If we can open that argument up I'm convinced it will be as easy to convince the undecided that the core of the Democratic party is indeed evil as it was to win the argument the Soviet Union was utterly Evil.
Unless you believe that the core of the Republican party is also evil, I'm afraid I can't support your position.
I'm younger than you are, so I missed the Cold War scare that you're referring to. Consequently, I don't have an irrational fear and hatred of the USSR drilled into me, so telling me that the Democratic party is as evil as Russia was in Reagan's day just doesn't make the emotional connection you were going for.
I can see that if you start with the premise that Cold War era Russia was inherently evil, and the Democratic party promotes some of the same ideas that were a cornerstone of Russian society, then the Democratic party must be evil because those ideas must be evil. However, please try to understand that many of us do not take this premise to be a given. If you believe socialized healthcare is evil, you'll have to argue the case for why it is evil, not just draw a connection to Russia. If you believe a so-called "progressive" tax system (in which wealthier people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes) is evil, you'll have to explain why it's evil. If you believe that charging suspected terrorists with crimes and prosecuting them in a court of law, rather than simply detaining them without charge indefinitely and subjecting them to torture, is evil, you'll have to explain why. If you believe requiring a warrant in order to eavesdrop on someone's phone calls is evil, make your case.
To a liberal, 'diversity' is defined as all colors, gender identities and faiths all thinking exactly alike.
That's actually a very interesting way of putting it, thank you. As a Christian, the idea that "all faiths are equal" has always bothered me, simply because I think it shows a deep misunderstanding of most religion, and that level of misunderstanding betrays a lack of respect. So, I feel like anyone who tries to say that all religions are equally valid is being disrespectful of my religious beliefs!
Because the one thing liberalism can't tolerate is reasoned debate since the whole system is based on emotion.
And here's where I have to disagree with you. Neither side has any interest in reasoned debate, at least at the extreme ends. Both sides are fearmongering. Republicans want everyone to be afraid that Barack Obama would double everyone's taxes, destroy small businesses, require mandatory abortions, make it more difficult for straight couples to get married, and encourage Islamic terrorists to attack our country again. Democrats want everyone to be afraid that John McCain will hand fistfulls of cash to rich billionaires while encouraging the bank to take your house away, destroy small businesses, eliminate science and health education from schools, wipe out the last several decades of advancement in the fight for racial and gender equality, and encourage Islamic terrorists to attack our country again. I don't hear much call for reasoned debate coming from either side.
Funny enough almost all of the email subjects say "Hello". Unless somebody is sending me spam I can't remember the last time I received an email with the subject line "Hello"
That's because the people you regularly communicate with are a lot smarter than the people who e-mail the Governor of Alaska, apparently.
The irrational anger driving at the speed limit generates is really interesting. If people not breaking the law causes intense frustration and feeling of anger in you, something is wrong in you.
If we outlaw spam, then what's to prevent someone from signing up to a legit business, waiting for an advertisement from the company and then trying to prosecute claiming they were spammed?
It's very simple. If you sign up on a company's mailing list, and they send you advertising, then the message they sent was not spam, because it was not unsolicited.
But there's something you've missed. Spam is already outlawed. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 was widely criticized (mostly by people who don't know anything about it), but it does provide a clear definition of spam. I'm not saying it's the best definition, but it's clear, and it's a good enough definition for now. What you've described (assuming the company follows a few clearly defined and reasonable requirements) is perfectly legal, while the spam that clogs my inbox is not. If we could somehow get the federal government to actually enforce CAN-SPAM, the situation would improve dramatically. Not go away, of course, but improve. Unfortunately that's not going to happen in the near future.
In Heaven, the police are British, the mechanics are German, the cooks are French, the lovers are Italian, and everything is organized by the Swiss.
In Hell, the police are German, the mechanics are French, the cooks are British, the lovers are Swiss, and everything is organized by the Italians.
A slight variation: in Heaven the French could be lovers while the cooks are Italian. A different version of the joke adds that in Heaven the houses are American and the wives are Japanese, while in Hell the houses are Japanese and the wives are American.
My Nokia N75 runs Symbian, and it's craptacular. The web browser is unusable because after loading a page or two it runs out of memory and won't work again until I reboot the phone. Periodically, the phone rings with the default ringtone instead of the one I've selected. On several occasions the system has locked up and I've had to pull the battery out. The UI is slow to respond, for example while the phone is ringing, and I flip it open to answer, it takes several seconds to acknowledge that I've opened it, during which time it just keeps ringing.
On top of that, there's a significant hardware problem: there's no separation between the frequently-used arrow keys and the application keys on either side of them, so one tiny slip of the thumb and suddenly the phone thinks I want to buy music online - no matter what I was in the middle of. Obviously this isn't a Symbian problem, but the others seem to be.
you have to pay an extra, hidden Apple-tax to do so.
That sounds about right for Apple. Its similarly impossible to run MacOS on anything except approved Apple hardware thanks to DRM.
Sorry, this is not currently true. There are technical limitations with drivers etc., but Mac OS X does run on standard PCs. It's simply a violation of the EULA to do so.
I hate spam just as much as anyone else, but they should have the freedom to send me it, since I am not physically harmed.
Sorry, but you don't understand the spam problem. Spammers lie, cheat, and steal. They know we don't want to see their crap, and they continuously find new tricks to get us to see it anyway, despite our best efforts not to. The simple act of publishing a link to VeNoM0619@hotmail.com is going to get you added to a ton of mailing lists automatically, and the spammers will swear you opted in.
The harm isn't physical, but it is not insignificant; I run a very small little e-mail server out of my house which has to block a spam attempt every 45 seconds on average, 24 hours a day. This is a server hosting one domain, which is only used for my friends and family. Most of the machine's RAM is dedicated to running spam-fighting software. Imagine the cost when you scale that up.
If you've only checked your e-mail twice in the last six months, then of course e-mail spam isn't a problem for you, because you don't really use e-mail. Some of us actually use it. A lot. For business communication. We depend on it. Just because you don't, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
All of you realise its probably going to be similar to the difference between Windows 2000 (vista) and Windows XP (Windows 7)? Ie, the previous version is *less* annoying:D
More importantly, the driver model didn't change significantly from 2000 to XP, so mostly everything that worked in 2000 also worked in XP. If 2000 hadn't existed, XP would have completely bombed; users would have hated it even worse than they hate Vista now.
The difference is that 2000 wasn't marketed to end users at all, and when end users complained with problems, Microsoft said "it's not our fault; Windows 2000 is designed exclusively for use on corporate LANs, so talk to your IT department." With Vista, Microsoft can't shirk the blame.
I'm confident that by the time the next version of Windows is released, the compatibility problems will have been solved, and because it won't be called "Vista", everyone will love it. They'll probably tweak the GUI again, but under the hood it will be nearly identical to Vista, with some new features bolted on that don't really affect anything. UAC will still be there, but they'll fix it so it's less annoying, and applications will have been redesigned to avoid generating UAC popups (which really will make life better).
I recall reading somewhere that iTunes is essentially an xml parser/browser and the actual work is done by Quicktime.
This is essentially true. iTunes has extra hooks for officially-supported formats like MP3 and AAC that allow features like the Visualizer to work (the screen-saver/oscilloscope thing), but it will play any audio or video format supported by QuickTime. If you want to play.ogg files in iTunes, just install a plugin for QuickTime that adds.ogg support, and any application that uses QuickTime (including iTunes) will be able to play.ogg files (but the iTunes visualizer won't work).
iTunes has plenty of other features besides buying and playing music: ripping CDs, burning CDs, managing your media library, playing Internet radio, downloading Podcasts, managing iPods and iPhones (including synchronizing media and data and installing applications on the iPhone and iPod Touch), etc. etc.
I'm a Safari fan - but sneaking installs of it in? That makes it - what? - bloatware?
People bitched, and Apple fixed it. Apple Software Update for Windows now informs you that Safari is available, but clearly separates it from the available updates. I agree that this was a crappy thing to do.
I mean, I've never heard a McDonald's ad begin with a crowd talking about how much they hate McDonald's. Is this what passes for clever advertising now?
Not blatantly; you have to read between the lines a bit. McDonald's doesn't actually tell you that everyone thinks their food is crap, they just go out of their way to tell you it isn't.
I'm not sure I would go so far as to say they have zero control over that situation. Apple would not be a fair comparison since they control both the hardware and the software. So, I have to compare the Windows approach to the Linux approach since I am most familiar with it.
Apple controls which hardware gets included in their systems, but they still use video chipsets from nVidia, ATi, and recently Intel, just like everyone else. Apple works very closely with their hardware vendors to make sure good quality drivers are available; in fact, Apple will do some of the development in-house if the manufacturers can't seem to get it right.
You can't tell me Microsoft doesn't have that kind of clout with major hardware vendors. They just choose not to bother. That choice bit them in the ass, so I suspect they'll be making a different choice the next time around.
No idea how/why this happens - no proxy was set in the OS or browser of the client.
A router can be configured to transparently redirect all traffic destined for port 80 (with any destination IP) into a proxy server; it's called a "transparent proxy" because your browser doesn't know it's happening. Here's more information and how to set it up on Linux.
How about the hordes of disgruntled Hillary supporters who feel slighted by the mainstream media's sexist treatment of her during the primary campaign, who are now planning to vote for McCain out of spite? It's not because of anything Obama said or did, and has absolutely nothing to do with policy issues; they're personally offended that so many Democrats didn't vote for a woman. Running to McCain with complete disregard for his policies is completely insane, but that's what they're doing, and his selection of Sarah Palin as his runningmate only reaffirms (in their minds) that McCain is the right choice.
(I absolutely do not deny that there was sexism in the media coverage. A quick Google search found this example, which I agree is pretty funny, but I have trouble imagining a group of reporters talking about a male candidate's clothes in this way. People were talking about Hillary in ways they would never talk about a male candidate. My extreme distrust of Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with her gender.)
Both support the giant permanent bases being built in Iraq, which guarentee 50k+ troops even after any "pullout," plus the probably 100k+ contractors.
That's not Obama's stated position. From his web site:
"Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."
Both are agressive towards Iran, leaving nothing off the table (including a nuclear first strike). Iran has proven multiple times that they don't have a weapons program and they can legally enrich uranium for legal purposes.
It would be silly to begin negotiations with anything left off the table. Obama wants to talk to Iran without preconditions, and leaving options off the table before negotiations begin is, by definition, a precondition. For more, see Obama's Iran policy.
Putting a new face onto the same terrible foreign policy decisions doesn't change anything.
I agree. There are plenty of other things I dislike about Obama, and frankly some of McCain's plans would be a breath of fresh air after the horrible disaster that has been the Bush presidency. However, in a two-party system, you can either vote for the candidate who will do the least damage, or recuse yourself from the process of selecting the winner (either by not voting, or by voting for a candidate with no chance of winning). Presumably you've chosen the latter; I've chosen the former. If I didn't care which of the two major-party candidates wins, then I would be inclined to vote differently.
Here's the list and a brief explanation of how succession works.
Gerald Ford, President of the United States from 1974 to 1977, never won a national election. He was appointed to be Vice President when Spiro Agnew resigned, and then became President himself when Richard Nixon resigned. He lost the next election to Jimmy Carter.
In the TV show The West Wing, which I highly recommend watching in its entirety (starting with the pilot), there's an incident that prompts President Bartlett to temporarily turn over the Presidency to the next in line. Normally this would be the Vice President, but the VP had just resigned, so it fell to the Speaker of the House. The awkward thing was 1) the President is a Democrat while the Speaker of the House is a Republican, and 2) the Speaker of the House must resign from Congress before he can be sworn in as President (only the Vice President can serve in two branches of government at the same time), and when President Bartlett decides he's ready to resume his duties as President, the former Speaker of the House cannot simply return to the House; he's out of a job until the next election (House elections are every 2 years). Interesting stuff.
Honestly how often do you actually use the home button?
I can't remember the last time I clicked it.
Some of us have useful home pages, but most people don't bother setting their home page to anything more interesting than Google's search page. If all you're going to use as your home page is a Google search, and you can do a Google search from the address bar (or a dedicated search box), why would you bother clicking the Home button before typing your search terms?
There's a huge number of people who have never changed their home page from MSN. They don't understand that you can, don't understand why you would, and don't understand what happened to it if you change it for them. When installing Firefox, I often change the home page to MSN, because I know certain users will switch back to IE if I don't.
There's an option in Preferences to show a Home button.
Safari also doesn't show the Home button by default; go to View/Customize Toolbar to add it there.
Seriously. How the fuck can you release a browser without a base functionality that is expected by every person who has used one to date.
You've apparently misjudged what a large number of browser users consider to be "base functionality", if two (out of four) major browser vendors are turning it off by default. Fortunately, it's still available for those of us who live outside the middle of the bell curve.
Yes, I realize that I sound like a FF fanboi, but this is not so.
No, you sound like an AdBlock fanboi. If that's the most important feature to you, then Chrome won't be your default browser for a long time, but that doesn't mean it's not worth playing with just to see how it works. Also, please understand that many people aren't seriously bothered by ads, or have other solutions (I block a lot of ads in my proxy server, which is not browser-dependent).
For a lot of people, the most important feature isn't ad blocking; it's speed, or stability, or W3C standards compliance, or a minimal UI that doesn't take up much screen real estate. Chrome seems pretty good at all of these. For other people, it's customizability, or debugging tools, or compatibility with sites designed for IE, or the ability to run third-party add-ons. For some people, the most important feature is having a blue letter "e" for an icon. Chrome won't satisfy these people for awhile, and that's OK, because other browsers do.
It doesn't seem like they wre aiming to get my business yet anyway.
No, they weren't. They're aiming at people who are dissatisfied with their browsing experience, who perhaps don't even realize how dissatisfied they are. A few of these will be Firefox users, but the majority will be IE users.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was for porn...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
If we can open that argument up I'm convinced it will be as easy to convince the undecided that the core of the Democratic party is indeed evil as it was to win the argument the Soviet Union was utterly Evil.
Unless you believe that the core of the Republican party is also evil, I'm afraid I can't support your position.
I'm younger than you are, so I missed the Cold War scare that you're referring to. Consequently, I don't have an irrational fear and hatred of the USSR drilled into me, so telling me that the Democratic party is as evil as Russia was in Reagan's day just doesn't make the emotional connection you were going for.
I can see that if you start with the premise that Cold War era Russia was inherently evil, and the Democratic party promotes some of the same ideas that were a cornerstone of Russian society, then the Democratic party must be evil because those ideas must be evil. However, please try to understand that many of us do not take this premise to be a given. If you believe socialized healthcare is evil, you'll have to argue the case for why it is evil, not just draw a connection to Russia. If you believe a so-called "progressive" tax system (in which wealthier people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes) is evil, you'll have to explain why it's evil. If you believe that charging suspected terrorists with crimes and prosecuting them in a court of law, rather than simply detaining them without charge indefinitely and subjecting them to torture, is evil, you'll have to explain why. If you believe requiring a warrant in order to eavesdrop on someone's phone calls is evil, make your case.
To a liberal, 'diversity' is defined as all colors, gender identities and faiths all thinking exactly alike.
That's actually a very interesting way of putting it, thank you. As a Christian, the idea that "all faiths are equal" has always bothered me, simply because I think it shows a deep misunderstanding of most religion, and that level of misunderstanding betrays a lack of respect. So, I feel like anyone who tries to say that all religions are equally valid is being disrespectful of my religious beliefs!
Because the one thing liberalism can't tolerate is reasoned debate since the whole system is based on emotion.
And here's where I have to disagree with you. Neither side has any interest in reasoned debate, at least at the extreme ends. Both sides are fearmongering. Republicans want everyone to be afraid that Barack Obama would double everyone's taxes, destroy small businesses, require mandatory abortions, make it more difficult for straight couples to get married, and encourage Islamic terrorists to attack our country again. Democrats want everyone to be afraid that John McCain will hand fistfulls of cash to rich billionaires while encouraging the bank to take your house away, destroy small businesses, eliminate science and health education from schools, wipe out the last several decades of advancement in the fight for racial and gender equality, and encourage Islamic terrorists to attack our country again. I don't hear much call for reasoned debate coming from either side.
They should give him the .org and a wad of cash, just not quite as big a wad as if they had nothing else to offer.
Funny enough almost all of the email subjects say "Hello". Unless somebody is sending me spam I can't remember the last time I received an email with the subject line "Hello"
That's because the people you regularly communicate with are a lot smarter than the people who e-mail the Governor of Alaska, apparently.
The irrational anger driving at the speed limit generates is really interesting. If people not breaking the law causes intense frustration and feeling of anger in you, something is wrong in you.
Or in the law.
If we outlaw spam, then what's to prevent someone from signing up to a legit business, waiting for an advertisement from the company and then trying to prosecute claiming they were spammed?
It's very simple. If you sign up on a company's mailing list, and they send you advertising, then the message they sent was not spam, because it was not unsolicited.
But there's something you've missed. Spam is already outlawed. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 was widely criticized (mostly by people who don't know anything about it), but it does provide a clear definition of spam. I'm not saying it's the best definition, but it's clear, and it's a good enough definition for now. What you've described (assuming the company follows a few clearly defined and reasonable requirements) is perfectly legal, while the spam that clogs my inbox is not. If we could somehow get the federal government to actually enforce CAN-SPAM, the situation would improve dramatically. Not go away, of course, but improve. Unfortunately that's not going to happen in the near future.
In Heaven, the police are British, the mechanics are German, the cooks are French, the lovers are Italian, and everything is organized by the Swiss.
In Hell, the police are German, the mechanics are French, the cooks are British, the lovers are Swiss, and everything is organized by the Italians.
A slight variation: in Heaven the French could be lovers while the cooks are Italian. A different version of the joke adds that in Heaven the houses are American and the wives are Japanese, while in Hell the houses are Japanese and the wives are American.
My Nokia N75 runs Symbian, and it's craptacular. The web browser is unusable because after loading a page or two it runs out of memory and won't work again until I reboot the phone. Periodically, the phone rings with the default ringtone instead of the one I've selected. On several occasions the system has locked up and I've had to pull the battery out. The UI is slow to respond, for example while the phone is ringing, and I flip it open to answer, it takes several seconds to acknowledge that I've opened it, during which time it just keeps ringing.
On top of that, there's a significant hardware problem: there's no separation between the frequently-used arrow keys and the application keys on either side of them, so one tiny slip of the thumb and suddenly the phone thinks I want to buy music online - no matter what I was in the middle of. Obviously this isn't a Symbian problem, but the others seem to be.
you have to pay an extra, hidden Apple-tax to do so.
That sounds about right for Apple. Its similarly impossible to run MacOS on anything except approved Apple hardware thanks to DRM.
Sorry, this is not currently true. There are technical limitations with drivers etc., but Mac OS X does run on standard PCs. It's simply a violation of the EULA to do so.
I hate spam just as much as anyone else, but they should have the freedom to send me it, since I am not physically harmed.
Sorry, but you don't understand the spam problem. Spammers lie, cheat, and steal. They know we don't want to see their crap, and they continuously find new tricks to get us to see it anyway, despite our best efforts not to. The simple act of publishing a link to VeNoM0619@hotmail.com is going to get you added to a ton of mailing lists automatically, and the spammers will swear you opted in.
The harm isn't physical, but it is not insignificant; I run a very small little e-mail server out of my house which has to block a spam attempt every 45 seconds on average, 24 hours a day. This is a server hosting one domain, which is only used for my friends and family. Most of the machine's RAM is dedicated to running spam-fighting software. Imagine the cost when you scale that up.
If you've only checked your e-mail twice in the last six months, then of course e-mail spam isn't a problem for you, because you don't really use e-mail. Some of us actually use it. A lot. For business communication. We depend on it. Just because you don't, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
All of you realise its probably going to be similar to the difference between Windows 2000 (vista) and Windows XP (Windows 7)? Ie, the previous version is *less* annoying :D
More importantly, the driver model didn't change significantly from 2000 to XP, so mostly everything that worked in 2000 also worked in XP. If 2000 hadn't existed, XP would have completely bombed; users would have hated it even worse than they hate Vista now.
The difference is that 2000 wasn't marketed to end users at all, and when end users complained with problems, Microsoft said "it's not our fault; Windows 2000 is designed exclusively for use on corporate LANs, so talk to your IT department." With Vista, Microsoft can't shirk the blame.
I'm confident that by the time the next version of Windows is released, the compatibility problems will have been solved, and because it won't be called "Vista", everyone will love it. They'll probably tweak the GUI again, but under the hood it will be nearly identical to Vista, with some new features bolted on that don't really affect anything. UAC will still be there, but they'll fix it so it's less annoying, and applications will have been redesigned to avoid generating UAC popups (which really will make life better).
I recall reading somewhere that iTunes is essentially an xml parser/browser and the actual work is done by Quicktime.
This is essentially true. iTunes has extra hooks for officially-supported formats like MP3 and AAC that allow features like the Visualizer to work (the screen-saver/oscilloscope thing), but it will play any audio or video format supported by QuickTime. If you want to play .ogg files in iTunes, just install a plugin for QuickTime that adds .ogg support, and any application that uses QuickTime (including iTunes) will be able to play .ogg files (but the iTunes visualizer won't work).
iTunes has plenty of other features besides buying and playing music: ripping CDs, burning CDs, managing your media library, playing Internet radio, downloading Podcasts, managing iPods and iPhones (including synchronizing media and data and installing applications on the iPhone and iPod Touch), etc. etc.
I'm a Safari fan - but sneaking installs of it in? That makes it - what? - bloatware?
People bitched, and Apple fixed it. Apple Software Update for Windows now informs you that Safari is available, but clearly separates it from the available updates. I agree that this was a crappy thing to do.
I mean, I've never heard a McDonald's ad begin with a crowd talking about how much they hate McDonald's. Is this what passes for clever advertising now?
Not blatantly; you have to read between the lines a bit. McDonald's doesn't actually tell you that everyone thinks their food is crap, they just go out of their way to tell you it isn't.
I'm not sure I would go so far as to say they have zero control over that situation. Apple would not be a fair comparison since they control both the hardware and the software. So, I have to compare the Windows approach to the Linux approach since I am most familiar with it.
Apple controls which hardware gets included in their systems, but they still use video chipsets from nVidia, ATi, and recently Intel, just like everyone else. Apple works very closely with their hardware vendors to make sure good quality drivers are available; in fact, Apple will do some of the development in-house if the manufacturers can't seem to get it right.
You can't tell me Microsoft doesn't have that kind of clout with major hardware vendors. They just choose not to bother. That choice bit them in the ass, so I suspect they'll be making a different choice the next time around.
http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com
I love that they had to use Javascript on a webpage that consists of two letters ;)
The JavaScript code is required for Google Analytics, which allows them to track visitors.
No idea how/why this happens - no proxy was set in the OS or browser of the client.
A router can be configured to transparently redirect all traffic destined for port 80 (with any destination IP) into a proxy server; it's called a "transparent proxy" because your browser doesn't know it's happening. Here's more information and how to set it up on Linux.
How about the hordes of disgruntled Hillary supporters who feel slighted by the mainstream media's sexist treatment of her during the primary campaign, who are now planning to vote for McCain out of spite? It's not because of anything Obama said or did, and has absolutely nothing to do with policy issues; they're personally offended that so many Democrats didn't vote for a woman. Running to McCain with complete disregard for his policies is completely insane, but that's what they're doing, and his selection of Sarah Palin as his runningmate only reaffirms (in their minds) that McCain is the right choice.
(I absolutely do not deny that there was sexism in the media coverage. A quick Google search found this example, which I agree is pretty funny, but I have trouble imagining a group of reporters talking about a male candidate's clothes in this way. People were talking about Hillary in ways they would never talk about a male candidate. My extreme distrust of Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with her gender.)
Both support the giant permanent bases being built in Iraq, which guarentee 50k+ troops even after any "pullout," plus the probably 100k+ contractors.
That's not Obama's stated position. From his web site:
"Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."
Both are agressive towards Iran, leaving nothing off the table (including a nuclear first strike). Iran has proven multiple times that they don't have a weapons program and they can legally enrich uranium for legal purposes.
It would be silly to begin negotiations with anything left off the table. Obama wants to talk to Iran without preconditions, and leaving options off the table before negotiations begin is, by definition, a precondition. For more, see Obama's Iran policy.
Putting a new face onto the same terrible foreign policy decisions doesn't change anything.
I agree. There are plenty of other things I dislike about Obama, and frankly some of McCain's plans would be a breath of fresh air after the horrible disaster that has been the Bush presidency. However, in a two-party system, you can either vote for the candidate who will do the least damage, or recuse yourself from the process of selecting the winner (either by not voting, or by voting for a candidate with no chance of winning). Presumably you've chosen the latter; I've chosen the former. If I didn't care which of the two major-party candidates wins, then I would be inclined to vote differently.
You have a cat.
Your cat controls you.
Ah, but you repeat yourself...
Here's the list and a brief explanation of how succession works.
Gerald Ford, President of the United States from 1974 to 1977, never won a national election. He was appointed to be Vice President when Spiro Agnew resigned, and then became President himself when Richard Nixon resigned. He lost the next election to Jimmy Carter.
In the TV show The West Wing, which I highly recommend watching in its entirety (starting with the pilot), there's an incident that prompts President Bartlett to temporarily turn over the Presidency to the next in line. Normally this would be the Vice President, but the VP had just resigned, so it fell to the Speaker of the House. The awkward thing was 1) the President is a Democrat while the Speaker of the House is a Republican, and 2) the Speaker of the House must resign from Congress before he can be sworn in as President (only the Vice President can serve in two branches of government at the same time), and when President Bartlett decides he's ready to resume his duties as President, the former Speaker of the House cannot simply return to the House; he's out of a job until the next election (House elections are every 2 years). Interesting stuff.
Honestly how often do you actually use the home button?
I can't remember the last time I clicked it.
Some of us have useful home pages, but most people don't bother setting their home page to anything more interesting than Google's search page. If all you're going to use as your home page is a Google search, and you can do a Google search from the address bar (or a dedicated search box), why would you bother clicking the Home button before typing your search terms?
There's a huge number of people who have never changed their home page from MSN. They don't understand that you can, don't understand why you would, and don't understand what happened to it if you change it for them. When installing Firefox, I often change the home page to MSN, because I know certain users will switch back to IE if I don't.
No "home" button.
There's an option in Preferences to show a Home button.
Safari also doesn't show the Home button by default; go to View/Customize Toolbar to add it there.
Seriously. How the fuck can you release a browser without a base functionality that is expected by every person who has used one to date.
You've apparently misjudged what a large number of browser users consider to be "base functionality", if two (out of four) major browser vendors are turning it off by default. Fortunately, it's still available for those of us who live outside the middle of the bell curve.
Yes, I realize that I sound like a FF fanboi, but this is not so.
No, you sound like an AdBlock fanboi. If that's the most important feature to you, then Chrome won't be your default browser for a long time, but that doesn't mean it's not worth playing with just to see how it works. Also, please understand that many people aren't seriously bothered by ads, or have other solutions (I block a lot of ads in my proxy server, which is not browser-dependent).
For a lot of people, the most important feature isn't ad blocking; it's speed, or stability, or W3C standards compliance, or a minimal UI that doesn't take up much screen real estate. Chrome seems pretty good at all of these. For other people, it's customizability, or debugging tools, or compatibility with sites designed for IE, or the ability to run third-party add-ons. For some people, the most important feature is having a blue letter "e" for an icon. Chrome won't satisfy these people for awhile, and that's OK, because other browsers do.
It doesn't seem like they wre aiming to get my business yet anyway.
No, they weren't. They're aiming at people who are dissatisfied with their browsing experience, who perhaps don't even realize how dissatisfied they are. A few of these will be Firefox users, but the majority will be IE users.