Oh please. J Edgar Hoover become the director of the FBI a month before W's father was born. I hardly think comments about the FBI being evil can be taken as anti-Bush rhetoric.
Umm, anyone can send child porn spam from your email address, to the 99.99% of the people on the Internet who have never heard of you, don't know you sign all of your messages, and wouldn't even care to have your public key if they knew about it. They probably can't ruin your reputation with anyone crypto-savvy who you regularly email, but so what?
Yes, because the first thing child pornographers want is a bunch of police around investigating to try to find the made-up person who's extorting them. "Look, officer... the extortionist broke in and left this camera full of pictures of naked kids taken in my home. Now you can investigate him for breaking & entering, too!"
Actually, it's used in the article in Nature, too, where it's mentioned that the anthropologists who discovered them nicknamed them "Hobbits".
This may or may not be mentioned in the linked articles; I'm not about to RTFA from mass media news sources when I already read it in a scholarly journal.
If everyone working at a job they don't like just because they need the money to survive just killed themselves, the streets would be piled with corpses and the people who are enjoying their lives right now very quickly wouldn't be anymore. But thanks for the suggestion anyway.
You mean like when Iraq was a stable dictatorship allied with the US before? How did that turn out again?
If the first Bush administration couldn't control Saddam to keep him on our side, what makes anyone think we can control a new government elected by a country full of anti-American Islamic fundamentalists? Sure, Iraq could be stable one day, but anyone who thinks it can be both a democracy and an American ally is naive. The only Islamic countries that are friendly toward the US are firmly under the control of governments with much different views of the West than the majority of their citizens. Did you see the opinion polls in Kuwait after 9/11 about whether people there thought we deserved to be attacked? I'm all for democracy, but we'd need to find a new source of oil if the more US-friendly OPEC nations ever fell under control of the majorities of people in them.
Kerry never claimed to be a pacifist. The only reason a pacifist would support him is because, in the American electoral system, voting for a more extremist candidate with whom you agree more closely makes it more likely that the mainstream candidate with whom you disagree most strongly will get elected. Given a choice between a candidate who wants to kill terrorists and a candidate who supports preemptively invading countries with no ties (before the war; don't point to people attacking an occupying force and try to convince anyone they would have come to the US to attack civilians here if they weren't busy killing our troops--you can bet that if the Russians were occupying the US any good American would become a terrorist pretty damn quick) to anti-American terrorists, a reasonable pacifist will support the first guy. An idealist might vote for Nader instead to feel good about himself, but the way our system works makes that irrational.
Sure, but since the Democratic Party doesn't have a realistic chance of getting a majority in either the House or the Senate in the next 4 years, Kerry can't really promise to force through much of anything.
But at least having opposite parties in control of the legislative and executive branches would prevent either of them from screwing things up more than they are now. It's probably too much to hope for that they'd actually work together to try to fix things.
Yes, at the time, slowing down typing resulted in a net increase in efficiency because of less jamming, but eliminating the jamming by other means (like, I don't know, using a system where keystrokes are converted to digital signals instead of mechanically moving metal things that can jam together) translates to slower typing for no practical reason.
I hate Windows as much as the next person, but that's pure FUD. The machine I'm using right now is locked down so tight that I can't even change the clock to the right time, and none of the programs I use crash, ever.
Well, to be fair it's an article in the Guardian, where discussing the finer points of interface design would be above the head of the average reader. If it was an interview in a technical journal (or even somewhere like Wired), I think your criticisms of what was left out would be more deserved.
If people like the poster above think that the president is going to affect whether a case brought by New York will continue, what makes you think they don't also believe he controls their lives?
Ok, granted it's more likely an inability to read an article (or even its summary) than belief in the president's power, but still...
If the federal government was required to balance its budget, it would need to raise taxes if it wanted to keep spending.
The problem is that no one in Washington really seems to care about debt, and they really do act like either the debt will never have to be repaid or it's someone else's problem.
The weather in Florida is just annoying wishy-washy. It rains almost every day for a while, then 5 minutes later it's sunny and the ground dries quickly. It really bugged me when I was there a couple of week ago.
In Pittsburgh, when it rains it has the integrity to stay cloudy and keep raining for weeks on end.
Actually, in French "toilette" has always meant the same thing; it's English where the word toilet shift meaning to refer to a specific bathroom fixture instead of the original meaning it had when we stole it from the French language.
Allocating proportionally to the popular vote would be a pretty good idea. Imagine candidates actually having to care about all of the voters, instead of being able to ignore millions of people in states like Texas and California because they know nothing they do is going to affect their electoral vote total from those states.
The related idea, that electoral votes should be awarded based on voting in each congressional district (as they are in Maine, where it doesn't matter because it's got 2 districts that always vote the same), though, would be disasterous if applied nationwide. Congressional districts are gerrymandered enough as it is (and things will just get worse if every state decides to take the lead of Texas and redistrict whenever the majority party decides to); if the presidency was affected it would get even worse.
"Preemptive" military action and tax cuts for millionaires when there's already a huge budget deficit break the bank to support ideals a whole lot less important than people's health. If anything ruins the US it will be poor idiots in the red states voting for people who act against their interests to help rich elitists save some money, because they refuse to join the reality-based community that neocons hate so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please. J Edgar Hoover become the director of the FBI a month before W's father was born. I hardly think comments about the FBI being evil can be taken as anti-Bush rhetoric.
Do you think the average email user has ever even seen a Received: header?
Umm, anyone can send child porn spam from your email address, to the 99.99% of the people on the Internet who have never heard of you, don't know you sign all of your messages, and wouldn't even care to have your public key if they knew about it. They probably can't ruin your reputation with anyone crypto-savvy who you regularly email, but so what?
Yes, because the first thing child pornographers want is a bunch of police around investigating to try to find the made-up person who's extorting them. "Look, officer... the extortionist broke in and left this camera full of pictures of naked kids taken in my home. Now you can investigate him for breaking & entering, too!"
This may or may not be mentioned in the linked articles; I'm not about to RTFA from mass media news sources when I already read it in a scholarly journal.
If everyone working at a job they don't like just because they need the money to survive just killed themselves, the streets would be piled with corpses and the people who are enjoying their lives right now very quickly wouldn't be anymore. But thanks for the suggestion anyway.
Grandparent poster is confused. He's thinking of the iPood, which is sold by the same guys selling Rollex watches.
I doubt the enemy is worried... the batteries don't last long enough to clean my dining room.
If the first Bush administration couldn't control Saddam to keep him on our side, what makes anyone think we can control a new government elected by a country full of anti-American Islamic fundamentalists? Sure, Iraq could be stable one day, but anyone who thinks it can be both a democracy and an American ally is naive. The only Islamic countries that are friendly toward the US are firmly under the control of governments with much different views of the West than the majority of their citizens. Did you see the opinion polls in Kuwait after 9/11 about whether people there thought we deserved to be attacked? I'm all for democracy, but we'd need to find a new source of oil if the more US-friendly OPEC nations ever fell under control of the majorities of people in them.
Kerry never claimed to be a pacifist. The only reason a pacifist would support him is because, in the American electoral system, voting for a more extremist candidate with whom you agree more closely makes it more likely that the mainstream candidate with whom you disagree most strongly will get elected. Given a choice between a candidate who wants to kill terrorists and a candidate who supports preemptively invading countries with no ties (before the war; don't point to people attacking an occupying force and try to convince anyone they would have come to the US to attack civilians here if they weren't busy killing our troops--you can bet that if the Russians were occupying the US any good American would become a terrorist pretty damn quick) to anti-American terrorists, a reasonable pacifist will support the first guy. An idealist might vote for Nader instead to feel good about himself, but the way our system works makes that irrational.
But at least having opposite parties in control of the legislative and executive branches would prevent either of them from screwing things up more than they are now. It's probably too much to hope for that they'd actually work together to try to fix things.
Great... now if terrorists want to find people with fake teeth to kill, they'll just need an RFID scanner.
Yes, at the time, slowing down typing resulted in a net increase in efficiency because of less jamming, but eliminating the jamming by other means (like, I don't know, using a system where keystrokes are converted to digital signals instead of mechanically moving metal things that can jam together) translates to slower typing for no practical reason.
So yes, it is true.
I hate Windows as much as the next person, but that's pure FUD. The machine I'm using right now is locked down so tight that I can't even change the clock to the right time, and none of the programs I use crash, ever.
Well, to be fair it's an article in the Guardian, where discussing the finer points of interface design would be above the head of the average reader. If it was an interview in a technical journal (or even somewhere like Wired), I think your criticisms of what was left out would be more deserved.
Yes, because there's been absolutely no competition anywhere in the US since the New Deal. Dumbass.
Ok, granted it's more likely an inability to read an article (or even its summary) than belief in the president's power, but still...
The problem is that no one in Washington really seems to care about debt, and they really do act like either the debt will never have to be repaid or it's someone else's problem.
Of course, if you don't sterilize the bottles before refilling them, you end up with a whole lot of bacteria building up.
In Pittsburgh, when it rains it has the integrity to stay cloudy and keep raining for weeks on end.
Actually, in French "toilette" has always meant the same thing; it's English where the word toilet shift meaning to refer to a specific bathroom fixture instead of the original meaning it had when we stole it from the French language.
The related idea, that electoral votes should be awarded based on voting in each congressional district (as they are in Maine, where it doesn't matter because it's got 2 districts that always vote the same), though, would be disasterous if applied nationwide. Congressional districts are gerrymandered enough as it is (and things will just get worse if every state decides to take the lead of Texas and redistrict whenever the majority party decides to); if the presidency was affected it would get even worse.
"Preemptive" military action and tax cuts for millionaires when there's already a huge budget deficit break the bank to support ideals a whole lot less important than people's health. If anything ruins the US it will be poor idiots in the red states voting for people who act against their interests to help rich elitists save some money, because they refuse to join the reality-based community that neocons hate so much.
"You're just going to have to find a way to shower with your clothes on and abstain from sex forever, or the terrorists have won."
Insert your own joke about Alan Keyes and Bush's requirements for making someone an ambassador here.