Financial and logistcal support, and training, of terrorist organizations
Same thing -- anti-Israel.
Fair enough -- though again, this is pretty much the same thing as the United States did in the 50s in Guatemala and in the 80s under Reagan in Honduras. Take a look at what United States CIA agents were handing out.
Attacks against the US, ignoring 10 years of anti-aircraft fire and the attempted assassination of a former US president:
Sure -- but we bombed them for ten years, and attempted to assassinate Saddam Hussein on multiple occasions. Makes for a nice symmetry.
Providing safe harbor for a terrorist who killed a wheelchair bound American.
He killed an American during a hijacking. We shot down Iran Air Flight 655.
Agreed. However he actively supported militant Islamic terrorists that were not a direct threat to his regime. He also permitted training camps for various terrorist organizations, as well as providing safe haven for various terrorists. Knowingly supporting terrorists makes you part of their actions.
The only problems I've had with updating plugins, really, came when I tried to update a very old version of AdBlock to a newer version and the update really screwed up rendering (a known bug), requiring a lot of hair-pulling and eventually a prefs.js deletion.
I'm not running into problems ATM, but then I plan to wait to update Firefox until Fedora packages and ships the next version, nicely tested and all.
Okay, at the moment the webserver is spitting out 503s, but let's consider the nature of this content. It's what the game console's *case*, a bit of molded plastic, might be made to look like. To be blunt, why does this matter? What gamer is concerned whether or not his game console has a red stripe or a blue stripe on it?
Not only that, but even the technical specs (which haven't, AFAIK, been finalized yet) *still* wouldn't mean that much, even if they're a titch higher than the competitors (especially given the least-common-denominator nature of ports). I've played some awfully good games on low-spec systems (Heck, Tetris and Sobokan can be played on character-based systems, and the two still beat a ton of modern games in terms of fun and hours of enjoyable gameplay.)
Even the previews that you get of games rarely have useful data in terms of informational content. No, it isn't until this beast is out and reviews for games start coming in that there's going to be really useful data about the XB2.
It obviously isn't "Redundant". As the parent pointed out, it's the first post.
It isn't offtopic -- it's about v1.0 Firefox functionality.
I personally don't think that it's a very interesting post, though I realize that this is a subjective metric.
Overrated, Underrated, Troll, Flamebait -- all of these could be applied with some degree of reasonableness -- as a matter of fact, there wasn't a single appropriate mod chosen, and the only inappropriate mod that the moderators *didn't* apply was Insightful.:-) This may be a new low for moderation.
It is definitely a Gecko bug (the rendering component of Mozilla and Firefox) relating to incremental reflow, not a problem with Slashcode. It's not something to be glossed over. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, it's fixed in Gecko -- just the fix hasn't been rolled into Firefox.
In the meantime, you could try disabling incremental rendering (at the cost of potentially greater delay until a web page is in a readable state) and see if that works around the problem: go to about:config and add a boolean value for content.notify.ontimer and set it to false.
There's some random Firefox-related discussion on a forum here. While these people don't really know what they're talking about, they do nicely list the incremental reflow prefs that you can play with. You might be able to come up with a reasonable workaround until the fix gets rolled in.
Remember to set the prefs back when you update Firefox to a fixed version -- you don't want to be either burning CPU time like mad or waiting longer than you need to to be reading pages.
You know, I'm sure all the Apple fans are really thrilled and enjoying this article and all that, given how nice this sounds on the surface...but seriously, consider what is being implied by the fact that this is on Slashdot. The article says: "Particular Piece of Hardware Easier To Use On Mac OS than Windows". The fact that this is newsworthy isn't a particularly cheery fact, y'know?
Now, of course, the obvious question -- if our military satellites picked it up, would it be released to the press or considered classified military intelligence?
Could be a nuclear research lab with an accidental explosion? That might explain everyone being cagey -- NK has nothing to be proud of, and everyone else is caught with their pants down saying "What the hell is going on?"
China has little point in building up international irritation over NK, so has no reason to propagate the news.
SK might say something, but unless it is to its benefit, it probably won't put it in the news. NK getting nukes would change the position of SK quite a bit, and they probably want time to come up with a position.
Even if the US finds out (earth tremor sensors, satellite monitoring), it'll be the CIA/military, which doesn't have much reason to raise a stink over things and expose monitoring capabilities.
I will say that this is likely to be a very good thing for Bush's reelection chances -- heightened tenstion with NK after Bush condemned NK earlier is likely to be a positive thing.
Thus, North Korea's zeal for keeping its nuclear program secret. Once you get into the Nuclear Club, you get international respect, permanent position on the Security Council, and stuff like that.
The thing is, the Hussein Iraq regime wasn't a fundamentalist Islamic regime at all. As a matter of fact, it was one of the most secularized Middle Eastern countries, and before Gulf War I, one of the most wealthy.
By crushing the best alternative, a secular government, to Islamic theocracy, we may have set back the clock in the Middle East for a long time.
Sure, we installed a new government, but US-installed governments have a tendency to fall apart. Saddam Hussein wasn't a very nice person, but he had the tough to hold onto his government despite Islamic fundamentalists and others trying to chew him up. He represented stability for the region, did not attack US-based targets, and provided a compelling alternative to theocracy, as well as progressive civil rights, like equal roles for women. We condemned him for killing people that tried to rise against him (like the Kurds, who the CIA helped encourage to revolt). The problem is that whatever government we install is likely to have to do the same. Saddam's greatest crime was constantly thumbing his nose at the West. However, by doing so, he gained credibility among a people that have little trust for the United States, and have long been exploited by western powers (watch Lawrence of Arabia and consider for exactly how long the people in the area have been exploited as political tools, and why there is so much anti-western sentiment).
I don't agree that Afghanistan had more to do with 9/11 than Saudi Arabia, but I'll agree that targetting regimes didn't make much sense -- we just really didn't have anything else to do, and had to do *something*.
The question of whether to use military rather than police force is still one that many administrations would have publically asked, though. Still, I suspect that many administrations would have waged war right away.
The problem is when we come to Iraq, for which there is only the most tenuous of links to 9/11 and absolutely no reason for urgency, for possibly guessing wrong. Bush took it upon himself to wage war on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq), and to ignore the country that had the *most* to do with it (Saudi Arabia).
Civil rights violations under Clinton are "more telling"?
The Clinton administration was much more open. No FOIA denials. No imprisoning people without access to lawyers. No Karl Rove with dirty tricks. No Ashcroft (I don't care *how* much of a social conservative you are, Ashcroft is the scariest thing since Hoover). No Cheney urging for war, with defense contracting cronies growing fat on public funds.
The Assault Weapons Ban was stupid and a bad idea, I agree.
But the gutting of the intelligence departments and military? I call bullshit. Back up what you're claiming.
Our country is hardly different from where it was four years ago, except that we have an economy that has a firmer foundation than an extremely volatile bubble (which was put firmly into place by the economic policies of the Clinton era).
This site has a lot of vocal fans of libertarianism as well (which are socially liberal, politically conservative). They're likely to dislike being called "leftist" -- though I suspect that since the Bush administration has been socially conservative, politically liberal, they're unlikely to be huge fans at the moment.
Re:Why do you think we have the 2nd Amendment?
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Tell me, what are you going to do with your citizen's militia that has defeated the better part of the US military is going to do when the leader refuses to step down and resorts to what of the nuclear stockpile remains at his disposal? The US possesses a very large number of nuclear weapons in a very wide number of locations - you can't tell me you're going to account for all of them?
Oh, we'd probably have some scary moments. A United States that's reached that political point is not going to be a pleasant point anyway. The Cuban missile crisis was a pretty scary moment too.
I'm not saying it'd be a real great situation.
However, (a) it'd still be possible to prevail, and (b) as I've said, the main benefit is in the dissusasive factor, not in the actual reality of a revolution.
Re:Why do you think we have the 2nd Amendment?
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Well, that depends really. If the citizenry have already been labelled dangerous terrorists seeking to overthrow the US government I think they may have less conscience in the matter. I would expect the US government to be very effective at handling the media spin on any such incident.
I doubt it. The high point of centrally-controlled media was the 50s to the late 90s, as TV networks were (relatively) heavily regulated and require a lot of capital to set up. Even during that time, the government needed the media more than the media needed the government. We live in a day of the Internet and cheap laser printers. If I want to get my ideas out, I can do so.
How many people are we talking about here? If we're talking about a majority of the country, you don't need the guns. Just stand there and say no.
And a leader refuses to step down. What then?
The Saudi regime is very unpopular in Saudio Arabia. Much of their position is retained because of US military strength in the region. Just because most people are unhappy doesn't mean that a regime ends.
No modern western government is going to manage to stand in the face of the half the population engaging in peaceful civil disobedience. If you have that many people, you don't need the guns!
The crucial assumption, of course, being that no "modern western government" could turn totalitarian or into a dictatorship, where a leander won't step down just because of the people's wishes.
Actually, resupply would be a hell of a lot easier, what with all those bases all over the US fully stocked already. What, you think the technicians and supply crews and all aren't part of the US military?
Your supply line extends through the industry. Heck, we ran nearly out of cruise missiles after Gulf War I. If you have an industry resisting what you want (and all the industries that supply the defense contractors that make said weapons, and so forth) you have a problem. Bullets and gunpowder aren't that hard to make and stockpile. Laser-guided bombs are.
Remember Schindler's List? Hitler started having serious problems with supply towards the end of the war, partly because of Allied strikes on defense industry, and partly because of unwillingness to produce supplies in a populace that had lost faith in him.
Slashdot Mirror
Financial support of palestinian suicide-bombers
Ah, okay. I was thinking of anti-US terrorism.
Financial and logistcal support, and training, of terrorist organizations
Same thing -- anti-Israel.
Fair enough -- though again, this is pretty much the same thing as the United States did in the 50s in Guatemala and in the 80s under Reagan in Honduras. Take a look at what United States CIA agents were handing out.
Attacks against the US, ignoring 10 years of anti-aircraft fire and the attempted assassination of a former US president:
Sure -- but we bombed them for ten years, and attempted to assassinate Saddam Hussein on multiple occasions. Makes for a nice symmetry.
Providing safe harbor for a terrorist who killed a wheelchair bound American.
He killed an American during a hijacking. We shot down Iran Air Flight 655.
Read the whole paragraph that that sentence is part of.
The fixed Gecko has not been rolled into Firefox.
Agreed. However he actively supported militant Islamic terrorists that were not a direct threat to his regime. He also permitted training camps for various terrorist organizations, as well as providing safe haven for various terrorists. Knowingly supporting terrorists makes you part of their actions.
Would you provide a citation for this?
Because a Jag is an expensive status symbol, and an XB2 is not.
Those are luxury items. Expensive status symbols. The XB2 or any other game console is just a commodity item. You can't exactly show it off.
Has it these feature *ever* worked for you?
I think I picked up one update at one point.
The only problems I've had with updating plugins, really, came when I tried to update a very old version of AdBlock to a newer version and the update really screwed up rendering (a known bug), requiring a lot of hair-pulling and eventually a prefs.js deletion.
I'm not running into problems ATM, but then I plan to wait to update Firefox until Fedora packages and ships the next version, nicely tested and all.
Okay, at the moment the webserver is spitting out 503s, but let's consider the nature of this content. It's what the game console's *case*, a bit of molded plastic, might be made to look like. To be blunt, why does this matter? What gamer is concerned whether or not his game console has a red stripe or a blue stripe on it?
Not only that, but even the technical specs (which haven't, AFAIK, been finalized yet) *still* wouldn't mean that much, even if they're a titch higher than the competitors (especially given the least-common-denominator nature of ports). I've played some awfully good games on low-spec systems (Heck, Tetris and Sobokan can be played on character-based systems, and the two still beat a ton of modern games in terms of fun and hours of enjoyable gameplay.)
Even the previews that you get of games rarely have useful data in terms of informational content. No, it isn't until this beast is out and reviews for games start coming in that there's going to be really useful data about the XB2.
50% Redundant
:-) This may be a new low for moderation.
30% Interesting
20% Offtopic
So, let's take a look at the post in question.
It obviously isn't "Redundant". As the parent pointed out, it's the first post.
It isn't offtopic -- it's about v1.0 Firefox functionality.
I personally don't think that it's a very interesting post, though I realize that this is a subjective metric.
Overrated, Underrated, Troll, Flamebait -- all of these could be applied with some degree of reasonableness -- as a matter of fact, there wasn't a single appropriate mod chosen, and the only inappropriate mod that the moderators *didn't* apply was Insightful.
"Hunt down updates"?
You can just use the Tools->Extensions->Update feature.
It is definitely a Gecko bug (the rendering component of Mozilla and Firefox) relating to incremental reflow, not a problem with Slashcode. It's not something to be glossed over. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, it's fixed in Gecko -- just the fix hasn't been rolled into Firefox.
In the meantime, you could try disabling incremental rendering (at the cost of potentially greater delay until a web page is in a readable state) and see if that works around the problem: go to about:config and add a boolean value for content.notify.ontimer and set it to false.
There's some random Firefox-related discussion on a forum here. While these people don't really know what they're talking about, they do nicely list the incremental reflow prefs that you can play with. You might be able to come up with a reasonable workaround until the fix gets rolled in.
Remember to set the prefs back when you update Firefox to a fixed version -- you don't want to be either burning CPU time like mad or waiting longer than you need to to be reading pages.
You know, I'm sure all the Apple fans are really thrilled and enjoying this article and all that, given how nice this sounds on the surface...but seriously, consider what is being implied by the fact that this is on Slashdot. The article says: "Particular Piece of Hardware Easier To Use On Mac OS than Windows". The fact that this is newsworthy isn't a particularly cheery fact, y'know?
2.5 mile, not 4 mile.
Now, of course, the obvious question -- if our military satellites picked it up, would it be released to the press or considered classified military intelligence?
Could be a nuclear research lab with an accidental explosion? That might explain everyone being cagey -- NK has nothing to be proud of, and everyone else is caught with their pants down saying "What the hell is going on?"
China has little point in building up international irritation over NK, so has no reason to propagate the news.
SK might say something, but unless it is to its benefit, it probably won't put it in the news. NK getting nukes would change the position of SK quite a bit, and they probably want time to come up with a position.
Even if the US finds out (earth tremor sensors, satellite monitoring), it'll be the CIA/military, which doesn't have much reason to raise a stink over things and expose monitoring capabilities.
I will say that this is likely to be a very good thing for Bush's reelection chances -- heightened tenstion with NK after Bush condemned NK earlier is likely to be a positive thing.
It's a real simple concept.
If you don't have nukes, you can't have them.
If you have nukes, you can keep them.
Thus, North Korea's zeal for keeping its nuclear program secret. Once you get into the Nuclear Club, you get international respect, permanent position on the Security Council, and stuff like that.
The thing is, the Hussein Iraq regime wasn't a fundamentalist Islamic regime at all. As a matter of fact, it was one of the most secularized Middle Eastern countries, and before Gulf War I, one of the most wealthy.
By crushing the best alternative, a secular government, to Islamic theocracy, we may have set back the clock in the Middle East for a long time.
Sure, we installed a new government, but US-installed governments have a tendency to fall apart. Saddam Hussein wasn't a very nice person, but he had the tough to hold onto his government despite Islamic fundamentalists and others trying to chew him up. He represented stability for the region, did not attack US-based targets, and provided a compelling alternative to theocracy, as well as progressive civil rights, like equal roles for women. We condemned him for killing people that tried to rise against him (like the Kurds, who the CIA helped encourage to revolt). The problem is that whatever government we install is likely to have to do the same. Saddam's greatest crime was constantly thumbing his nose at the West. However, by doing so, he gained credibility among a people that have little trust for the United States, and have long been exploited by western powers (watch Lawrence of Arabia and consider for exactly how long the people in the area have been exploited as political tools, and why there is so much anti-western sentiment).
I don't agree that Afghanistan had more to do with 9/11 than Saudi Arabia, but I'll agree that targetting regimes didn't make much sense -- we just really didn't have anything else to do, and had to do *something*.
The question of whether to use military rather than police force is still one that many administrations would have publically asked, though. Still, I suspect that many administrations would have waged war right away.
The problem is when we come to Iraq, for which there is only the most tenuous of links to 9/11 and absolutely no reason for urgency, for possibly guessing wrong. Bush took it upon himself to wage war on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq), and to ignore the country that had the *most* to do with it (Saudi Arabia).
What do you find unacceptable about the other parties, like Libertarian, Constitution, and all the rest?
Because it takes an awful lot of work and money to get together yet another party.
If you aren't aware of them, there are a slew of other parties that you can join.
Whoah, there, cowboy.
Civil rights violations under Clinton are "more telling"?
The Clinton administration was much more open. No FOIA denials. No imprisoning people without access to lawyers. No Karl Rove with dirty tricks. No Ashcroft (I don't care *how* much of a social conservative you are, Ashcroft is the scariest thing since Hoover). No Cheney urging for war, with defense contracting cronies growing fat on public funds.
The Assault Weapons Ban was stupid and a bad idea, I agree.
But the gutting of the intelligence departments and military? I call bullshit. Back up what you're claiming.
He got the French to back us, which was what counted. If he wants some wine and whores for it -- hey, I say that he's more than earned it.
Compare to the highway workers that stand around on that same dollar scratching their asses...
Our country is hardly different from where it was four years ago, except that we have an economy that has a firmer foundation than an extremely volatile bubble (which was put firmly into place by the economic policies of the Clinton era).
How very unpolitical and nonpartisian of you.
This site has a lot of vocal fans of libertarianism as well (which are socially liberal, politically conservative). They're likely to dislike being called "leftist" -- though I suspect that since the Bush administration has been socially conservative, politically liberal, they're unlikely to be huge fans at the moment.
Tell me, what are you going to do with your citizen's militia that has defeated the better part of the US military is going to do when the leader refuses to step down and resorts to what of the nuclear stockpile remains at his disposal? The US possesses a very large number of nuclear weapons in a very wide number of locations - you can't tell me you're going to account for all of them?
Oh, we'd probably have some scary moments. A United States that's reached that political point is not going to be a pleasant point anyway. The Cuban missile crisis was a pretty scary moment too.
I'm not saying it'd be a real great situation.
However, (a) it'd still be possible to prevail, and (b) as I've said, the main benefit is in the dissusasive factor, not in the actual reality of a revolution.
Well, that depends really. If the citizenry have already been labelled dangerous terrorists seeking to overthrow the US government I think they may have less conscience in the matter. I would expect the US government to be very effective at handling the media spin on any such incident.
I doubt it. The high point of centrally-controlled media was the 50s to the late 90s, as TV networks were (relatively) heavily regulated and require a lot of capital to set up. Even during that time, the government needed the media more than the media needed the government. We live in a day of the Internet and cheap laser printers. If I want to get my ideas out, I can do so.
How many people are we talking about here? If we're talking about a majority of the country, you don't need the guns. Just stand there and say no.
And a leader refuses to step down. What then?
The Saudi regime is very unpopular in Saudio Arabia. Much of their position is retained because of US military strength in the region. Just because most people are unhappy doesn't mean that a regime ends.
No modern western government is going to manage to stand in the face of the half the population engaging in peaceful civil disobedience. If you have that many people, you don't need the guns!
The crucial assumption, of course, being that no "modern western government" could turn totalitarian or into a dictatorship, where a leander won't step down just because of the people's wishes.
Actually, resupply would be a hell of a lot easier, what with all those bases all over the US fully stocked already. What, you think the technicians and supply crews and all aren't part of the US military?
Your supply line extends through the industry. Heck, we ran nearly out of cruise missiles after Gulf War I. If you have an industry resisting what you want (and all the industries that supply the defense contractors that make said weapons, and so forth) you have a problem. Bullets and gunpowder aren't that hard to make and stockpile. Laser-guided bombs are.
Remember Schindler's List? Hitler started having serious problems with supply towards the end of the war, partly because of Allied strikes on defense industry, and partly because of unwillingness to produce supplies in a populace that had lost faith in him.