptions several times; there's a bunch of them (mostly involving American misconceptions of Iraqi/Saddam's cooperation with inspectors and Iraq's/the inspectors actual ability to verify information that no proper records were kept for - which tends to spread responsibility up and down the command chain of Iraq's military, while American intelligence belabored under the delusion that Saddam was actually in as firm control of his military (and military scientists) as he pretended to be/deluded himselfinto thinking that he was).
But mainly, I can't believe that the poster thinks that Saddam is dead. He's alive and being held for trial!
Glad to see that +5 Insightful = lacking basic factual knowledge of the area of discussion. [fuming]
It's rather silly to blame the lack of refineries on regulation when it's the fundamentally high cost of building a refinery is the primary reason that they aren't built very often (just heard earlier this evening on "The Connection" radio show ( http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2004/05/2004052 0_b_main.asp ) that it takes ~20 years to make one's investment $$$ back on a new refinery).
While I'm sure that complying w/ env. regs does significantly increase the costs of investment, a greater reason for the lack of new refineries is the looming probability of decreasing oil supplies. Why make a long-term investment in something that isn't long-term dependable?
I'll absorb some flamage to defend Temple of Doom; while its not as good as Raiders, it has several things going for it, related to its origins in the original serials.
a playfyul defying of logic in order to put up a non-stop string of thrills onscreen
A non-stop pace
incredibly stereotypical characters made fun through sheer enthusiasm (compared to SWEP1's awful stereotype-based aliens)
skillfully set-up thrill-scenes including genuinely shocking violence
and finally: grim, threatening, and genuinely frightening (at least for the intended 9-year-old audience) venue and enemies
Sure, Kate Capshaw's Willie is poorly written, but at least there's some fun interplay between her and Indiana in the palace scenes.
Ultimately, the flaws of ToD are the same flaws of the old serials (i.e. breakneck pace requires plot holes and awkwardly-included exposition, stereotype-inhabited exotic locales, poorly written dialogue), but at least these are consistent with (and arguably in tribute to) those sources.
Show me the early serials featuring plots as awkwardly complicated (and as focused on political figures and their shenaigans) as the Star Wars prequels and maybe I'll develop some fondness for it as I have for ToD.
Hybrids have cleaner emissions compared to standard vechicles, regardless of mileage.
This is how they qualify as a LEV and SULEV (low-emission vehicle/super-low-emission-vehicle).
So, when compared to the more "average" pollutant level of the Escort's emissions (I don't believe there are any LEV or SULEV escorts available, correct me if I'm wrong), 31 hybrid's MPG in a hybrid can be considered "way better for the environment" than the Escort's 31 MPG.
So if the next bad warming experience was as bad as the one 50 some million years ago, it would mean that people would have to move more inshore (there will still be a coast mind you) and we can live further north and south than we can now. Trama.
This is a very naive conception of what global climate change (all causes aside) may bring; some worst-case scenarios examined by the Pentagon in this report indicate far worse scenarios than "warmer weather", including the collapse of the gulf stream currents (i.e. causing a radical cooling cycle) and major climate shifts world-wide rendering much of currently viable landmass desert-like.
Regardless of whether any potentially forthcoming natural catastrophes are the result of ongoing cycles or human disruption of those cycles, smug ignorance is plain unproductive.
If I find that Clearplay... doesn't block stuff that I don't want see
That's easy enough to check up on, true....blocks stuff that I do want to see...
And how exactly are you going to find this out? It's easy enough when black boxes are used, but what if entire scenes are quietly clipped? Or any of a varietty of obscuring techniques?
What makes this so very different from the case of you helping your wife to "censor" the movie which she is watching, is the issue of trust.
The big (big) BIG assumption which you are making is that THEIR assessment of the content which you don't wish to see will always map to YOUR assessment of the content that you don't wish to see, esp. when you are making a few minor selections using an interface developed for the widest audience possible.
Sure, 99% of the time "NO GORE" will block out car accident victims in SCI-FI movie X that you are watching - but what to do about the blood and viscera shown during a childbirth scene? Some cultures would find such a scene just as repugnant as the goery giant insect attacks in Starship Troopers, whereas others would never put them in the same category.
Furthermore (though this is less of an issue until these systems have been in place for awhile), you are also trusting them not to ALSO censor (by scene skipping/dialogue replacement/etc.) content which, by your stated assessment, YOU wish to see, but THEY don't wish you to see. Once a system like this goes into wide usage, abuse of the system always becomes an issue.
People gasped in awe because they had emotional investment in his character, who appeared to -die- in the previous film, an appearance which was then turned inside out by converting Gandalf's passive sacrifice for his companions into an active, all-out battle - the sequence takes 60 seconds, tops. This is a case of special effects being used to support smart, concise storytelling.
While I enjoy the AOTC speeder bit, it's a section of an overlong sequence with a single point (Anakin's recklessness and disobedience to Obi Wan); furthermore, the audience knows that Anakin is doing the Jedi equivalent of a Tony Hawk skateboarding stunt, so there's not really much concern built up for Anakin, let alone Obi Wan.
Anyway, my main point is that effects are not the point, its the story told with them.
One problem with the generic "Advanced Options" approach described is that maintaining super-simplicity in the configuration syntax is often staggeringly difficult/impossible, due to dependencies between options - even in XML (where nesting is easy and easily describes a broad range of dependencies) will require some non-obvious extensions.
The alternative is to ignore dependencies, which makes the "Advanced Options" dialog a practical minefield for end0-users.
Basically, what I'm saying is that if a dialog box exists and is easy to get to, it will be assumed to be as usable as the rest of the "GUI" no matter what it is labelled, which creates confusion when the GUI consistency is broken.
The most common example of this approach is FPS videogame "advanced setup" dialogs, which are impenetrable and off-putting to those who are learning the game (an effect which is less noticed in the hard-core gamer community, but would be much more prominent among other audiences).
One possible workaround to this would be to have the "dangerous" control panel invoked in a standard but non-obvious way (i.e. not directly accessible from the restof the GUI menus, control panel prefs, etc., perhaps a key-combo).
Arc is not soley provided by plot; Someone missed the interplay of the 2 main characters in the film (played by Crowe and Bettany), which is central to both the books and the film.
As for the actual plot summary, it's a painfully simple excercise to cut down most any movie in this way.
For example, ROTK's plot can be summed up as "bunch of people try to get rid of an item that makes people turn bad. whoops, someone almost turned bad! whoops, someone did turn bad! whoops, someone almost turned bad! [repeat]."
That's funny, the second I saw the article title I thought of several people who would want to know this, and ASAP.
As another poster pointed out, Warp is an artistically respected label, and a relatively popular one at that. Many people spend $$$ on their output, esp. the limited-edition EPs.
More importantly, musicians (who are certainly more concerned with being hip to their scene than random/. users) know who Warp is, and what they're up to.
Just because Warp isn't one of the big 5, doesn't mean that this lack significance.
Here's a statement from the American Trial Lawyer's network; while certainly not an unbiased source (can anyone recommend one?), this at least cites several facts regarding the incident, evidence at trial, and the actual outcome.
http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Ti er 3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.a spx
Regarding the whole "how hot is hot?" debate, noone's seriously debating the "temperature of brewing"; heck, Starbuck's website recommends 185-195 F.
However, it is the temperature at which the brewed coffee is maintained and served is the sticking point, and (as stated above) it was demonstrated at trial that McD's maintained their brewed coffee at a higher temperature than other outlets (135 to 140 (F) according to the above source).
Furthermore, Medical testimony showed "exponentially less" chance of burning as the service temperature decreased from 185 (F) (where serious burns upon spillage are likely), with minimal chance of serious burns at temps and that McD's was aware of these facts.
From there it's pretty much a no-brainer to see that McD's was aware of the risks involved with their coffee-serving process (and recall that in a franchising business such as McD's, the whole business comes down to defining processes and products for use by the franchise owners), and made a conscious decision to put profit above risk in that process. A jury saw this decision as irresponsible, and thus punished the company with a fine.
I think what you're trying to get at is the inherent difficulty of "proving a negative". It's always much easier to prove an affirmative (which inherently contradicts the position to be disproved). Hence, sailing around the world to proves that it's round, and therefore not flat.
However, the article offers speculation, not claims of proof/disproof.
I don't see anything unreasonable in the claim that the manuscript might be a hoax; reasonable observers will note that this is not actual proof.
In the meantime, speculation (within the realm of reason) that something could be hoax may suggest to these/other researchers paths of approaching the manuscript which eventually lead to its proof/disproof.
This is how the scentific method is supposed to work -exploration of multiple paths moving progressing (hopefully) towards deeper insight.
You forget Laurie Andersen, who managed to make a hit song out of references to comic books and the military-industrial underpinnings of the U.S economy.
...repeating one of my other comments in this discussion...
----------
Regardless of whether they still worked/are still working there after the Diebold acquisttion, any development work (in-progress or completed) involving felons at the acquired company should be regarded as suspect.
After all, a criminal does not need to keep working for a company one he's written a "back door" into software distributed by that company. (it may make keeping a "back door" hidden simpler, but Diebold isn't doing anything to inspire confidence in its review processes in any case).
Due to the vital nature of this software, background checks were called for on all participating developers and managers for any acquired existing development work.
Whether or not this was explicitly required in Diebold's contract, failure to consider this should be regarded as a fundamental failure in their security processes.
Rgeardless of whether they still worked/are still working there after the Diebold acquisttion, their development work at the acquires company should be regarded as suspect.
After all, a criminal does not need to keep working for a company one he's written a "back door" into software distributed by that company. (it may make keeping a "back door" hidden simpler, but Diebold isn;t doing much to inspire confidence in its review processes in any case).
Due to the vital nature of this software, background checks were called for on all participating developers and managers for any acquired existing development work.
Whether or not this was explicitly required in Diebold's contract, failure to consider this should be regarded as a fundamental failure in their security processes.
I can't comment on the issue of "number of confessors", but the indiscriminate removal of thousands of (mostly black) voters via mis-identification as felons is well documented at this point.
Greg Palast wrote an excellent article for Salon regarding this issue.
So, the Gore/Bush Florida corruption allegations involve both pre-election shenanigans AND pre-election shenanigans.
The CNN article is based on the assumption that the Florida voting (pre-counting) processes were held cleanly, when there is strong evidence suggesting otherwise.
I won't address the murder conspiracy issues, as dis/belief in them is irrelevant to the "role-cleansing" issue.
Assuming that an/many eagle(s) would aid in this sort of mission (and their place in the larger Tolkien mythology indicates that they wouldn't do this), they'd be taken down by the Nazgul and their fell beasts before they even reached the borders of Mordor.
Why? BECAUSE SAURON'S GIANT FLAMING EYE WATCHES EVERYTHING GOING ON INSIDE AND ON THE BORDERS OF THOSE LANDS THAT FORCES ITS WILL OVER EVERYONE AND THING IN MORDOR.
Did you notice how the Nazgul and their flying beats reacted instantly to Frodo's putting on the ring in Mount Doom? Would they respond any LESS quickly to a giant eagle flying directly towards Mount Doom, especially once Sauron had a good direct look (not so hard when something is in mid-air, not much cover) and sensed the presence of his Ring?
And regarding that gaze, it's not as if Sauron can't basically stare down anything in existence (i.e. the scene in which his gaze passes near Sam and Frodo and they're wracked with pain). Sauron's gaze could take down an eagle in mid-air if it suited him, especially one flying within his borders (i.e. center of his powers).
Or did you miss the overtly-stated point of the Gondor/Rohan assault on the Black Gate being a way to distract the attention of Sauron and his servants?
The eagle-to-mount doom thing is a good meme, but doesn't hold up to much scrutiny, perhaps even less so now that Jackson's film provides a very concrete (and book-accurate) visualization of Sauron's power within and over Mordor.
I have that DVD- it does not disable the ability to "go to" a specific time - so if you're free to jump to "10:00:00" in the movie, or anywhere else that you please.
So while he disagrees with the idea of "chaptering" a movie (and so the movie is not chaptered on the DVD, which would consitute an endorsement of that approach), the DVD also does NOT interfere with the user's standard ability to navigate wherever they please.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me - if the user wants chaptering there's just a bit more work involved to simulate the effect.
Reading a review after seeing a movie can be helpful in clarifying one's own thoughts* about a film, or answering specific questions one might have had. They can also be useful for learning about influences on the given film, and its larger place in the history of the medium.
Yes, other people's ideas can be useful! Even for brilliant people who know everything already.
* This assumes that one watches movies that require thought/are worth thinking about.
Slashdot Mirror
MAC addresses can trivially (in both $ & time) be changed by changing your network card. Compare that to changing your processor/mobo.
Also, MAC addresses can (at least theoretically, I may be wrong here) be masked/transformed at the router level (thereby perserving anonymity to the rest of the world/internet).
This is an uninformed comment; it fundamentally assumes that politicians never change their minds, and always make their decisions within an unchanging bubble unaffected by circumstances.
;)
the P. act (can't stand to call it by it's full acronym) was passed during a time of overwhelming stress and near hysteria in the U.S. We are in more sober times, now (thanks to two successful invasions and two failing post-invasion reconstructions).
Furthermore, the P. act was passed with an incredible lack of congressional overview; now that we are in more sobered times, politicians who supported the act based on recommendation rather than personally review are now getting around to that personal (well, staff) review (often prompted by consistuents) and are not happy with what they see.
Will the entire P. Act be thrown out? No, but there's now a substantial (and growing) cross-party body of reps who feel that they were duped by the Act i the first place, and they wish to at least neuter its worst provisions. Most laws get changed this way.
Yes, more support needs to be put behind this (growing and already seriously on the D.C. radar) movement, but it's stupid to profess apathy and despiar based on the fact that politicians sometimes act stupiuly. Ya gotta just keep trying.
Please try to have some awareness of the issue before commenting next time.
I've tried to write a response to this post outlining the factual errors and misconceptions several times; there's a bunch of them (mostly involving American misconceptions of Iraqi/Saddam's cooperation with inspectors and Iraq's/the inspectors actual ability to verify information that no proper records were kept for - which tends to spread responsibility up and down the command chain of Iraq's military, while American intelligence belabored under the delusion that Saddam was actually in as firm control of his military (and military scientists) as he pretended to be/deluded himselfinto thinking that he was).
But mainly, I can't believe that the poster thinks that Saddam is dead. He's alive and being held for trial!
Glad to see that +5 Insightful = lacking basic factual knowledge of the area of discussion. [fuming]
It's rather silly to blame the lack of refineries on regulation when it's the fundamentally high cost of building a refinery is the primary reason that they aren't built very often (just heard earlier this evening on "The Connection" radio show ( http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2004/05/2004052 0_b_main.asp ) that it takes ~20 years to make one's investment $$$ back on a new refinery).
While I'm sure that complying w/ env. regs does significantly increase the costs of investment, a greater reason for the lack of new refineries is the looming probability of decreasing oil supplies. Why make a long-term investment in something that isn't long-term dependable?
Sure, Kate Capshaw's Willie is poorly written, but at least there's some fun interplay between her and Indiana in the palace scenes.
Ultimately, the flaws of ToD are the same flaws of the old serials (i.e. breakneck pace requires plot holes and awkwardly-included exposition, stereotype-inhabited exotic locales, poorly written dialogue), but at least these are consistent with (and arguably in tribute to) those sources.
Show me the early serials featuring plots as awkwardly complicated (and as focused on political figures and their shenaigans) as the Star Wars prequels and maybe I'll develop some fondness for it as I have for ToD.
just a small correction on my earlier post; the second sentence should read:
"Hybrids have cleaner emissions compared to standard vechicles (based on the same volume of identical fuel used, regardless of mileage)."
Pardon me!
While your post IS funny, it's also, uh, wrong.
Hybrids have cleaner emissions compared to standard vechicles, regardless of mileage.
This is how they qualify as a LEV and SULEV (low-emission vehicle/super-low-emission-vehicle).
So, when compared to the more "average" pollutant level of the Escort's emissions (I don't believe there are any LEV or SULEV escorts available, correct me if I'm wrong), 31 hybrid's MPG in a hybrid can be considered "way better for the environment" than the Escort's 31 MPG.
So if the next bad warming experience was as bad as the one 50 some million years ago, it would mean that people would have to move more inshore (there will still be a coast mind you) and we can live further north and south than we can now. Trama.
This is a very naive conception of what global climate change (all causes aside) may bring; some worst-case scenarios examined by the Pentagon in this report indicate far worse scenarios than "warmer weather", including the collapse of the gulf stream currents (i.e. causing a radical cooling cycle) and major climate shifts world-wide rendering much of currently viable landmass desert-like.
Regardless of whether any potentially forthcoming natural catastrophes are the result of ongoing cycles or human disruption of those cycles, smug ignorance is plain unproductive.
If I find that Clearplay... doesn't block stuff that I don't want see
...blocks stuff that I do want to see...
That's easy enough to check up on, true.
And how exactly are you going to find this out? It's easy enough when black boxes are used, but what if entire scenes are quietly clipped? Or any of a varietty of obscuring techniques?
What makes this so very different from the case of you helping your wife to "censor" the movie which she is watching, is the issue of trust.
The big (big) BIG assumption which you are making is that THEIR assessment of the content which you don't wish to see will always map to YOUR assessment of the content that you don't wish to see, esp. when you are making a few minor selections using an interface developed for the widest audience possible.
Sure, 99% of the time "NO GORE" will block out car accident victims in SCI-FI movie X that you are watching - but what to do about the blood and viscera shown during a childbirth scene? Some cultures would find such a scene just as repugnant as the goery giant insect attacks in Starship Troopers, whereas others would never put them in the same category.
Furthermore (though this is less of an issue until these systems have been in place for awhile), you are also trusting them not to ALSO censor (by scene skipping/dialogue replacement/etc.) content which, by your stated assessment, YOU wish to see, but THEY don't wish you to see. Once a system like this goes into wide usage, abuse of the system always becomes an issue.
People gasped in awe because they had emotional investment in his character, who appeared to -die- in the previous film, an appearance which was then turned inside out by converting Gandalf's passive sacrifice for his companions into an active, all-out battle - the sequence takes 60 seconds, tops. This is a case of special effects being used to support smart, concise storytelling.
While I enjoy the AOTC speeder bit, it's a section of an overlong sequence with a single point (Anakin's recklessness and disobedience to Obi Wan); furthermore, the audience knows that Anakin is doing the Jedi equivalent of a Tony Hawk skateboarding stunt, so there's not really much concern built up for Anakin, let alone Obi Wan.
Anyway, my main point is that effects are not the point, its the story told with them.
One problem with the generic "Advanced Options" approach described is that maintaining super-simplicity in the configuration syntax is often staggeringly difficult/impossible, due to dependencies between options - even in XML (where nesting is easy and easily describes a broad range of dependencies) will require some non-obvious extensions.
The alternative is to ignore dependencies, which makes the "Advanced Options" dialog a practical minefield for end0-users.
Basically, what I'm saying is that if a dialog box exists and is easy to get to, it will be assumed to be as usable as the rest of the "GUI" no matter what it is labelled, which creates confusion when the GUI consistency is broken.
The most common example of this approach is FPS videogame "advanced setup" dialogs, which are impenetrable and off-putting to those who are learning the game (an effect which is less noticed in the hard-core gamer community, but would be much more prominent among other audiences).
One possible workaround to this would be to have the "dangerous" control panel invoked in a standard but non-obvious way (i.e. not directly accessible from the restof the GUI menus, control panel prefs, etc., perhaps a key-combo).
You need arc.
Arc is not soley provided by plot; Someone missed the interplay of the 2 main characters in the film (played by Crowe and Bettany), which is central to both the books and the film.
As for the actual plot summary, it's a painfully simple excercise to cut down most any movie in this way.
For example, ROTK's plot can be summed up as "bunch of people try to get rid of an item that makes people turn bad. whoops, someone almost turned bad! whoops, someone did turn bad! whoops, someone almost turned bad! [repeat]."
While I am sympathetic to this goal, it's also irrelevant to whether or not a crime was committed in this case.
The way it should be, gov't info available for public inspection, does not affect the fact that those memos are considered confidential and private.
And I am certain that the Republican staffers pilfering Democrat memos would be equally upset were their positions reversed.
Someone mentioned "Fritz the Cat", but didn't point out that it was a huge hit at the time, esp. for an "underground" animated film.
$25 million isn't much today, but in 1972 that's quite the take (recoup-ing production + marketing costs over 25-times over is never too shabby!)
That's funny, the second I saw the article title I thought of several people who would want to know this, and ASAP.
/. users) know who Warp is, and what they're up to.
As another poster pointed out, Warp is an artistically respected label, and a relatively popular one at that. Many people spend $$$ on their output, esp. the limited-edition EPs.
More importantly, musicians (who are certainly more concerned with being hip to their scene than random
Just because Warp isn't one of the big 5, doesn't mean that this lack significance.
Here's a statement from the American Trial Lawyer's network; while certainly not an unbiased source (can anyone recommend one?), this at least cites several facts regarding the incident, evidence at trial, and the actual outcome.
i er 3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.a spx
http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/T
Regarding the whole "how hot is hot?" debate, noone's seriously debating the "temperature of brewing"; heck, Starbuck's website recommends 185-195 F.
However, it is the temperature at which the brewed coffee is maintained and served is the sticking point, and (as stated above) it was demonstrated at trial that McD's maintained their brewed coffee at a higher temperature than other outlets (135 to 140 (F) according to the above source).
Furthermore, Medical testimony showed "exponentially less" chance of burning as the service temperature decreased from 185 (F) (where serious burns upon spillage are likely), with minimal chance of serious burns at temps and that McD's was aware of these facts.
From there it's pretty much a no-brainer to see that McD's was aware of the risks involved with their coffee-serving process (and recall that in a franchising business such as McD's, the whole business comes down to defining processes and products for use by the franchise owners), and made a conscious decision to put profit above risk in that process. A jury saw this decision as irresponsible, and thus punished the company with a fine.
I think what you're trying to get at is the inherent difficulty of "proving a negative". It's always much easier to prove an affirmative (which inherently contradicts the position to be disproved). Hence, sailing around the world to proves that it's round, and therefore not flat.
However, the article offers speculation, not claims of proof/disproof.
I don't see anything unreasonable in the claim that the manuscript might be a hoax; reasonable observers will note that this is not actual proof.
In the meantime, speculation (within the realm of reason) that something could be hoax may suggest to these/other researchers paths of approaching the manuscript which eventually lead to its proof/disproof.
This is how the scentific method is supposed to work -exploration of multiple paths moving progressing (hopefully) towards deeper insight.
You forget Laurie Andersen, who managed to make a hit song out of references to comic books and the military-industrial underpinnings of the U.S economy.
Now there's a musical nerd to look up to!
...repeating one of my other comments in this discussion...
----------
Regardless of whether they still worked/are still working there after the Diebold acquisttion, any development work (in-progress or completed) involving felons at the acquired company should be regarded as suspect.
After all, a criminal does not need to keep working for a company one he's written a "back door" into software distributed by that company. (it may make keeping a "back door" hidden simpler, but Diebold isn't doing anything to inspire confidence in its review processes in any case).
Due to the vital nature of this software, background checks were called for on all participating developers and managers for any acquired existing development work.
Whether or not this was explicitly required in Diebold's contract, failure to consider this should be regarded as a fundamental failure in their security processes.
Rgeardless of whether they still worked/are still working there after the Diebold acquisttion, their development work at the acquires company should be regarded as suspect.
After all, a criminal does not need to keep working for a company one he's written a "back door" into software distributed by that company. (it may make keeping a "back door" hidden simpler, but Diebold isn;t doing much to inspire confidence in its review processes in any case).
Due to the vital nature of this software, background checks were called for on all participating developers and managers for any acquired existing development work.
Whether or not this was explicitly required in Diebold's contract, failure to consider this should be regarded as a fundamental failure in their security processes.
I can't comment on the issue of "number of confessors", but the indiscriminate removal of thousands of (mostly black) voters via mis-identification as felons is well documented at this point.
Greg Palast wrote an excellent article for Salon regarding this issue.
So, the Gore/Bush Florida corruption allegations involve both pre-election shenanigans AND pre-election shenanigans.
The CNN article is based on the assumption that the Florida voting (pre-counting) processes were held cleanly, when there is strong evidence suggesting otherwise.
I won't address the murder conspiracy issues, as dis/belief in them is irrelevant to the "role-cleansing" issue.
Obvious troll, fun to reply to.
Assuming that an/many eagle(s) would aid in this sort of mission (and their place in the larger Tolkien mythology indicates that they wouldn't do this), they'd be taken down by the Nazgul and their fell beasts before they even reached the borders of Mordor.
Why? BECAUSE SAURON'S GIANT FLAMING EYE WATCHES EVERYTHING GOING ON INSIDE AND ON THE BORDERS OF THOSE LANDS THAT FORCES ITS WILL OVER EVERYONE AND THING IN MORDOR.
Did you notice how the Nazgul and their flying beats reacted instantly to Frodo's putting on the ring in Mount Doom? Would they respond any LESS quickly to a giant eagle flying directly towards Mount Doom, especially once Sauron had a good direct look (not so hard when something is in mid-air, not much cover) and sensed the presence of his Ring?
And regarding that gaze, it's not as if Sauron can't basically stare down anything in existence (i.e. the scene in which his gaze passes near Sam and Frodo and they're wracked with pain). Sauron's gaze could take down an eagle in mid-air if it suited him, especially one flying within his borders (i.e. center of his powers).
Or did you miss the overtly-stated point of the Gondor/Rohan assault on the Black Gate being a way to distract the attention of Sauron and his servants?
The eagle-to-mount doom thing is a good meme, but doesn't hold up to much scrutiny, perhaps even less so now that Jackson's film provides a very concrete (and book-accurate) visualization of Sauron's power within and over Mordor.
I have that DVD- it does not disable the ability to "go to" a specific time - so if you're free to jump to "10:00:00" in the movie, or anywhere else that you please.
So while he disagrees with the idea of "chaptering" a movie (and so the movie is not chaptered on the DVD, which would consitute an endorsement of that approach), the DVD also does NOT interfere with the user's standard ability to navigate wherever they please.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me - if the user wants chaptering there's just a bit more work involved to simulate the effect.
Reading a review after seeing a movie can be helpful in clarifying one's own thoughts* about a film, or answering specific questions one might have had. They can also be useful for learning about influences on the given film, and its larger place in the history of the medium.
Yes, other people's ideas can be useful! Even for brilliant people who know everything already.
* This assumes that one watches movies that require thought/are worth thinking about.