It's kind of interesting: The blue states have the biggest problem with clear skies (apart from TX, which apparently doesn't care).
Btw (as a independent who's pro-Bush this time): you are assuming that the Bushies share your concerns. Not necessarily. For me, 9/11 is the biggest issue because I am not satisfied with how any other world leader is handling things on that score (cf Van Gogh's murder in Holland as a foretaste of what's to come if things go the way European leaders are letting them). Kerry's approach was a joke. And yes, I know why NK is bad (I also know why it's a much tougher nut to crack than Iran or Syria), and no, clear skies is not a priority for me.
But yeah, as I've noted elsewhere, in 2008 I'm going to vote for whoever puts up a centrist.
I am glad the Popular Vote reflects the Electorial Vote. But the Popular Vote should be all that counts in ANY election. We have no need for the Electorial college any more. It is a deprecated system that is not needed in this day of information technology.
Yes, so that a candidate can campaign in California and NY (and maybe the Lake states) and be done with the election.
There was a _reason_ the electoral college came into being: so that populous states would not "drown" out the less populous ones. It had nothing to do with "information technology".
Pure popular votes are *always* skewed towards urban interests. (Incidentally the majority of/.-ers being urban no wonder this proposal is always very popular with the/. crowd. Also folk living in Europe find it handy because for the life of them they can't imagine a state larger than their frigging toy-size country).
I hope never to see this proposal of yours accepted in my lifetime. I credit the founding fathers with more wisdom than you.
I'm not sure if you read the link I pointed to: CityDesk puts an easy GUI on creating these CSS/XHTML based presentations.
I do use Open Office (v1.1, although infrequently), if you know a way to make OperaShow style presentations with OO.o, please do post it, I honestly didn't know it was possible.
(Neither Powerpoint's nor OO Impress' Save As HTML is quite the same as this, since the point of these CSS/XHTML presentations is to get an entire presentation's worth of content in one standards-compliant file, which has probably more geek appeal than it is useful. Hope the OO guys include this in their next version though, should not be very hard.)
Nothing stops you from downloading the source, building it on your own, stamping the binaries on CDROM and selling it.
Give them a break, a lot of OBSD fans buy the CD set just to show some support. And remember, at least as far as commercial use is concerned, it *is* free-er than GNU/Linux (not getting into whether that's desirable or not).
> It's super easy for one to learn the IPs of those sharing files over a torrent
IANAL and I don't know how BT works internally, but wouldn't it be harder to prove that user foo at ip address bar downloaded the
_full_ movie Gigli (or a significant fraction of it)?
Am I liable if I download 90kB of Gigli? can the (possibly subpeona-ed) tracker logs show who downloaded how much?
> Bittorrent was never meant to be a p2p sharing program.
Agree, and I'll add that a truly anonymous p2p system will also be near impossible to use (IMO Freenet is not anonymous because merely currently mere traffic analysis makes freenet users stand out very well).
I'm assuming browsers would have GUID managers similar to today's cookie managers, where sending the GUID can be fine-grain controlled sitewise. I still don't like the idea, see my other post for why. That said, if anyone could come up with a client-side spec that was less prone to implentation bugs and was more secure AND back-compatible, I'm sure the W3 (and the WHAT-WG) guys would be very interested.
Incidentally, I believe less people would misuse cookies if Netscape named it OpaqueKey:-). Believe it or not, most people do not KNOW what a "cookie" means in a CS sense.
No. Cookies are not the same across sites. Since each site comes up with its own cookie encoding scheme, data sharing becomes difficult (barring schemes like Passport: one reason why Passport in its original form was so creepy). Today, with fine-grained cookie managers (Moz, Opera) you can browse the web pretty privately, at least wrt cookies.
Incidentally, Real once got a lot of flak for incorporating just this feature into Realplayer, all the privacy arguments made then are true now as well.
Classic cookies are supposed to be opaque keys, but in reality people do use them for storing nonsensitive information, like stylesheet info. Your proposal would increase the hassle these people have to go through.
> but also can give the client state control if not used properly
rm if not used properly can hose your $HOME. A backup script used by a technician at your ISP used improperly can hose your Maildir. Doesn't mean rm or backup scripts are bad.
Btw, if you don't like client-side state, I suggest you get prepared for more unpleasantness: I'm predicting in 2-3 years we'll see the first browsers with more sophisticated client state management that'd allow browsers to work with websites (even app-centric websites like Gmail and Flickr) offline.
If browsers would just generate a GUID during installation and then have that be part of the HTTP stream there'd be no reason for cookies at all.
So, instead of cookies which I can erase or disable, you want my browser to generate one unique ID (based, in most implementations, on my MAC address) at install time that'd work across sites and send it to servers automatically? Love the privacy implications of that.
That is a problem because our enemies do not respect national borders. The US, being a country, can only declare war against another country. Asymmetrical warfare takes advantage of this.
Further, our enemies hide in countries we have to strategically call friends, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Often they are overtly, covertly or grudgingly supported by leaders in those countries. Another example: we've been publicly patting Pakistan while locking down its nukes in private, especially after the Khan fiasco.
I therefore feel very strongly that such *massive* decisions as whether or not to conquer a half dozen sovereign nations do not belong to Bush/Cheney and Co
I believe in Freedom of Information in governance, however I believe war plans cannot be played out in public (imagine the 40s NY Times carrying a full rationale for going to Morocco!). Especially since the "conquering sovereign nations" was never the goal (What tribute, in the Roman sense, do we get from Iraq? Heck, we bleed money every day we're there!)
Your point about not declaring an enemy though is *very* interesting. Who is our enemy? I'm not sure anyone knows for sure. The Bush administration publicly says (more or less) it's a lunatic fringe who have hijacked Islam. That sounds like the diplomatic thing to say. If you read "Imperial Hubris" by the anonymous CIA guy, it's clear he believes otherwise: he says that the Muslim `street' is pissed off with America, that the jihadis _are_ the mainstream, and that the only way to placate them is to kiss Israel goodbye.
In the face of this, I admit that I do not know who our enemy is. We are either fighting a lunatic fringe or an even more alarmingly lunatic mainstream -- both sound bad. I think what we must do is believe that people innately want a better life in *this* world (as opposed to 72 virgins in the next) and make sure that somehow the Middle East enters the 21st century the same way Japan did after WW2, and China and India did in the 80s and 90s.
Since I started this thread, I thought I'd respond -- I didn't paste the post above but it's interesting because it's close to what I feel*. I've already taken a karma hit on this but that's okay. Actually, you bring up a great point, something I thought I'd include in my original post but decided not to.
If Roosevelt had attacked New Zealand on December 8th, 1941, I suppose you would have praised him as a strong wartime leader?
After Pearl Harbor, the first country the US invaded was -- Morocco. What had the poor Moroccans to do with Pearl Harbor? Morocco then was a French colony and was under control of Vichy France, and was defended by French troops. Yup, we fought French troops in Africa to "inaugurate" our WW2 campaign.
The reason was that we would use our African bases later to attack Italy via Sicily, ultimately taking Italy out of the war and tying down Germany on too many fonts. The decision to invade Morocco was strategic and, in chess terms, it used a multilevel lookahead that seems obvious in hindsight today.
The invasion of Iraq is strategic too, but for different reasons. It removed a leader with a clear grouse against the US (400k-600k *tons* of high explosive, and we haven't yet got around to finding out what Saddam stashed away in Syria yet), it has the (genuine) value of unshackling one of the most talented Arab nations, preventing more gassing by Saddam, etc; but, importantly, it also allows greater access to Syria, Iran and (yes) Saudi Arabia. And although these countries don't have a monopoly on Islamic terror, almost all the funding comes from there -- and Egypt, which is more accessible because of the sea and Israel.
Taking the war to your enemy is always a good thing. Waiting for it to come home to you (Kerry's "any attack will be met") is not.
horrified... that you seem to think a strong aversion to war is a *bad* thing.
I know it's fashionable to paint Bush-backers as baby-mulchers, but some of us still have our wits about us:-).
I don't think war is good. I also think the wrong kind of peace (the sort imposed in artificial surroundings like the UN (where countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia can lecture the US on its failings)) is more venal than war. Ask the Sudanese being slaughtered in Darfur, or the Kurds who were gassed while Saddam got richer by snarfing Oil-for-Food funds.
* except that I'm pro-gay rights but anti-gay-marriage, pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, and believe income taxes should be abolished in favor of low-rate sales taxes.
It is better to be committed to your cause and completely wrong, then to support a cause and change your position on the release of new information
The biggest flipflop Kerry the Flipper's had nothing to with release new information. It was all about electability and putting a pretty face onto that botoxed deathmask of his. He put away 20 years of anemic performance as the liberal junior senator from Mass. and come forward as the war-hero candidate. His morphing from dove to "reporting for doody" pseudo-hawk goose-shooter was a craven political move that fooled no one. That man will do anything to get elected. He is not a leader, he is a politician in the most pejorative sense of that word.
'Fraid not. Comparing the amount of the population in a city with relatively low pollution like, say, Stockholm (Sweden), with a relatively dirty one, say, Krakow (Poland), you'd expect the number of allergies to be far higher in the more polluted city. This turns out not true. Allergies are much more common in the modern "Western world" than in, for instance, the old "East block".
Good point. Another interesting datapoint is the much lower rate of allergies in crowded, dirty Asian cities (these cities have decent healthcare, so it's not like allergies are underreported). Also, Asians (at least South Asians) seem to have much lower rates of nut allergies, hayfever allergies, etc.
I just think there's a lot we don't know here...
I'd love to see some research on the correlation between 'cleaner societies' and immune systems development.
If this "silent code checkins" story is true, two candidates come to my mind: a) improved Google Desktop Search compat with Firefox b) some form of Alchemy code (Adam Bosworth is working at Google and has some neat ideas about making the browser smarter about working offline)
What beats me is why ANY major changes would occur before a 1.0 ship. Both (a) and (b) are things that could be done in Firefox 1.1, which is why I'm sceptical about this whole silent checkins thing.
Does anyone else find it distasteful when a draft dodger calls into question the medals of a war hero?
Does anyone else find it distasteful when a loony-left senator with a near-perfect ADA voting record and a record of dissing "rapist" American troops to boost his sorry political ass "reports for doody" at his convention with a totally gay salute?
I know war heroes. I have one in my family. The current Dem nominee is many things to me, but 'hero' is not the word that comes to my mind.
Most of the folks who would download and install this are probably competent enough to download and install Firefox.
A lot of IE users have had Google's Toolbar installed for them by friends, admins, etc. And the toolbar updates itself silently, so no -- a lot of people using it now will not be installing it themselves.
Btw, I've been using this browse-by-name feature for about a month now (when I use IE at all) -- why is this suddenly front-page/. news?
Unless they can find a way to move away from the science, and do more morality stuff, then yea they need to pause.
The campy science + characters of the original series was what made Star Trek what it is.
The Star Trek rehashes of today are not-so-elaborate morality plays set in space -- and that's why they suck. They haven't taken the series forward, the way (for example) Herbert did in the Dune novels (each sequel quite different from the last). And they expect the fans to stand for this blatant milking of a franchise?
I'm not sure hypertaskers get stuff done faster. However they probably do have more fun doing several things at the same time. (How many of you are on IRC when you write code?)
[old fogey] It was 'more fun' to use a timesharing system, even though it was slower than an equivalently powered batch processing system. On those you had to wait for days before your turn came.[/old fogey]
Today's instant-gratification culture means it's more satisfying if your family/SO can contact you and communicate even when at work. Of course, some jobs (emergency medical respond teams etc) demand a high level of focus, but given the kind of desk jobs that abound today, it isn't surprising even technophobic folk are choosing to value connectedness over undistracted work.
And if you really can't tolerate the parentheses, look at Haskell. It's about as easy to learn as Python and more productive (and there are JVM/NET bridges available too).
> not by average programmers
Gosling once noted that Java *was* a blue-collar language designed to get the job done, contrasting with the `purity' of Smalltalk. While I agree, there's a place for Java, I can only hope one day Sun/MS/IBM will see the light and offer a non-procedural language as a first-class offering.
Is there a easy guide to deploying SPF on Windows 2000's DNS Service? Something that I can give the MCSEs who run our IS team and get their attention would be appreciated.
Slashdot Mirror
> a certain segment of our population feel better about themselves even as he rapes them.
;-)
That's technically called "rough sex". Some people like it, you bible belt bigot!
It's kind of interesting: The blue states have the biggest problem with clear skies (apart from TX, which apparently doesn't care).
Btw (as a independent who's pro-Bush this time): you are assuming that the Bushies share your concerns. Not necessarily. For me, 9/11 is the biggest issue because I am not satisfied with how any other world leader is handling things on that score (cf Van Gogh's murder in Holland as a foretaste of what's to come if things go the way European leaders are letting them). Kerry's approach was a joke. And yes, I know why NK is bad (I also know why it's a much tougher nut to crack than Iran or Syria), and no, clear skies is not a priority for me.
But yeah, as I've noted elsewhere, in 2008 I'm going to vote for whoever puts up a centrist.
I am glad the Popular Vote reflects the Electorial Vote. But the Popular Vote should be all that counts in ANY election. We have no need for the Electorial college any more. It is a deprecated system that is not needed in this day of information technology.
/.-ers being urban no wonder this proposal is always very popular with the /. crowd. Also folk living in Europe find it handy because for the life of them they can't imagine a state larger than their frigging toy-size country).
Yes, so that a candidate can campaign in California and NY (and maybe the Lake states) and be done with the election.
There was a _reason_ the electoral college came into being: so that populous states would not "drown" out the less populous ones. It had nothing to do with "information technology".
Pure popular votes are *always* skewed towards urban interests. (Incidentally the majority of
I hope never to see this proposal of yours accepted in my lifetime. I credit the founding fathers with more wisdom than you.
I'm not sure if you read the link I pointed to: CityDesk puts an easy GUI on creating these CSS/XHTML based presentations.
I do use Open Office (v1.1, although infrequently), if you know a way to make OperaShow style presentations with OO.o, please do post it, I honestly didn't know it was possible.
(Neither Powerpoint's nor OO Impress' Save As HTML is quite the same as this, since the point of these CSS/XHTML presentations is to get an entire presentation's worth of content in one standards-compliant file, which has probably more geek appeal than it is useful. Hope the OO guys include this in their next version though, should not be very hard.)
Nothing stops you from downloading the source, building it on your own, stamping the binaries on CDROM and selling it.
Give them a break, a lot of OBSD fans buy the CD set just to show some support. And remember, at least as far as commercial use is concerned, it *is* free-er than GNU/Linux (not getting into whether that's desirable or not).
... in case they want a GUI to create those presentations. CityDesk's free edition is enough for most presentations.
> It's super easy for one to learn the IPs of those sharing files over a torrent
IANAL and I don't know how BT works internally, but wouldn't it be harder to prove that user foo at ip address bar downloaded the
_full_ movie Gigli (or a significant fraction of it)?
Am I liable if I download 90kB of Gigli? can the (possibly subpeona-ed) tracker logs show who downloaded how much?
> Bittorrent was never meant to be a p2p sharing program.
Agree, and I'll add that a truly anonymous p2p system will also be near impossible to use (IMO Freenet is not anonymous because merely currently mere traffic analysis makes freenet users stand out very well).
I'm assuming browsers would have GUID managers similar to today's cookie managers, where sending the GUID can be fine-grain controlled sitewise. I still don't like the idea, see my other post for why. That said, if anyone could come up with a client-side spec that was less prone to implentation bugs and was more secure AND back-compatible, I'm sure the W3 (and the WHAT-WG) guys would be very interested.
:-). Believe it or not, most people do not KNOW what a "cookie" means in a CS sense.
Incidentally, I believe less people would misuse cookies if Netscape named it OpaqueKey
> Cookies compromise privacy in the same way,
No. Cookies are not the same across sites. Since each site comes up with its own cookie encoding scheme, data sharing becomes difficult (barring schemes like Passport: one reason why Passport in its original form was so creepy). Today, with fine-grained cookie managers (Moz, Opera) you can browse the web pretty privately, at least wrt cookies.
Incidentally, Real once got a lot of flak for incorporating just this feature into Realplayer, all the privacy arguments made then are true now as well.
Classic cookies are supposed to be opaque keys, but in reality people do use them for storing nonsensitive information, like stylesheet info. Your proposal would increase the hassle these people have to go through.
> but also can give the client state control if not used properly
rm if not used properly can hose your $HOME. A backup script used by a technician at your ISP used improperly can hose your Maildir. Doesn't mean rm or backup scripts are bad.
Btw, if you don't like client-side state, I suggest you get prepared for more unpleasantness: I'm predicting in 2-3 years we'll see the first browsers with more sophisticated client state management that'd allow browsers to work with websites (even app-centric websites like Gmail and Flickr) offline.
If browsers would just generate a GUID during installation and then have that be part of the HTTP stream there'd be no reason for cookies at all.
So, instead of cookies which I can erase or disable, you want my browser to generate one unique ID (based, in most implementations, on my MAC address) at install time that'd work across sites and send it to servers automatically? Love the privacy implications of that.
we have not declared war, nor even an enemy
That is a problem because our enemies do not respect national borders. The US, being a country, can only declare war against another country. Asymmetrical warfare takes advantage of this.
Further, our enemies hide in countries we have to strategically call friends, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Often they are overtly, covertly or grudgingly supported by leaders in those countries. Another example: we've been publicly patting Pakistan while locking down its nukes in private, especially after the Khan fiasco.
I therefore feel very strongly that such *massive* decisions as whether or not to conquer a half dozen sovereign nations do not belong to Bush/Cheney and Co
I believe in Freedom of Information in governance, however I believe war plans cannot be played out in public (imagine the 40s NY Times carrying a full rationale for going to Morocco!). Especially since the "conquering sovereign nations" was never the goal (What tribute, in the Roman sense, do we get from Iraq? Heck, we bleed money every day we're there!)
Your point about not declaring an enemy though is *very* interesting. Who is our enemy? I'm not sure anyone knows for sure. The Bush administration publicly says (more or less) it's a lunatic fringe who have hijacked Islam. That sounds like the diplomatic thing to say. If you read "Imperial Hubris" by the anonymous CIA guy, it's clear he believes otherwise: he says that the Muslim `street' is pissed off with America, that the jihadis _are_ the mainstream, and that the only way to placate them is to kiss Israel goodbye.
In the face of this, I admit that I do not know who our enemy is. We are either fighting a lunatic fringe or an even more alarmingly lunatic mainstream -- both sound bad. I think what we must do is believe that people innately want a better life in *this* world (as opposed to 72 virgins in the next) and make sure that somehow the Middle East enters the 21st century the same way Japan did after WW2, and China and India did in the 80s and 90s.
I think I need sleep now, so I'll stop.
Since I started this thread, I thought I'd respond -- I didn't paste the post above but it's interesting because it's close to what I feel*. I've already taken a karma hit on this but that's okay. Actually, you bring up a great point, something I thought I'd include in my original post but decided not to.
... that you seem to think a strong aversion to war is a *bad* thing.
:-).
If Roosevelt had attacked New Zealand on December 8th, 1941, I suppose you would have praised him as a strong wartime leader?
After Pearl Harbor, the first country the US invaded was -- Morocco. What had the poor Moroccans to do with Pearl Harbor? Morocco then was a French colony and was under control of Vichy France, and was defended by French troops. Yup, we fought French troops in Africa to "inaugurate" our WW2 campaign.
The reason was that we would use our African bases later to attack Italy via Sicily, ultimately taking Italy out of the war and tying down Germany on too many fonts. The decision to invade Morocco was strategic and, in chess terms, it used a multilevel lookahead that seems obvious in hindsight today.
The invasion of Iraq is strategic too, but for different reasons. It removed a leader with a clear grouse against the US (400k-600k *tons* of high explosive, and we haven't yet got around to finding out what Saddam stashed away in Syria yet), it has the (genuine) value of unshackling one of the most talented Arab nations, preventing more gassing by Saddam, etc; but, importantly, it also allows greater access to Syria, Iran and (yes) Saudi Arabia. And although these countries don't have a monopoly on Islamic terror, almost all the funding comes from there -- and Egypt, which is more accessible because of the sea and Israel.
Taking the war to your enemy is always a good thing. Waiting for it to come home to you (Kerry's "any attack will be met") is not.
horrified
I know it's fashionable to paint Bush-backers as baby-mulchers, but some of us still have our wits about us
I don't think war is good. I also think the wrong kind of peace (the sort imposed in artificial surroundings like the UN (where countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia can lecture the US on its failings)) is more venal than war. Ask the Sudanese being slaughtered in Darfur, or the Kurds who were gassed while Saddam got richer by snarfing Oil-for-Food funds.
* except that I'm pro-gay rights but anti-gay-marriage, pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, and believe income taxes should be abolished in favor of low-rate sales taxes.
It is better to be committed to your cause and completely wrong, then to support a cause and change your position on the release of new information
The biggest flipflop Kerry the Flipper's had nothing to with release new information. It was all about electability and putting a pretty face onto that botoxed deathmask of his. He put away 20 years of anemic performance as the liberal junior senator from Mass. and come forward as the war-hero candidate. His morphing from dove to "reporting for doody" pseudo-hawk goose-shooter was a craven political move that fooled no one. That man will do anything to get elected. He is not a leader, he is a politician in the most pejorative sense of that word.
'Fraid not. Comparing the amount of the population in a city with relatively low pollution like, say, Stockholm (Sweden), with a relatively dirty one, say, Krakow (Poland), you'd expect the number of allergies to be far higher in the more polluted city. This turns out not true. Allergies are much more common in the modern "Western world" than in, for instance, the old "East block".
Good point. Another interesting datapoint is the much lower rate of allergies in crowded, dirty Asian cities (these cities have decent healthcare, so it's not like allergies are underreported). Also, Asians (at least South Asians) seem to have much lower rates of nut allergies, hayfever allergies, etc.
I just think there's a lot we don't know here...
I'd love to see some research on the correlation between 'cleaner societies' and immune systems development.
If this "silent code checkins" story is true, two candidates come to my mind:
a) improved Google Desktop Search compat with Firefox
b) some form of Alchemy code (Adam Bosworth is working at Google and has some neat ideas about making the browser smarter about working offline)
What beats me is why ANY major changes would occur before a 1.0 ship. Both (a) and (b) are things that could be done in Firefox 1.1, which is why I'm sceptical about this whole silent checkins thing.
Does anyone else find it distasteful when a draft dodger calls into question the medals of a war hero?
Does anyone else find it distasteful when a loony-left senator with a near-perfect ADA voting record and a record of dissing "rapist" American troops to boost his sorry political ass "reports for doody" at his convention with a totally gay salute?
I know war heroes. I have one in my family. The current Dem nominee is many things to me, but 'hero' is not the word that comes to my mind.
It's already been reported!
Most of the folks who would download and install this are probably competent enough to download and install Firefox.
/. news?
A lot of IE users have had Google's Toolbar installed for them by friends, admins, etc. And the toolbar updates itself silently, so no -- a lot of people using it now will not be installing it themselves.
Btw, I've been using this browse-by-name feature for about a month now (when I use IE at all) -- why is this suddenly front-page
Unless they can find a way to move away from the science, and do more morality stuff, then yea they need to pause.
The campy science + characters of the original series was what made Star Trek what it is.
The Star Trek rehashes of today are not-so-elaborate morality plays set in space -- and that's why they suck. They haven't taken the series forward, the way (for example) Herbert did in the Dune novels (each sequel quite different from the last). And they expect the fans to stand for this blatant milking of a franchise?
I'm not sure hypertaskers get stuff done faster. However they probably do have more fun doing several things at the same time. (How many of you are on IRC when you write code?)
[old fogey] It was 'more fun' to use a timesharing system, even though it was slower than an equivalently powered batch processing system. On those you had to wait for days before your turn came.[/old fogey]
Today's instant-gratification culture means it's more satisfying if your family/SO can contact you and communicate even when at work. Of course, some jobs (emergency medical respond teams etc) demand a high level of focus, but given the kind of desk jobs that abound today, it isn't surprising even technophobic folk are choosing to value connectedness over undistracted work.
> If your school is part of the Internet2 project, you can try this.
Isn't there something in the Internet2 Acceptable Use Policy that prohibits distributing/hosting copyrighted stuff?
And if you really can't tolerate the parentheses, look at Haskell. It's about as easy to learn as Python and more productive (and there are JVM/NET bridges available too).
> not by average programmers
Gosling once noted that Java *was* a blue-collar language designed to get the job done, contrasting with the `purity' of Smalltalk. While I agree, there's a place for Java, I can only hope one day Sun/MS/IBM will see the light and offer a non-procedural language as a first-class offering.
And if games is what you're into, buy a box that plugs into your TV and get on with it.
:-)
/. Heh.
Ah, denigrate the needs of those who oppose you... you sure you're not a closet Linux evangelist? *rimshot*
Even taking your statement at face value, what if I want to play something other than 'twitch' games? I'd *have* to use a computer, wouldn't I?
I'm not wasting thousands of dollars of computer hardware on games when it could be doing something productive and earning money instead.
Or post on
Choosing to install the Google toolbar will reset your default search engine to Google, unless you uncheck a checkbox.
Is there a easy guide to deploying SPF on Windows 2000's DNS Service? Something that I can give the MCSEs who run our IS team and get their attention would be appreciated.