And you imply that this 877 number existed when the movie was made. A quick search for the number you gave found this link. A check on archive.org found that page was first archived on July 6, 2004, almost two weeks after Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in theaters.
I wonder, did this person even look for evidence supporting the claims before saying they were false? Did you look for evidence and fail to find any before propagating the notion that there was no evidence?
A quick search finds a scanned document stating that Bush was suspended for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination". That certainly doesn't sound good to me, but if that's considered acceptable in the Texas Air National Guard, somebody correct me. If he was expected to show up for examination, but didn't, that also justifies the text "failure to appear".
As for the last remaining claim, Neal Boortz only refutes part of the story. The accusation against Bush is that he signed up for the Texas Air National Guard because he knew they were unlikely to be deployed in the war, and he could avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam. The next allegation is that there was a long waiting list and that favoritism got him in, and possibly also helped him up the ranks. In a situation like this, you can spot favoritism much easier than you can find who is responsible for it. One article points to a family friend pulling the strings. But who put him up to it? I don't know.
Somebody needs to tell Neil Boorts that he generally should not call someone a liar if they believe what they are saying, and especially not if there's good reason to believe those things. I recommend to anyone who is going to vote to do some reading at Wikipedia.
I forgot about you mentioning KHTML when I was writing my reply (although I did make sure to use the qualifier sounds like). It was probably due to the size of your rant. And in that vein, I'll avoid quoting you here; my following comments are already big enough.
With regards to publishing, I'll admit that Mozilla doesn't yet report what went wrong in case of errors, although recently you now get a file-by-file progress dialog that shows the success/failure of each uploaded file. Other than the lack of proper error messages, publishing works about as well as can be expected. Unfortunately most people will need to publish via FTP. Mozilla can't do anything about this, and users will need to know the publishing address in addition to their username and password. The settings will be saved and reused the next time you edit a page within the same site.
In HTTP publishing, you publish straight back to the URL you loaded the document from, so you only need to authenticate. When it's enabled, users don't have to know anything beyond their username and password. It works today, but it's usually disabled on the server or unavailable.
The situation is that we're trying put these features together, but a different group is responsible for each piece. The W3C provides the first piece by creating the spec, then the client and server must create the remaining two. If a piece of the puzzle is missing, I blame those who were supposed to produce it.
That said, Microsoft was supposed to provide support for the standards and webservers are supposed to allow HTTP publishing. I think Apache is stuck in a catch-22, where they don't want to enable something by default which provides write access if hardly anyone (admins included) knows about it, and it won't get popular until it's in common usage. Therefore, I pin the responsibility of enabling HTTP publishing on the admins. Implementing layout standards, however, doesn't have any major downside, and big corporations like Microsoft with more money than they know what to do with don't have an excuse for not doing their job.
Finally, I'd like to say that the W3C has a lot of concerns to balance, and I believe they've done a pretty good job on that matter. They can't just provide a strict implementation; there are too many amateur or incompetent web developers who need loose rules and simple expectations. Professional typesetters need layout rules that actually make sense when you think about them for a while. The W3C provides both, and that can only help adoption. Switching some rules shouldn't be that hard for the browser. On the other hand, I can imagine how much of a boon it must be to have specs to refer to during development, detailing exactly how to do layout, and then once you have the rendering engine most of the HTML 4.01 tags are defined entirely by a stylesheet.
[...] say you are browsing your web site and you spot a spelling mistake [...] you should just be able to click an edit button in your browser, be asked to supply a username and password and [...] open [it] either in a built in editor [...]. When the page is 'saved' in the editor, the changes should be uploaded to the site automatically by the browser.
Ever go to 'File -> Edit Page' in the Mozilla suite? Ever notice the 'publish' button? It does exactly what you described.
CSS wasn't even that well designed. [...] You should be able to align anything by top left, top right, bottom left and bottom right of an object (such as a div) both as an absolute and a percentage. You should also be able to specify on what layer within that said container the object you are positioning should be drawn.
Also, you can use the z-index property to get the layering you want. It all works in Mozilla. Your perspective sounds like that of someone who has only used Internet Explorer. The W3C isn't responsible for what Microsoft did wrong or what they didn't bother to do at all.
Nah, we don't need any complicated solution like random distribution. Just have everyone set their RSS reader to update 30 minutes after every hour. That'll fix it!
That recurses through all directories within the current directory, finding files matching "*.jpg" or "*.gif" and runs "grep -i script" on all of them.
Better yet, take the entire string of ones and zeros and convert it to a single large number. Place a decimal point at the beginning of the number. Next, you need a stick and a knife. Taking the number you calculated as a fraction of the stick's length, very carefully make a cut that distance away from the end of the stick.
Now you have your file stored on a nick on a stick!
Gripe 2: Why does the ENTIRE app need to redraw itself (using huge amounts of network bandwidth) every time I obscure it with a window or hop to another virtual desktop???
You want a backing store for the windows. Try using the +bs option to the X server, as in
I've done my part in promoting fair use in as much as I can. ...
Using the software that Apple provides means you agree to the terms that usage provides. Don't like it, don't use it
Considering that every copyright holder can have you agree to their terms before buying their stuff, and they pretty much all do, just what do you think fair use is?
And the fact that you have only so many pigeons acts similarly to a bandwidth cap. Perhaps you could send out pigeons at a high rate, but you only have enough of them to send out 3 per round-trip time period.
It's very much like cable Internet where the actual link is fast, but a rate limiter kicks in to make sure you don't do high-speed sustained transfers. If you max out your outgoing bandwidth (by constantly sending), new messages won't have a pigeon free to take them immediately and latency will increase. If you don't max out your bandwidth, you can take advantage of the high burst transfer speed.
Um, he specifically said that you can't take control of somebody else's compromised machine even if you just use that control to remove the trojan that allows people to take the machine over. That is legally considered the same thing as hacking their machine in the first place.
Reminds me of an old article on how Outlook Express viruses affect Mac users:
Will the virus impact my Macintosh if I am using a non-Microsoft e-mail program, such as Eudora?
If you are using an Macintosh e-mail program that is not from Microsoft, we recommend checking with that particular company. But most likely other e-mail programs like Eudora are not designed to enable virus replication.
No, it can do this. You just have to set your "sent" folder to your inbox. Look in the Mail and Newsgroup account settings under "Copies and Folders" for your mail account.
According to the How Much Is Inside article on batteries, Duracell D-cell batteries costing $3.69 powered a flashlight for 116 hours, while some unknown brand costing 48 cents lasted 40 hours. This means Duracells cost 3.2 cents/hour and the other brand costed 1.2 cents/hour.
Who would have thought batteries could last that long, or that the brand would make such a difference?
Slashdot Mirror
And you imply that this 877 number existed when the movie was made. A quick search for the number you gave found this link. A check on archive.org found that page was first archived on July 6, 2004, almost two weeks after Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in theaters.
I wonder, did this person even look for evidence supporting the claims before saying they were false? Did you look for evidence and fail to find any before propagating the notion that there was no evidence?
A quick search finds a scanned document stating that Bush was suspended for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination". That certainly doesn't sound good to me, but if that's considered acceptable in the Texas Air National Guard, somebody correct me. If he was expected to show up for examination, but didn't, that also justifies the text "failure to appear".
As for the last remaining claim, Neal Boortz only refutes part of the story. The accusation against Bush is that he signed up for the Texas Air National Guard because he knew they were unlikely to be deployed in the war, and he could avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam. The next allegation is that there was a long waiting list and that favoritism got him in, and possibly also helped him up the ranks. In a situation like this, you can spot favoritism much easier than you can find who is responsible for it. One article points to a family friend pulling the strings. But who put him up to it? I don't know.
Somebody needs to tell Neil Boorts that he generally should not call someone a liar if they believe what they are saying, and especially not if there's good reason to believe those things. I recommend to anyone who is going to vote to do some reading at Wikipedia.
Seriously, have these businesses considered a no loafing sign?
Imagine a beowulf cluster of people slacking off! Oh, I guess that wouldn't do much, never mind.
I forgot about you mentioning KHTML when I was writing my reply (although I did make sure to use the qualifier sounds like). It was probably due to the size of your rant. And in that vein, I'll avoid quoting you here; my following comments are already big enough.
With regards to publishing, I'll admit that Mozilla doesn't yet report what went wrong in case of errors, although recently you now get a file-by-file progress dialog that shows the success/failure of each uploaded file. Other than the lack of proper error messages, publishing works about as well as can be expected. Unfortunately most people will need to publish via FTP. Mozilla can't do anything about this, and users will need to know the publishing address in addition to their username and password. The settings will be saved and reused the next time you edit a page within the same site.
In HTTP publishing, you publish straight back to the URL you loaded the document from, so you only need to authenticate. When it's enabled, users don't have to know anything beyond their username and password. It works today, but it's usually disabled on the server or unavailable.
The situation is that we're trying put these features together, but a different group is responsible for each piece. The W3C provides the first piece by creating the spec, then the client and server must create the remaining two. If a piece of the puzzle is missing, I blame those who were supposed to produce it.
That said, Microsoft was supposed to provide support for the standards and webservers are supposed to allow HTTP publishing. I think Apache is stuck in a catch-22, where they don't want to enable something by default which provides write access if hardly anyone (admins included) knows about it, and it won't get popular until it's in common usage. Therefore, I pin the responsibility of enabling HTTP publishing on the admins. Implementing layout standards, however, doesn't have any major downside, and big corporations like Microsoft with more money than they know what to do with don't have an excuse for not doing their job.
Finally, I'd like to say that the W3C has a lot of concerns to balance, and I believe they've done a pretty good job on that matter. They can't just provide a strict implementation; there are too many amateur or incompetent web developers who need loose rules and simple expectations. Professional typesetters need layout rules that actually make sense when you think about them for a while. The W3C provides both, and that can only help adoption. Switching some rules shouldn't be that hard for the browser. On the other hand, I can imagine how much of a boon it must be to have specs to refer to during development, detailing exactly how to do layout, and then once you have the rendering engine most of the HTML 4.01 tags are defined entirely by a stylesheet.
Ever go to 'File -> Edit Page' in the Mozilla suite? Ever notice the 'publish' button? It does exactly what you described.
Uh, take a look:
Also, you can use the z-index property to get the layering you want. It all works in Mozilla. Your perspective sounds like that of someone who has only used Internet Explorer. The W3C isn't responsible for what Microsoft did wrong or what they didn't bother to do at all.
Nah, we don't need any complicated solution like random distribution. Just have everyone set their RSS reader to update 30 minutes after every hour. That'll fix it!
Five suns. The sixth sun didn't set, it was eclipsed.
Nerd!
That won't recurse into any directories (unless they actually have .jpg or .gif extensions). Try this:
That recurses through all directories within the current directory, finding files matching "*.jpg" or "*.gif" and runs "grep -i script" on all of them.
Mushroom! Mushroom!
Better yet, take the entire string of ones and zeros and convert it to a single large number. Place a decimal point at the beginning of the number. Next, you need a stick and a knife. Taking the number you calculated as a fraction of the stick's length, very carefully make a cut that distance away from the end of the stick.
Now you have your file stored on a nick on a stick!
You want a backing store for the windows. Try using the +bs option to the X server, as in
More? Come on, 640k ought to be enough for anybody!
Considering that every copyright holder can have you agree to their terms before buying their stuff, and they pretty much all do, just what do you think fair use is?
And the fact that you have only so many pigeons acts similarly to a bandwidth cap. Perhaps you could send out pigeons at a high rate, but you only have enough of them to send out 3 per round-trip time period.
It's very much like cable Internet where the actual link is fast, but a rate limiter kicks in to make sure you don't do high-speed sustained transfers. If you max out your outgoing bandwidth (by constantly sending), new messages won't have a pigeon free to take them immediately and latency will increase. If you don't max out your bandwidth, you can take advantage of the high burst transfer speed.
Um, he specifically said that you can't take control of somebody else's compromised machine even if you just use that control to remove the trojan that allows people to take the machine over. That is legally considered the same thing as hacking their machine in the first place.
They already thought of that. Freenet comes with the ability to host a distribution page for others to download Freenet from.
You can download Freenet from my node. (Will be up for 24 hours or 100 downloads, whichever comes first)
Ooh, a patch is available? Where can I download, anybody got a link?
Tax write-off.
Reminds me of an old article on how Outlook Express viruses affect Mac users:
No, it can do this. You just have to set your "sent" folder to your inbox. Look in the Mail and Newsgroup account settings under "Copies and Folders" for your mail account.
Remove "over." If Google is God, then you welcome our new search engine Lord.
According to the How Much Is Inside article on batteries, Duracell D-cell batteries costing $3.69 powered a flashlight for 116 hours, while some unknown brand costing 48 cents lasted 40 hours. This means Duracells cost 3.2 cents/hour and the other brand costed 1.2 cents/hour.
Who would have thought batteries could last that long, or that the brand would make such a difference?
is that this deal is only good in Soviet Russia!
Makes me think of...
Billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion, Mushroom mushroom!
Great, now I got this stuck in my head again!