I would be more in favor of a tab not opening a dialog or firing any other events until it becomes active again. Allowing tabs to gain focus without user intervention has the potential to be annoying as hell. For example, an ad on a page could keep popping that tab to the front for you to see it. Ugh.
This is a very dishonest viewpoint. The handbook specifically says "if nothing is going wrong in your area, make a big stink in the media about voter fraud anyway". This is not something you can dispute, it's there in black and white. Now, why would they want to make a big stink about fraud? Perhaps to continue a disinformation campaign and prepare the stage for all the lawsuits they are planning. They are clearly using minorities, and intimidating them through scare tactics that the Republicans are this big scary group that is out to get them. This is just wrong, as is anything similar the Republicans are doing, but don't pretend it doesn't say was it clearly says.
but no one has proved it untrue I suggest you do more research.
masquerading as a news show Masquerading as a news show? The release itself is very clear that it is a film by an outside group, and the story above even says it a documentary. If they have to call it news to get around the horrible screw up of campaign finance reform just to get some fairness in the media, that's unfortunate. As I said, I sure as hell hope they fix all this before the next election.
the memos may have proven to be fake, the 'real facts' did in fact get out Oh, yes, I forgot about the 86 year old democrat lady who just swears that even though she didn't type the memos that they are true. Uh huh. Sure. That's CBS trying to grab onto whatever credibility they could pick up off the floor.
George Soros also has not forced anyone He's funded all kinds of lawyers against such targets as the swift boat veterans group, and funds several 527's which routinely attack Bush and the Republican party and anyone who would support them, including media outlets.
All I have to say is that there were plenty of people who objected to Micheal Moore's movie and Dan Rather's failed attempt at bias but they continued. At least in Rather's case the real facts got out and quashed that one. So, given the failure of preventing propaganda in favor of Kerry, I am now all for propaganda in favor of Bush. Hopefully it can be fixed in the future, but it would be outrageous to prevent this now given what the other side has been doing for months. Can you say George Soros? I knew you could...
What's bemusing to a European eye is that it seems to be the places which are most likely to be devastated by global warming that are most likely to vote for Bush.
Are you kidding me? You need to get your European eye checked then. Pretty much ALL major cities and areas around them vote democrat (after all, welfare spending buys votes), and there are a lot of coastal cities that are going to be screwed with higher sea levels. Nice try though.
Don't get all worked up. Dan Rather and CBS fell for a made up news story because they were happy to run anything that bashed Bush. CmdrTaco, which is perhaps you Mr Anonymous Coward, seems to be on a similar roll himself today.
"Finally, there wasn't approval of any of Bush II's wars, as congress simply gave him the right to go to war."
Um, what?! What a hoot! So you are saying there wasn't approval for the war, because congress gave him the right to go to war. Stellar logic my friend!
Doesn't CmdrTaco have a personal blog somewhere to bash Bush instead of doing so on what was once a good news site?
Not only are the quotes out of context, but they are used in error. Furthermore, congress hasn't declared war since WWII, so it's hard to pretend that Bush doesn't have any precedent if he did go in without approval. Of course, there was approval so this whole "news story" is a farce. Way to go and pull a Dan Rather. At least he finally had to apologize.
I said: I'll be sure to run an extension cord over to your house and steal, well, just a little tiny amount of electricity a day from you.
You said: That WOULD be stealing.
How on Earth can you possibly think that stealing little bits of power is any different from stealing little bits of bandwidth? You are taking something that isn't yours and that is theft, plain and simple. Just because the bandwidth isn't metered doesn't suddenly make it ok to steal it. You are still degrading the throughput.
So, you think it's ok to steal, as long as you aren't stealing very much at any one time. Nice. If I ever move in next door to you, I'll be sure to run an extension cord over to your house and steal, well, just a little tiny amount of electricity a day from you. Who cares that in a year or two it'll cost you a couple hundred dollars? I mean, I was only stealing a little tiny amount each day...
Geez, talk about adding needless complexity and risk. Too many Russian subs submerge more times than they surface.
So why the sub? Extra publicity?
You're kidding, right? Why use the sub? How about because it was specifically designed to launch the SS-N-18 they are using?? How would it be less complex and error prone to redesign the entire system on land when they have a working mobile version that's already built, tested and comes with a support staff? *sigh*
I have a different but similar situation. I'm a volunteer firefighter. Here, we all have "real" jobs so we do not sit at the station all day. Instead we have to leave work and go to the station for any emergencies that occur.
Technically in my state in the US it is ok for me to have a little flashing red light in/on my car to "warn" other drivers when on the way to the station, but legally they do not have to get out of my way, nor am I allowed to break any traffic laws in my personal vehicle. Only once we get to the fire station and in the firetruck can we officially break traffic laws, with the condition that we have "due regard to safety" while doing so. The reason for this, I assume, is that a firetruck if more visible, has many more emergency lights, plus a siren and airhorn.
Now to my point: There is not one single firefighter I know of that does not speed when responding to the station for a serious fire, such as when someone's life or a major amount of property is in jeopardy. How could it be otherwise? How could anyone honestly say "please proceed slowly and cautiously to the fire at my house. BTW I'm burning to death, but please, obey the law instead of getting here in time to save me!" Since they are reasonable, police tend to not enforce traffic laws when we are responding to the station for serious fires, as long as we are not being stupid or reckless. We of course do this at our own risk. Just like the fact that we could die in a split second by running into a burning building on a daily basis, if anything happened while responding to the station and we were breaking the law, we are completely screwed.
Now, what happens when we all get black boxes? It's a little harder to ignore cold hard data downloaded at the next inspection than it is for a cop to look the other way when we blow by them. Volunteer firefighters will be forced to respond at 25mph down an empty road with clear visibility while someone burns to death, because you can't sweep the data under the rug, nor can you give exceptions once the data is recorded and presented to a judge because the law specifically forbids it. So, my take on this blackbox concept is that people will die because of it. Property will be lost because of it. In the real world things are never as simple as people who call for technology like this seem to think.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be more in favor of a tab not opening a dialog or firing any other events until it becomes active again. Allowing tabs to gain focus without user intervention has the potential to be annoying as hell. For example, an ad on a page could keep popping that tab to the front for you to see it. Ugh.
Don't bring facts into this! The man wants to feel downtrodden!
Just remember that it was a liberal social program that gathered all that data together in the first place and gave it to the university.
This is a very dishonest viewpoint. The handbook specifically says "if nothing is going wrong in your area, make a big stink in the media about voter fraud anyway". This is not something you can dispute, it's there in black and white. Now, why would they want to make a big stink about fraud? Perhaps to continue a disinformation campaign and prepare the stage for all the lawsuits they are planning. They are clearly using minorities, and intimidating them through scare tactics that the Republicans are this big scary group that is out to get them. This is just wrong, as is anything similar the Republicans are doing, but don't pretend it doesn't say was it clearly says.
There certainly are patterns all kinds.
but no one has proved it untrue
I suggest you do more research.
masquerading as a news show
Masquerading as a news show? The release itself is very clear that it is a film by an outside group, and the story above even says it a documentary. If they have to call it news to get around the horrible screw up of campaign finance reform just to get some fairness in the media, that's unfortunate. As I said, I sure as hell hope they fix all this before the next election.
the memos may have proven to be fake, the 'real facts' did in fact get out
Oh, yes, I forgot about the 86 year old democrat lady who just swears that even though she didn't type the memos that they are true. Uh huh. Sure. That's CBS trying to grab onto whatever credibility they could pick up off the floor.
George Soros also has not forced anyone
He's funded all kinds of lawyers against such targets as the swift boat veterans group, and funds several 527's which routinely attack Bush and the Republican party and anyone who would support them, including media outlets.
Nice try though.
Perhaps you missed the "hopefully it can be fixed in the future".
All I have to say is that there were plenty of people who objected to Micheal Moore's movie and Dan Rather's failed attempt at bias but they continued. At least in Rather's case the real facts got out and quashed that one. So, given the failure of preventing propaganda in favor of Kerry, I am now all for propaganda in favor of Bush. Hopefully it can be fixed in the future, but it would be outrageous to prevent this now given what the other side has been doing for months. Can you say George Soros? I knew you could...
Good, I'm glad you'll be voting for George Bush given all the domains that have been squatted against him. Thanks for your vote!
What's bemusing to a European eye is that it seems to be the places which are most likely to be devastated by global warming that are most likely to vote for Bush.
Are you kidding me? You need to get your European eye checked then. Pretty much ALL major cities and areas around them vote democrat (after all, welfare spending buys votes), and there are a lot of coastal cities that are going to be screwed with higher sea levels. Nice try though.
Further more, in case someone brings it up: no the hurricanes didn't target Bush counties.
How sad that this was marked as off topic when in fact it is probably the most profound, but apparently misunderstood, reply on this story.
Don't get all worked up. Dan Rather and CBS fell for a made up news story because they were happy to run anything that bashed Bush. CmdrTaco, which is perhaps you Mr Anonymous Coward, seems to be on a similar roll himself today.
"Finally, there wasn't approval of any of Bush II's wars, as congress simply gave him the right to go to war."
Um, what?! What a hoot! So you are saying there wasn't approval for the war, because congress gave him the right to go to war. Stellar logic my friend!
All that proves is SNL still sucks and hasn't been any good for a number of years now. What a boring segment.
Doesn't CmdrTaco have a personal blog somewhere to bash Bush instead of doing so on what was once a good news site?
Not only are the quotes out of context, but they are used in error. Furthermore, congress hasn't declared war since WWII, so it's hard to pretend that Bush doesn't have any precedent if he did go in without approval. Of course, there was approval so this whole "news story" is a farce. Way to go and pull a Dan Rather. At least he finally had to apologize.
Can we come up with what SPLAT means... as it relates to websites that get posted on Slashdot?
What, like a name for it:
Slash-Powered Link Attack Technology
or more of a description for the target server's log:
Slashdot Posters Limited Aggregate Termination
*sigh* Having been near a fire like that, he's squinting in pain from the intense heat and light.
I said: I'll be sure to run an extension cord over to your house and steal, well, just a little tiny amount of electricity a day from you.
You said: That WOULD be stealing.
How on Earth can you possibly think that stealing little bits of power is any different from stealing little bits of bandwidth? You are taking something that isn't yours and that is theft, plain and simple. Just because the bandwidth isn't metered doesn't suddenly make it ok to steal it. You are still degrading the throughput.
Actually, I thought that author was making a Contact reference..
So, you think it's ok to steal, as long as you aren't stealing very much at any one time. Nice. If I ever move in next door to you, I'll be sure to run an extension cord over to your house and steal, well, just a little tiny amount of electricity a day from you. Who cares that in a year or two it'll cost you a couple hundred dollars? I mean, I was only stealing a little tiny amount each day...
That's the first thing I thought of too...
Yes, yes, I did too. :)
Geez, talk about adding needless complexity and risk. Too many Russian subs submerge more times than they surface.
So why the sub? Extra publicity?
You're kidding, right? Why use the sub? How about because it was specifically designed to launch the SS-N-18 they are using?? How would it be less complex and error prone to redesign the entire system on land when they have a working mobile version that's already built, tested and comes with a support staff? *sigh*
Good, more work for me!
Yes, and then melt into slag anyone stupid enough to swipe their card in the machine. *sigh*
I have a different but similar situation. I'm a volunteer firefighter. Here, we all have "real" jobs so we do not sit at the station all day. Instead we have to leave work and go to the station for any emergencies that occur.
Technically in my state in the US it is ok for me to have a little flashing red light in/on my car to "warn" other drivers when on the way to the station, but legally they do not have to get out of my way, nor am I allowed to break any traffic laws in my personal vehicle. Only once we get to the fire station and in the firetruck can we officially break traffic laws, with the condition that we have "due regard to safety" while doing so. The reason for this, I assume, is that a firetruck if more visible, has many more emergency lights, plus a siren and airhorn.
Now to my point: There is not one single firefighter I know of that does not speed when responding to the station for a serious fire, such as when someone's life or a major amount of property is in jeopardy. How could it be otherwise? How could anyone honestly say "please proceed slowly and cautiously to the fire at my house. BTW I'm burning to death, but please, obey the law instead of getting here in time to save me!" Since they are reasonable, police tend to not enforce traffic laws when we are responding to the station for serious fires, as long as we are not being stupid or reckless. We of course do this at our own risk. Just like the fact that we could die in a split second by running into a burning building on a daily basis, if anything happened while responding to the station and we were breaking the law, we are completely screwed.
Now, what happens when we all get black boxes? It's a little harder to ignore cold hard data downloaded at the next inspection than it is for a cop to look the other way when we blow by them. Volunteer firefighters will be forced to respond at 25mph down an empty road with clear visibility while someone burns to death, because you can't sweep the data under the rug, nor can you give exceptions once the data is recorded and presented to a judge because the law specifically forbids it. So, my take on this blackbox concept is that people will die because of it. Property will be lost because of it. In the real world things are never as simple as people who call for technology like this seem to think.