Have machine readable print form of "robots.txt" on the first few pages of the book. Works exactly like the web one, if you find it, you move along to the next book (site) without indexing the current one. Easy. Just have simple booleans "allowIndexing", "allowCopy" and so on.
It was the 'european settlers' that started that. It took hundreds of years of stirring the gene pool to get that hot european conquest blood diluted to the point where things could settle down
"conquest blood diluted"...are we talking about the same country here...;-) "Settled down"? It's been building up for 40 years!!!
That's because viruses on Linux are so rarely reported due to their limited scope of effectiveness.
That's a falacy. Linux is just as vunerable to trojaned installers as any other OS. You install mozilla as root, right? Debian apt runs as root, so you'd better be trusting those apt repositories, and all of the contributers.
OS security does help against worms and other methods of infection, but dealling with trojans is a 90% user function. This improved security, along with market share (as you point out) is what makes Linux "safer". To get a virus on Linux, you essentially have to do something wrong yourself. Which is no consolation to the gran and grandpa users, "Download Weather Bar (linux version) popups" are only a few years away...
This was done like a year ago and there have been no issues so far. Remember, most folk will be downloading non-execuatable media, and any binaries will not be automatically executed on download. Downloading pirate binaries has always been "at your own risk". Really, this is no more dangerous than the same number of users manually clicking the link. Neither way is less vunerable WRT viruses.
Azureus and other BT clients already have RSS readers, using Regex's to match media in the RSS xml. This rules for TV series that are currently airing, it's great to return home to two or three new episodes each day. Many BT sites have RSS feeds, however the only one that got it right was btefnet, who had the inteligence not to post the same media twice. Most other sites have moron users who will post a 200 meg version of the file, followed by a 50 real media rip that no one wants but wastes our bandwidth because we get it anyway!! Throw in ratio sites, users dropping in 4 gig "season 1 dvd rips" and you can see why I stopped using it in the end. We just need a BT site that "gets it". Answers on a postcard please...
Truth be told.. i want to live in one of these towers before i'm middle aged, so get moving with the restriction removal!
Having seen the damage hi-rise flats can cause a city (Glasgow), I must assume that you are out of your mind. Buildings like these have zero sense of community & belonging and lead to indifference, social decay and crime. The only folk that would see them as good are those who believe in the "stay at home, keep yourself to yourself, oh look, American Gladiators is on". Drive to work, drive home, lock the door. It's a horrible self-contained existance and frankly it sucks.
Give me a traditional city with traditional shops, bars and housing anyday. One where neighbours know each other and parents are shamed into making their children behave. Hi-rises are too impersonal and one of the biggest mistakes of 1960's British planing. Sure, mile high cities may be sci-fi cool, but most of them were distopias remember!
A hardcopy publisher invests quite a bit of money in printing, storing, and delivering books, so it often makes sense for him to verify the book's accuracy to protect his investment.
Ah, so THAT explains all of the anti-evolution books that keep on cropping up in the news. I'm sure that the publisher ensured the accuracy of the claims that dinosaurs lived alongside modern humans.
My point was that no 'book' would be accepted in court. Authorative papers from renowned authers with citations and references, yes, but a book, no.
I have about as much faith in wikopedia as I have in any book from any random author. Give the wiki time, the 'anyone' can edit won't last as yes, there are many folk popping in goatse images. However in future I'd bet that articles have listed authors, along with moderation scores for both articles and authors. A formula will determine the 'accuracy' of an article, giving the reader a view on how good the article is. You don't get author scores in print, so in some ways, this is superior. As long as the moderation doesn't follow the slashdot 'mods on crack' ideology!
Wikipedia is an interesting concept, but why oh why do people insist on treating it as some kind of authoritative source??
Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print? Just because it's in a book it doesn't mean it's inherently more acurate. Besides, if you are doing anything important and you get info from any source (especially the web), you should ALWAYS double check it.
Sure, you cite laws on expert witnesses. Do all book publishers ensure these requirements on all authors or contributers to a body of work? Hell no, you can publish just about anything! So, wikipedia won't stand up in a court of law, but neither will any other exyclopedia. It's "just another source", and you have to admit probably one of the best ones out there right now. Once the concept is mature, I imagine there will be more influnce in the process from people who are genuinely qualified in each topic. However, in the early days if you'd enforced this, there would be far less contributers and the project would have floundered.
Finally putting the two largest scum of the earth together!!
Microsoft and AOL are mere annoyances in the world of evil empires. You want scum? Try Nestle, Harliburton, "Kellogg, Brown and Root", Eli Lilly and De Beers. Unlike Microsoft and AOL, the others I have mentioned kill people for profit. I've yet to see a death associated with an IE crash or an AOL cancelling request.
Folks round here need to get their perspectives straightend. Microsoft may be nasty, uncompetative and unfriendly at times, but they aren't "evil" (a word that is used way too much nowadays)
When we do the graph for Europe, do we get to keep two world wars and genocide?
Sure, go for it. Remembering of course that there have been wars & genocides commited by all of the areas under discussion here: Europe, Japan & America. IIRC, Europe's is genocide was smaller than the other two's over the last 200 years.
"How'd the energy and matter in the big bang get there?"
"Uh..it was there...to begin with..."
I've never gotten the facination people have with the universe beginning. It is so massive, completely beyond human comprehension. Yet we seek to give it human references such as "start" and "end". Our lives have a start and end points. Why assume that the universe must be the same? Is it so utter foreign to people that it always was and always will be? The big bang may have just been the begining of a cycle that is endlessly repeating.
Besides, the classic counter to that argument is "who made god?" if he were to later create the universe? The answer to that question is really no different to those who explain the universe's existance.
in the UK at least there is a legal requirement for an annual safety check of vehicles. However, I am concerned that people blindly trust such electronic systems to an ever increasing degree
Hey, I'm concerned that people trust the UK MOT (above) test as a safety check. The MOT only covers the essentials, it's not a clean bill of health for the car, nor is it a test of whether the car is safe. The are many things it doesn't cover.
my concern with electronic monitoring is that it is absolutely no substitute for physical inspection by engineers/mechanics.
There is a best of both worlds for sure. How many of you do the recommended weekly fluid checks? Come on, be honest...have you checked the hydrolic, coolant and oil levels even this month? A light that says "check oil" is a useful feature. Some cars, Merc's I think, also tell you when you are due a service, which is handy for those who don't pay attention to these things.
This shows you that ABS ISN'T about stopping faster.
Wrong, sort of. ABS does make the average motorist stop faster. It works by releasing the presure on the brake disks when it detects that the wheel is not turning i.e. locked. High school physics tells you that a locked, skidding wheel has WAY less traction that a wheel that is following the road. Conversly, the maximum braking traction is imediately before you actually lose traction. ABS works by keeping the breaking force in the optimum region for you, right on the edge of skidding. This is the "threshold braking" you mention.
ABS doesn't do much for those who know how to manually pump the brakes when you are locking up. The "idiots" as you refer to them are the average motorist; hardly anyone I've asked knows about proper braking. I've been on skid-pan training and flown about the track in a car where the ABS could be switched off, great fun and some useful skills learned. Yet, despite this training and knowledge of how to propertly brake, the chances are that if I ever had to emergency stop from 80mph, I'd lock the wheels. When panic sets in, the instinct is to push the peddle to the floor.
If I found I had a legitimate claim against Google and could win it 100% I still would not be able to take it to court because I could not afford the lawyers and court fee's.
Not everyones legal system works like that. Here in the UK (where this small company is based) we have loser pays. Stops all pointless lawsuits dead; if google took me on and threw £10 million on lawyers, IIRC I am allowed to spend the same and claim it back from them. Assuming I win, if not I'm screwed!!
Hypocritical when there are terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to use nukes on the US
You'd use them on them, if you thought you'd get away with it. In fact, this appears to be what this story is about.
But noooo, hell they're given diplomatic immunity no matter how insane they are.
Who (or what) in the hell are you talking about?
How about one of them detonates his strap-on bomb next to you? Won't that be considered friendly fire?
Nice straw man argument. I'm not on your side, therefore I am on their side. Bullshit. Both sides are asshats, however the USA is worse because it is attempting to keep the "good guy" veneer when it's clearly not.
I love how everything in the US has to be bi-partisan. You really don't get this whole "democracy" thing, do you? Two-choices in every decision is not democratic, only a fool would think otherwise.
It's the anti-West stigma they seem to have.
No, it's an "anti-anyone-who-fucks-us-about" stigma. Where are all the terrorist bombs in Canada? Or Austrailia? Or France? I could go on for days. While the USA doesn't "deserve" to be attacked, you certainally asked for it...go read a history book you "moran" and stop getting your history from Hollywood.
Dying because some fool harded 'general' tells you to is a lack of common sense if you ask me
Preaching to the choir there mate, I know a few folk in the UK army. But they are trained for that; a large part of the training is to dehumanise them for this very task. A combat leader must be willing to sacrifice some men for the rest of the squad, welcome to the world of armed combat. The training for both the leaders and the grunts makes that possible.
Have you ever read about Al-Qaeda (and other radical islamic) propadanda? It literally states that they are against democracy and most of the freedoms we enjoy (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equal rights for women, etc.)
Emphasis added by me to point out the incorrect part of your statement. They don't care about what YOU enjoy. They only care that your government keeps on toppling leaders, setting up dodgy deals, backs dictators like Hussain and so on. Go and read the history, these people have ample reason to hate the USA. And their hate is fully justified. Of course, their methods are not, but that's another debate entirely.
So, when Bush says "they hate freedom" as a reasoning for e.g. 9-11, he is lying. They hate your foreign policy, which is basically "back anyone who is friendly to us, regardless of their morals and politics in an effort to fight those who aren't forthcoming to US interests".
There are a dozen democratic countries that I can name with similar or more personal freedom than the USA. NONE of them have Islamic terrorism. The UK had none until we joined you in Iraq. The perpretators of these attacks have stated that they did it because of Iraq. Nothing about "freedom and democracy".
As for reading about their "propaganda", yes, I have read it. Straight from the horses mouth. I have also read the transcripts of Bin Ladens speaches. NOT ONCE EVER has he said they attack America because of "freedom and democracy". However, he lists, in almost every speach, the real reasons why they hate you. If the US public were to find out those reasons, they might start question US foreign policy. That would just not do at all, so the "freedom and democracy" banner comes out, knowning in advance the reaction the US public will have.
If George Bush explicitly said it, and jailed people that disagreed, then you might have had a point.
The "link" between Iraq and terrorism is deliberate, of that there is no doubt. Saddam was continually refered to as a terrorist, the Iraq invasion was seen as a part of the war on terror. Go and get the transcripts of the speaches Bush & co made to get the US public on-side. Count the number of times that "Saddam" and "terrorist" appear in the same context. There is zero doubt that there was a clear and concerted effort to link Iraq and 9-11 in the publics mind.
Essentially, you have completely proven my original point. The US leadership is exactly the same as the other dickwads in the world who use emotive talk and national soft-spots to incide hatred of a foreign people in order to justify war. Thank you helping me make my point.
Would "being the better person" have forced change on those societies? Are you cool with having a viable Nazi movement remaining in Germany? I'm not. The choice to bomb them until they submitted was the correct one. Turning the other cheek would not have worked.
War on Terror != conventional war.
The only successful "beating" of terrorism that I know of is in Northern Ireland. After 30 years of checkpoints, patrols, murders, bombing of shopping centres etc, the UK government gave the terrorists a voice in the government.
Guess what? The violence stopped. They are decommissioning their arms right now.
The only people who believe this are the people who don't think Israel should exist (along with many other irrational ultra-left appeasment and appologist, racist views).
Isreal shouldn't exist, it was a fucking stupid idea in the first place. Not that we should get rid of it or anything like that (we're stuck with it now), but pointing out the fact that creating Isreal was the spark that ignited the middle east for 50 years past, and AT LEAST 50 years more IMHO is not racist. It's stating the obvious.
ANY country based on a religion is inherently going to end in tears. Oh, and what is racist is asuming that anyone who critizes Isreal is anti-Jew; I'm an equal-opertunities athiest; I hate all organized religion equally. Having a state bound to a religion is crazy; as it leads precisly to your kind of argument. Think it's bad that Isreal has illegal WMD and illegally occupies other countries territories? Then you must be a Nazi!!
Isreal is not a good guy in this conflict. In fact, I can't think of anyone that could be said to be a "good guy" in this debate.
And no, the same cannot be said about the United States of America
Then why do 60% of Americans believe that Saddam was connected to 9-11? At least Jews inventing AIDS to kill Muslins is obviously nonsence; your lies are deliberate, calculated ones that result in 25,000 + civilians dying in Iraq.
Bush also tells the people that they hate America because they hate freedom and democracy. Another complete and utter bullshit lie used to insight hatred. Your country is EXACTLY the same my friend.
I won't even get started on some of the racist comments I heard about New Orleans on some US message boards.
You seem to think hijacking and slamming planes into skyscrapers doesn't mean you're nuts.
They weren't nuts. It was a highly successful attack, probably moreso than they expected. "suicide missions" aren't new, there is even prior-art in our own culture. You've not seen many WW2 movies, have you? "Don't do it Johny, it's a suicide mission". "I have to, tell my wife I love her". Or, did the term "kamikaze" pass you by? Or the viking bezerkers?
NOT nuts. Their religion may be nuts, but to me as an athiest, it's no more or less nutty than any other religion.
Wait, if we lose, then utterly obliterate our enemy, then... uh... we didn't lose.
Actually, you would lose, big time. The entire world would turn their backs on you and your economy would fall apart within three months. Exports have to go somewhere, and it's well known that Asia is proping up the faltering US economy right now. Without both of them, you'll have zero trade. Sure, it will be good for the "buy American" crowd (every country has them), but you don't make everything nowadays.
Oh, and if the USA ever nukes anyone, I'll severely beat up the first American I meet, regardless of the situation. Your president represents YOU and it is YOU who will sholder that responsibility. Perhaps if the person can show me a few posts online stating that they were against it all along, then maybe, just maybe I'll let them away with just a broken nose. I won't be alone here either; you'll make more enemies than any nation on Earth has ever had at any point in our collective history. War on Terror? You don't know the half of it; every non-American will despise you. At least now you can single out those you label as "towel heads"...
When the democrats have someone who is marginally electable, they win.
I still can't get over the fact that most people believe a two-party system is in any way a democracy. A four-yearly choice between two individuals choosen from the same secret cults does not represent "the will of the people".
There will be a Muslim/Gay/Black child molestor president years before there is ever an athiest one. Personally, I believe there should be a law preventing people who believe in doomsday scenarios (e.g. the rapture) from having access to weapons that could bring it about. That's just asking for trouble.
For example; Bush has said before:
'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.'
How long before "god" tells him to take out N. Korea or China? And he is seeking first-strike capability? In world where M.A.D. is no longer the case? I'm getting a little worried here, could the American readers out there please do something to stop this madman? Before he fucks up the whole world and makes us all hate your childrens children just for being from the same place that started WW3? At the very least it's bad for business...
Can't use the songs as ring tones? Just to appease the cell phone companies? Do cellphone companies really think they can continue to make money on a gimmick forever? Where's the creativity?
There are dozens of phones that have been out for serveral years that can play a variety of media formats. Most of them happily let you use anything as a ringtone or message.
This Apple phone bites. I can't believe that it is getting so much press, it offers nothing new that hasn't been done before. Even buying music (full tracks) over-the-air has been around for ages. There are better ones on the market without any artificial restrictions built in. Apples marketing dept is pretty good, so I wouldn't write it off though.
And always, you can right-click My Computer and select Properties to get that system information.
The same context menu also has "manage" on it, which pops up the MMC console. From there you can manage services, devices, users and read the system events. Doing these two from the start menu is quite a convient way into them.
To use non-bastardized standards, you can still do a CONTROL + ESCAPE to simulate the Windows key.
That's the combo to open the start menu, it wont work with the win-pause and win-e (explorer) style commands. I writing this post on a thinkpad just now. There is one button marked "ThinkPad" that can be reassigned by hacking the registry; it may be possible to make this do the missing shortcut combo key.
Slashdot Mirror
Have machine readable print form of "robots.txt" on the first few pages of the book. Works exactly like the web one, if you find it, you move along to the next book (site) without indexing the current one. Easy. Just have simple booleans "allowIndexing", "allowCopy" and so on.
"conquest blood diluted"...are we talking about the same country here... ;-) "Settled down"? It's been building up for 40 years!!!
That's a falacy. Linux is just as vunerable to trojaned installers as any other OS. You install mozilla as root, right? Debian apt runs as root, so you'd better be trusting those apt repositories, and all of the contributers.
OS security does help against worms and other methods of infection, but dealling with trojans is a 90% user function. This improved security, along with market share (as you point out) is what makes Linux "safer". To get a virus on Linux, you essentially have to do something wrong yourself. Which is no consolation to the gran and grandpa users, "Download Weather Bar (linux version) popups" are only a few years away...
Azureus and other BT clients already have RSS readers, using Regex's to match media in the RSS xml. This rules for TV series that are currently airing, it's great to return home to two or three new episodes each day. Many BT sites have RSS feeds, however the only one that got it right was btefnet, who had the inteligence not to post the same media twice. Most other sites have moron users who will post a 200 meg version of the file, followed by a 50 real media rip that no one wants but wastes our bandwidth because we get it anyway!! Throw in ratio sites, users dropping in 4 gig "season 1 dvd rips" and you can see why I stopped using it in the end. We just need a BT site that "gets it". Answers on a postcard please...
Having seen the damage hi-rise flats can cause a city (Glasgow), I must assume that you are out of your mind. Buildings like these have zero sense of community & belonging and lead to indifference, social decay and crime. The only folk that would see them as good are those who believe in the "stay at home, keep yourself to yourself, oh look, American Gladiators is on". Drive to work, drive home, lock the door. It's a horrible self-contained existance and frankly it sucks.
Give me a traditional city with traditional shops, bars and housing anyday. One where neighbours know each other and parents are shamed into making their children behave. Hi-rises are too impersonal and one of the biggest mistakes of 1960's British planing. Sure, mile high cities may be sci-fi cool, but most of them were distopias remember!
Ah, so THAT explains all of the anti-evolution books that keep on cropping up in the news. I'm sure that the publisher ensured the accuracy of the claims that dinosaurs lived alongside modern humans.
My point was that no 'book' would be accepted in court. Authorative papers from renowned authers with citations and references, yes, but a book, no.
I have about as much faith in wikopedia as I have in any book from any random author. Give the wiki time, the 'anyone' can edit won't last as yes, there are many folk popping in goatse images. However in future I'd bet that articles have listed authors, along with moderation scores for both articles and authors. A formula will determine the 'accuracy' of an article, giving the reader a view on how good the article is. You don't get author scores in print, so in some ways, this is superior. As long as the moderation doesn't follow the slashdot 'mods on crack' ideology!
Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print? Just because it's in a book it doesn't mean it's inherently more acurate. Besides, if you are doing anything important and you get info from any source (especially the web), you should ALWAYS double check it.
Sure, you cite laws on expert witnesses. Do all book publishers ensure these requirements on all authors or contributers to a body of work? Hell no, you can publish just about anything! So, wikipedia won't stand up in a court of law, but neither will any other exyclopedia. It's "just another source", and you have to admit probably one of the best ones out there right now. Once the concept is mature, I imagine there will be more influnce in the process from people who are genuinely qualified in each topic. However, in the early days if you'd enforced this, there would be far less contributers and the project would have floundered.
Microsoft and AOL are mere annoyances in the world of evil empires. You want scum? Try Nestle, Harliburton, "Kellogg, Brown and Root", Eli Lilly and De Beers. Unlike Microsoft and AOL, the others I have mentioned kill people for profit. I've yet to see a death associated with an IE crash or an AOL cancelling request.
Folks round here need to get their perspectives straightend. Microsoft may be nasty, uncompetative and unfriendly at times, but they aren't "evil" (a word that is used way too much nowadays)
Sure, go for it. Remembering of course that there have been wars & genocides commited by all of the areas under discussion here: Europe, Japan & America. IIRC, Europe's is genocide was smaller than the other two's over the last 200 years.
I've never gotten the facination people have with the universe beginning. It is so massive, completely beyond human comprehension. Yet we seek to give it human references such as "start" and "end". Our lives have a start and end points. Why assume that the universe must be the same? Is it so utter foreign to people that it always was and always will be? The big bang may have just been the begining of a cycle that is endlessly repeating.
Besides, the classic counter to that argument is "who made god?" if he were to later create the universe? The answer to that question is really no different to those who explain the universe's existance.
Hey, I'm concerned that people trust the UK MOT (above) test as a safety check. The MOT only covers the essentials, it's not a clean bill of health for the car, nor is it a test of whether the car is safe. The are many things it doesn't cover.
my concern with electronic monitoring is that it is absolutely no substitute for physical inspection by engineers/mechanics.
There is a best of both worlds for sure. How many of you do the recommended weekly fluid checks? Come on, be honest...have you checked the hydrolic, coolant and oil levels even this month? A light that says "check oil" is a useful feature. Some cars, Merc's I think, also tell you when you are due a service, which is handy for those who don't pay attention to these things.
Wrong, sort of. ABS does make the average motorist stop faster. It works by releasing the presure on the brake disks when it detects that the wheel is not turning i.e. locked. High school physics tells you that a locked, skidding wheel has WAY less traction that a wheel that is following the road. Conversly, the maximum braking traction is imediately before you actually lose traction. ABS works by keeping the breaking force in the optimum region for you, right on the edge of skidding. This is the "threshold braking" you mention.
ABS doesn't do much for those who know how to manually pump the brakes when you are locking up. The "idiots" as you refer to them are the average motorist; hardly anyone I've asked knows about proper braking. I've been on skid-pan training and flown about the track in a car where the ABS could be switched off, great fun and some useful skills learned. Yet, despite this training and knowledge of how to propertly brake, the chances are that if I ever had to emergency stop from 80mph, I'd lock the wheels. When panic sets in, the instinct is to push the peddle to the floor.
Not everyones legal system works like that. Here in the UK (where this small company is based) we have loser pays. Stops all pointless lawsuits dead; if google took me on and threw £10 million on lawyers, IIRC I am allowed to spend the same and claim it back from them. Assuming I win, if not I'm screwed!!
You'd use them on them, if you thought you'd get away with it. In fact, this appears to be what this story is about.
But noooo, hell they're given diplomatic immunity no matter how insane they are.
Who (or what) in the hell are you talking about?
How about one of them detonates his strap-on bomb next to you? Won't that be considered friendly fire?
Nice straw man argument. I'm not on your side, therefore I am on their side. Bullshit. Both sides are asshats, however the USA is worse because it is attempting to keep the "good guy" veneer when it's clearly not.
I love how everything in the US has to be bi-partisan. You really don't get this whole "democracy" thing, do you? Two-choices in every decision is not democratic, only a fool would think otherwise.
It's the anti-West stigma they seem to have.
No, it's an "anti-anyone-who-fucks-us-about" stigma. Where are all the terrorist bombs in Canada? Or Austrailia? Or France? I could go on for days. While the USA doesn't "deserve" to be attacked, you certainally asked for it...go read a history book you "moran" and stop getting your history from Hollywood.
Preaching to the choir there mate, I know a few folk in the UK army. But they are trained for that; a large part of the training is to dehumanise them for this very task. A combat leader must be willing to sacrifice some men for the rest of the squad, welcome to the world of armed combat. The training for both the leaders and the grunts makes that possible.
Emphasis added by me to point out the incorrect part of your statement. They don't care about what YOU enjoy. They only care that your government keeps on toppling leaders, setting up dodgy deals, backs dictators like Hussain and so on. Go and read the history, these people have ample reason to hate the USA. And their hate is fully justified. Of course, their methods are not, but that's another debate entirely.
So, when Bush says "they hate freedom" as a reasoning for e.g. 9-11, he is lying. They hate your foreign policy, which is basically "back anyone who is friendly to us, regardless of their morals and politics in an effort to fight those who aren't forthcoming to US interests".
There are a dozen democratic countries that I can name with similar or more personal freedom than the USA. NONE of them have Islamic terrorism. The UK had none until we joined you in Iraq. The perpretators of these attacks have stated that they did it because of Iraq. Nothing about "freedom and democracy".
As for reading about their "propaganda", yes, I have read it. Straight from the horses mouth. I have also read the transcripts of Bin Ladens speaches. NOT ONCE EVER has he said they attack America because of "freedom and democracy". However, he lists, in almost every speach, the real reasons why they hate you. If the US public were to find out those reasons, they might start question US foreign policy. That would just not do at all, so the "freedom and democracy" banner comes out, knowning in advance the reaction the US public will have.
If George Bush explicitly said it, and jailed people that disagreed, then you might have had a point.
The "link" between Iraq and terrorism is deliberate, of that there is no doubt. Saddam was continually refered to as a terrorist, the Iraq invasion was seen as a part of the war on terror. Go and get the transcripts of the speaches Bush & co made to get the US public on-side. Count the number of times that "Saddam" and "terrorist" appear in the same context. There is zero doubt that there was a clear and concerted effort to link Iraq and 9-11 in the publics mind.
Essentially, you have completely proven my original point. The US leadership is exactly the same as the other dickwads in the world who use emotive talk and national soft-spots to incide hatred of a foreign people in order to justify war. Thank you helping me make my point.
War on Terror != conventional war.
The only successful "beating" of terrorism that I know of is in Northern Ireland. After 30 years of checkpoints, patrols, murders, bombing of shopping centres etc, the UK government gave the terrorists a voice in the government.
Guess what? The violence stopped. They are decommissioning their arms right now.
Isreal shouldn't exist, it was a fucking stupid idea in the first place. Not that we should get rid of it or anything like that (we're stuck with it now), but pointing out the fact that creating Isreal was the spark that ignited the middle east for 50 years past, and AT LEAST 50 years more IMHO is not racist. It's stating the obvious.
ANY country based on a religion is inherently going to end in tears. Oh, and what is racist is asuming that anyone who critizes Isreal is anti-Jew; I'm an equal-opertunities athiest; I hate all organized religion equally. Having a state bound to a religion is crazy; as it leads precisly to your kind of argument. Think it's bad that Isreal has illegal WMD and illegally occupies other countries territories? Then you must be a Nazi!!
Isreal is not a good guy in this conflict. In fact, I can't think of anyone that could be said to be a "good guy" in this debate.
Then why do 60% of Americans believe that Saddam was connected to 9-11? At least Jews inventing AIDS to kill Muslins is obviously nonsence; your lies are deliberate, calculated ones that result in 25,000 + civilians dying in Iraq.
Bush also tells the people that they hate America because they hate freedom and democracy. Another complete and utter bullshit lie used to insight hatred. Your country is EXACTLY the same my friend.
I won't even get started on some of the racist comments I heard about New Orleans on some US message boards.
They weren't nuts. It was a highly successful attack, probably moreso than they expected. "suicide missions" aren't new, there is even prior-art in our own culture. You've not seen many WW2 movies, have you? "Don't do it Johny, it's a suicide mission". "I have to, tell my wife I love her". Or, did the term "kamikaze" pass you by? Or the viking bezerkers?
NOT nuts. Their religion may be nuts, but to me as an athiest, it's no more or less nutty than any other religion.
Actually, you would lose, big time. The entire world would turn their backs on you and your economy would fall apart within three months. Exports have to go somewhere, and it's well known that Asia is proping up the faltering US economy right now. Without both of them, you'll have zero trade. Sure, it will be good for the "buy American" crowd (every country has them), but you don't make everything nowadays.
Oh, and if the USA ever nukes anyone, I'll severely beat up the first American I meet, regardless of the situation. Your president represents YOU and it is YOU who will sholder that responsibility. Perhaps if the person can show me a few posts online stating that they were against it all along, then maybe, just maybe I'll let them away with just a broken nose. I won't be alone here either; you'll make more enemies than any nation on Earth has ever had at any point in our collective history. War on Terror? You don't know the half of it; every non-American will despise you. At least now you can single out those you label as "towel heads"...
I still can't get over the fact that most people believe a two-party system is in any way a democracy. A four-yearly choice between two individuals choosen from the same secret cults does not represent "the will of the people".
There will be a Muslim/Gay/Black child molestor president years before there is ever an athiest one. Personally, I believe there should be a law preventing people who believe in doomsday scenarios (e.g. the rapture) from having access to weapons that could bring it about. That's just asking for trouble.
For example; Bush has said before:
How long before "god" tells him to take out N. Korea or China? And he is seeking first-strike capability? In world where M.A.D. is no longer the case? I'm getting a little worried here, could the American readers out there please do something to stop this madman? Before he fucks up the whole world and makes us all hate your childrens children just for being from the same place that started WW3? At the very least it's bad for business...
There are dozens of phones that have been out for serveral years that can play a variety of media formats. Most of them happily let you use anything as a ringtone or message.
This Apple phone bites. I can't believe that it is getting so much press, it offers nothing new that hasn't been done before. Even buying music (full tracks) over-the-air has been around for ages. There are better ones on the market without any artificial restrictions built in. Apples marketing dept is pretty good, so I wouldn't write it off though.
The same context menu also has "manage" on it, which pops up the MMC console. From there you can manage services, devices, users and read the system events. Doing these two from the start menu is quite a convient way into them.
To use non-bastardized standards, you can still do a CONTROL + ESCAPE to simulate the Windows key.
That's the combo to open the start menu, it wont work with the win-pause and win-e (explorer) style commands. I writing this post on a thinkpad just now. There is one button marked "ThinkPad" that can be reassigned by hacking the registry; it may be possible to make this do the missing shortcut combo key.