You misunderstand QoS slightly, or at least haven't thought of this scenario: You are on your LAN, and you want to shift data from one machine to another, saturating the network. You don't mind, as you just want the fastest speeds available so your dinner doesn't get cold. But then you want to make a VoIP call, when QoS kicks in. Instead of your VoIP call vying for bandwidth from your pr0n transfer, it will get the necessary bandwidth allocated to it. Far from being broken, the network is being used at its fullest speed, which is what anyone copying large amounts of stuff over a private network will want:)
The earth has a very heavy iron core, so figuring out how many atoms it would contain if made from carbon is quite pointless;) As has been stated here before, there are about 10^80 atoms in the universe, which is a lot less than the number of possible IPv6 addresses..
5. The Death Star blows itself up before the rebels leave Yavin 4
6. Princess Leia gives birth to Senator Amidala
7. The stormtroopers are a nice shade of orange
8. Darth Vader commits suicide in the first scene
The Clinton Era raped the military budget? What about the BILLIONS Bush got from Congress for hardware? Why didn't he put a bit aside for body armor? What is Bush doing, if he can't even protect the troops he says he likes so much.
"They" don't hate freedom and democracy. Find me texts that prove it. Those are just lies spread by the people you look up to to justify running around the middle east looking for oil. Believe it if you want, you'll see what's really up soon enough. I never once said Saddam should have been allowed Kuwait - never. Of course not. He's impinging on a sovreign nation, just as the US impinged on Saudi Arabia.
I wouldn't get started on UN resolutions - the US has vetoed more than just 19, which shows that on 19 counts, the US acted against the will of the international community. Those are facts you can't argue over or spin - they're in black and white. Saddam wasn't a major aggressor in the region for 30 years. Since '92 he had no military, and no money to get a new one. If he was so dangerous, why weren't other nations in the area scared of him?
What you write about Afghanistan is true - the US funded Bin Laden, then pissed him off after the first gulf war, and ever since then Bin Laden has been trying to get the US out of Saudi Arabia (where Mecca is, the holiest of cities in Islam). We know terrorists are moving into Iraq, as Saddam Hussein was a moderate Muslim, and the terrorists detested him for it. Due to that lack of friendship, Saddam used all sorts of military power to keep them out. Once you remove Saddam, all the terrorists enraged against the US's poor handling of the Iraqi "liberation" had nothing stopping them coming into Iraq. The US military couldn't stop them, and the Iraqi national guard was disbanded by Bush, so it couldn't do it either. Those, too, are facts, which you can check out for yourself. I have more facts than you do, including the fact the US has been running around Iraq for over a year now, and still hasn't found ANY WMDs. That's a pretty good indication there aren't any. Even Bush and Blair have said they don't think they'll find any. I have only that which I read in many media sources, from books, from the internet. You have only that you read on the cover of TV Weekly, or on Fox.
The US can't win the war on terror. Look - it ran into Iraq, and got its ass handed to it on a plate. It's getting its ass handed to it in Afghanistan, too. The US military is only good against targets they can pick out. Once you're fighting against ideas spreading through a population, the only way to kill the ideas is to kill everyone, then hope no-one is so pissed off that you killed everyone that they fight you instead. The only way for the US to win the war is to kill EVERYONE on the face of the planet. What is the US supposed to do? Get out of Saudi Arabia. It's that simple. The US shouldn't have been there in the first place, and knew what it was doing when it stayed. It really is that simple.
How does Bush profit from the Iraq war? You can't see? He's invaded a counry with the world's 2nd-largest oil reserves, and did it in such a poor manner that oil prices have sky-rocketed. Now, Bush is in control of those oilfields, and with the inflated price of oil, stands to make a lot of money through "donations" from oil companies. Halliburton is also a source for the money, and if you did some reading, you'd see they charge ridiculous amounts for projects (like charging $20m for something the Iraqi builders constructed for $80,000). That money goes straight into their pockets. It's not about what Halliburton does, but how they do it, and how they charge for it. Please read up on how your tax dollars (the same ones that could EASILY buy the bullet-proof vests) are being wasted.
The US soldiers spare no thought for those they kill. They used attack helicopters to strafe appartment buildings, because they were fired at from somewhere in the same town. The term "collateral damage" has appeared in the med
Kerry isn't the president. He doesn't need intel briefings as much as the president.
Anyway, how is that weak on defense? You can't argue that Bush is strong on defense? He's cutting benefits for soldiers, not funding them enough for equipment (hence missing interceptor bullet proof jackets).
"There are people... who hate our way of life". No, there are people who hate America dicking on parts of the world with no respect for others. Do you seriously think people hate the ideas of "freedom" and "democracy"? Of course they don't. I've not forgotten 9/11, that's why I'm so pissed off. Bush only gave the investigation $3m. Does that sound like enough to you? America is at war with the enemy, because America started the war. It's that simple. American meddling in the middle east, funding of various rebel factions, charging Saudi Arabia over $50bn dollars for protection in the first gulf war, leaving US troops on Islamic holy ground, etc. Things like that the US does out of purely selfish motives really piss people off. Would you like it?
Kerry has no firm beliefs? Where did you read that gem? No core values? He's iterated dozens of times his beliefs and core values. Every single person on the face of this world has firm beliefs and core values. The only difference between Bush and Kerry on that is that when Kerry learns something new, he'll actually act on it, and change his beliefs if necessary. Bush will just keep on running, even if he knows it's the wrong way. You can call it flip-flopping, but normal people call it "learning". Say it with me, "learning". That didn't hurt, did it?
Bush has made the world more dangerous. Only a complete bufoon would say otherwise. I don't remember Iraq being awash with armed militias before he swanned in there. I don't remember terrorists flooding into Iraq when Saddam was there. You can't argue with those facts. Of course Bush didn't have anything to do with what happened in Beslan - I never said anything of the sort. He doesn't have his hand in every violent episode in current affairs, just the ones he's personally instigated. Please at least try to read a newspaper. I know full well what we're up against. I've read the manifestos of the terrorist organisations, so I know their grievances. You just think "they hate freedom!" and resign yourself to spending the rest of your life looking over your shoulder. The US army has killed hundreds of innocent children in Iraq - by your logic, that makes them terrorists too. See how flawed your world perspective is? It doesn't surprise me you were one of those "warriors" (funny, I don't remember Warriors killing thousands of innocent civilians) - you seem to not question anything your superior has to say.
If you think for yourself, why can you stand for Bush? He's cutting your benefits, and sending people like you out to Iraq underprotected, ill-informed, and into a situation they can't win, all because he wanted some money.
Iraq never had weapons of mass distruction before we went in. Saddam wasn't dangerous. How you think Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror shows exactly how much you think for yourself. It's scary.
If you think the US will win the war on terror by invading countries that have nothing to do with terrorism, unsettling them, causing more people to up arms against the US, you really haven't read much history. It's all been tried before, and none of it works.
The terrorists are normal people, like you and I. They've been through something so harrowing they have had their world perspective altered to such a degree they would kill themselves for what they believe in. You'd do the same if you went through it. Saying "kill 'em all!" enforces the stereotypes these people are so pissed off with, and makes many people want to blow the US up more.
I guarantee I'm more informed and more well-read than you. It's not being elitist, I can clearly see you get your news from Fox, or straight from whitehouse.gov.
Your world perspective is immenseley immature, and I really feel sorry for you. Go to the library and read a book or two. It doesn't hurt after a few hundred pages.
Troll? You mean slashdot moderators are modding things down they don't agree with? The horror! I never thought I'd see that on slashdot. Usually the moderators are so on-the-money it's not even funny.
What point is that? The only point I just proved is that people like yourself can't debate issues logically, which was my point in the first place. cheers!:)
There are no lies in the film, just points republicans really, really don't want brought up in public. This is total sour grapes from the republicans - a message that logically counters ever piece of crap they've been spewing out ever since 9/11. The republicans have been waging an emotive war over the American people, using fear and the boogieman to get citizens to stand by and not question what they're doing. Speak to a random group of Americans, and lots will tell you Saddam was personally involved in 9/11, or that Iraq had weapons of mass distruction (and that we found them). That's the depth of their bullshit. Their spin machine is so good, they can make half-truths sink in like whole ones, and just come out and lie to the media, and no-one seems to care. For questioning the president would automatically make you a terrorist, and that's no good. Just look at how they're dealing with Kerry - another good example of their misdirection. Kerry, a decorated war veteran, having his character assassinated by Bush, who spent that time drinking, having token jobs, doing drugs, micturating on automobiles and screaming at police officers. That assassination is being screamed from the rooftops by republicans do draw attention away from the real issues, which Bush has no argument for. You can't spin a $500bn defecit into something good. You can't make massive job losses look beneficial. There is only so long you can trick the public into thinking economic growth is just round the corner. The War on Terror? It can't be won by killing people. You can't bomb ideas. Invading Iraq has given everyone with an axe to grind with the US a perfect excuse to lash out. Bush even kindly told them to "bring it on" and attack US troops. Nice work. Bush has single-handedly made the world a much more dangerous place, the US especially. Kerry has Bush beaten on all of those points, yet his pro-USA rhetoric surrounding them has blinded the faithful. The republican voters lap it up without questioning anything. They're not thinking for themselves. When I've spoken to republicans, face to face, they spew out the same hackneyed "facts" and figures, which if they spent 2 minutes researching on the internet, they'd find out were completely pulled out of some guy's ass. phew.
Anyway, this film will open some eyes, hopefully those of republicans who vote that way because of their parents, not because they've actually sat down and thought about it. If you love America, whatever your political affiliation, you should see that film. It's in some small way an antidote to at least some of the crap that's filling the airwaves these days.
I know what you're saying, but those democrats aren't espousing hatred and violence towards people solely because of their ethnic background, sexual orientation or anything else. Bush volunteered for the presidency, which carries certain risks (ie do a shitty job, and you'll be called a shitty president).
Anyway, let's go down the "bad democrat" hit list one by one, just for fun.
Bush, and the US government in general, through a policy of utter secrecy, has fostered lots of theories about how it works and who pulls the strings. A tragic event like 9/11 comes along, and straight away new and powerful legislation is brought to the table. Legislation that is a drastic and dramatic turn away from the core values of America. Anyone thinking back through their history lessons for a comparable event will undoubtedly turn to the Reichstag fire. If Bush simply went along with the public feeling at the time and put money and effort into an independent investigation into what happened that day, there would be a lot less comparisons between Hitler and Bush. Bush appears to be actively trying to snub the public's demands for information. Bush gave $3m to the 9/11 investigation (and one year to complete its findings), whereas $5m went to a study on whether legalized gambling would be viable. Which one is more important to you? How many wars have been started over gambling recently? Exactly. The 9/11 commission didn't even end up with anyone getting punished for failure. How on earth can 3,000 people die and no-one gets punished? Clinton got fired for getting a blowjob, yet somehow 3,000 lives don't matter? Moving on, Bush obviously has no regard for democracy. He's publicly said he prefers dictatorships over democracies, as they're "easier". He's imprisoned US citizens in Cuba without trial, without access to lawyers, without even being charged. Then, after their ordeal, they get a military tribunal by a biassed military. Great. Yay freedom. If Bush really is as for democracy and freedom as he says, he's doing a really, really bad job at showing it. Those facts you just can't argue with.
Bush is a chimp? It's a pretty accurate description. I've seen chimps have that startled look Bush does when someone asks him a tough question. They don't have the intelligence to say "that's a trick question!" like the President does, so I guess the comparison is a little far-fetched. If you're so against name-calling, how can you stand the SBVFT fiasco?
Bush was AWOL/a deserter: he was, and there is evidence to prove it. That's now an established FACT. So many people have come forward with evidence supporting it, yet no-one's come forward with evidence disproving it. There's a cash reward that hasn't been claimed yet. That's pretty easy money if he did serve. During the time Kerry was off in Vietnam, getting shot at while defending the US, Bush was being carried through a career as paid campaign worker, on a campaign of volunteers, because he was a liability to his father. Bush used to turn up to the office late, boast about his drinking the night before, then leave early. The night Bush's candidate lost, Bush got drunk, pissed on someone's car, and verbally assaulted a police officer. Not to mention his cocaine habit. That's good presidential material how, exactly?:)
I can understand what you're saying, but the democratic ethos isn't to assume anyone's a "bad" person until they prove it. Republicans don't go that far - I've spoken with lots and lots in my time, and there are common themes of thought amongst them. "poor people hate to work, and are lazy" is one. "Immigrants are bad" is another. "Gay people are evil" is a favorite. They are actually part of the republican manifesto - I'm not making it up. I'm not guessing. I'm not trying to villify the party - they're doing that themselves. There is a huge difference between how democrats and republicans view different people. Democrats don't p
If guns made people safe, the US, Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia would be reeeeeally, reeeeally safe places, with no-one dying, and peace and tranquility reigning supreme.
As I said, the 2000 list does criticise democrats. It criticises the government in a number of places. It doesn't pick out specific democrats, but then you're assuming that individual democrats would personally do things as unscrupulous as the republicans we're comparing them to (and then have the social climate and big-money sponsorship supress it), which unless you have any evidence to support it, can not be assumed.
Just because there isn't a piece entitled "Bill Clinton is taking away your civil rights" doesn't mean it's unbalanced.
If I made a list of the good/bad things microsoft has done, and found that I had more anti-MS points than pro-MS points, does that mean I am anti-MS in my personal leanings? There is no evidence for it at all.
That's the single best way to fuck your child up. Kids need to be around kids. If they aren't, they end up lacking social skills, which are essential. You can have the best qualifications in the world, but if you come across as a twat in your interview, forget it.
Not all memory is created equal. Solid state memory doesn't last as long as a hard disk, and isn't as fast. If they need storage that's going to be written/read from frequently, and as fast as possible, flash ram would be a nasty idea;)
Reliability isn't an issue - you're more likely to break something crucial on the outside of the phone than the hard disk. Portable hard disks are quite versatile, so I seriously doubt you can kill it that easily.
What makes this phone specially adept at that? We've had phones for years with cameras and bluetooth - surely that's all you need to capture and stream data from them. Heck, it's a phone - it can send the data via the cellular network. A hard disk isn't going to be much use in that scenario:)
I imagine it's to do with speed, and the fact that solid state has limited writes/rewrites.
Portable hard disks aren't as fragile as you think. After all, iPods use them, and I still have a working 1st gen iPod from about 3 years ago, and that's been across to the states a few times, round europe, everywhere, and I'm not the most careful owner:)
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand QoS slightly, or at least haven't thought of this scenario: You are on your LAN, and you want to shift data from one machine to another, saturating the network. You don't mind, as you just want the fastest speeds available so your dinner doesn't get cold. But then you want to make a VoIP call, when QoS kicks in. Instead of your VoIP call vying for bandwidth from your pr0n transfer, it will get the necessary bandwidth allocated to it. Far from being broken, the network is being used at its fullest speed, which is what anyone copying large amounts of stuff over a private network will want :)
The earth has a very heavy iron core, so figuring out how many atoms it would contain if made from carbon is quite pointless ;) As has been stated here before, there are about 10^80 atoms in the universe, which is a lot less than the number of possible IPv6 addresses..
you're funny :)
You're more likely to be considered a dumbass for pointing that out.
peace.
5. The Death Star blows itself up before the rebels leave Yavin 4
6. Princess Leia gives birth to Senator Amidala
7. The stormtroopers are a nice shade of orange
8. Darth Vader commits suicide in the first scene
That's very true - I've not seen Kerry wearing his whatever for a while now. I think we're on to something...
Got any proof that was the reason? Similar in irrefutability to the evidence of the 90,000 people illegally struck off the electoral register?
"They" don't hate freedom and democracy. Find me texts that prove it. Those are just lies spread by the people you look up to to justify running around the middle east looking for oil. Believe it if you want, you'll see what's really up soon enough. I never once said Saddam should have been allowed Kuwait - never. Of course not. He's impinging on a sovreign nation, just as the US impinged on Saudi Arabia.
I wouldn't get started on UN resolutions - the US has vetoed more than just 19, which shows that on 19 counts, the US acted against the will of the international community. Those are facts you can't argue over or spin - they're in black and white. Saddam wasn't a major aggressor in the region for 30 years. Since '92 he had no military, and no money to get a new one. If he was so dangerous, why weren't other nations in the area scared of him?
What you write about Afghanistan is true - the US funded Bin Laden, then pissed him off after the first gulf war, and ever since then Bin Laden has been trying to get the US out of Saudi Arabia (where Mecca is, the holiest of cities in Islam). We know terrorists are moving into Iraq, as Saddam Hussein was a moderate Muslim, and the terrorists detested him for it. Due to that lack of friendship, Saddam used all sorts of military power to keep them out. Once you remove Saddam, all the terrorists enraged against the US's poor handling of the Iraqi "liberation" had nothing stopping them coming into Iraq. The US military couldn't stop them, and the Iraqi national guard was disbanded by Bush, so it couldn't do it either. Those, too, are facts, which you can check out for yourself. I have more facts than you do, including the fact the US has been running around Iraq for over a year now, and still hasn't found ANY WMDs. That's a pretty good indication there aren't any. Even Bush and Blair have said they don't think they'll find any. I have only that which I read in many media sources, from books, from the internet. You have only that you read on the cover of TV Weekly, or on Fox.
The US can't win the war on terror. Look - it ran into Iraq, and got its ass handed to it on a plate. It's getting its ass handed to it in Afghanistan, too. The US military is only good against targets they can pick out. Once you're fighting against ideas spreading through a population, the only way to kill the ideas is to kill everyone, then hope no-one is so pissed off that you killed everyone that they fight you instead. The only way for the US to win the war is to kill EVERYONE on the face of the planet. What is the US supposed to do? Get out of Saudi Arabia. It's that simple. The US shouldn't have been there in the first place, and knew what it was doing when it stayed. It really is that simple.
How does Bush profit from the Iraq war? You can't see? He's invaded a counry with the world's 2nd-largest oil reserves, and did it in such a poor manner that oil prices have sky-rocketed. Now, Bush is in control of those oilfields, and with the inflated price of oil, stands to make a lot of money through "donations" from oil companies. Halliburton is also a source for the money, and if you did some reading, you'd see they charge ridiculous amounts for projects (like charging $20m for something the Iraqi builders constructed for $80,000). That money goes straight into their pockets. It's not about what Halliburton does, but how they do it, and how they charge for it. Please read up on how your tax dollars (the same ones that could EASILY buy the bullet-proof vests) are being wasted.
The US soldiers spare no thought for those they kill. They used attack helicopters to strafe appartment buildings, because they were fired at from somewhere in the same town. The term "collateral damage" has appeared in the med
Anyway, how is that weak on defense? You can't argue that Bush is strong on defense? He's cutting benefits for soldiers, not funding them enough for equipment (hence missing interceptor bullet proof jackets).
"There are people ... who hate our way of life". No, there are people who hate America dicking on parts of the world with no respect for others. Do you seriously think people hate the ideas of "freedom" and "democracy"? Of course they don't. I've not forgotten 9/11, that's why I'm so pissed off. Bush only gave the investigation $3m. Does that sound like enough to you? America is at war with the enemy, because America started the war. It's that simple. American meddling in the middle east, funding of various rebel factions, charging Saudi Arabia over $50bn dollars for protection in the first gulf war, leaving US troops on Islamic holy ground, etc. Things like that the US does out of purely selfish motives really piss people off. Would you like it?
Kerry has no firm beliefs? Where did you read that gem? No core values? He's iterated dozens of times his beliefs and core values. Every single person on the face of this world has firm beliefs and core values. The only difference between Bush and Kerry on that is that when Kerry learns something new, he'll actually act on it, and change his beliefs if necessary. Bush will just keep on running, even if he knows it's the wrong way. You can call it flip-flopping, but normal people call it "learning". Say it with me, "learning". That didn't hurt, did it?
Bush has made the world more dangerous. Only a complete bufoon would say otherwise. I don't remember Iraq being awash with armed militias before he swanned in there. I don't remember terrorists flooding into Iraq when Saddam was there. You can't argue with those facts. Of course Bush didn't have anything to do with what happened in Beslan - I never said anything of the sort. He doesn't have his hand in every violent episode in current affairs, just the ones he's personally instigated. Please at least try to read a newspaper. I know full well what we're up against. I've read the manifestos of the terrorist organisations, so I know their grievances. You just think "they hate freedom!" and resign yourself to spending the rest of your life looking over your shoulder. The US army has killed hundreds of innocent children in Iraq - by your logic, that makes them terrorists too. See how flawed your world perspective is? It doesn't surprise me you were one of those "warriors" (funny, I don't remember Warriors killing thousands of innocent civilians) - you seem to not question anything your superior has to say.
If you think for yourself, why can you stand for Bush? He's cutting your benefits, and sending people like you out to Iraq underprotected, ill-informed, and into a situation they can't win, all because he wanted some money.
Iraq never had weapons of mass distruction before we went in. Saddam wasn't dangerous. How you think Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror shows exactly how much you think for yourself. It's scary.
If you think the US will win the war on terror by invading countries that have nothing to do with terrorism, unsettling them, causing more people to up arms against the US, you really haven't read much history. It's all been tried before, and none of it works.
The terrorists are normal people, like you and I. They've been through something so harrowing they have had their world perspective altered to such a degree they would kill themselves for what they believe in. You'd do the same if you went through it. Saying "kill 'em all!" enforces the stereotypes these people are so pissed off with, and makes many people want to blow the US up more.
I guarantee I'm more informed and more well-read than you. It's not being elitist, I can clearly see you get your news from Fox, or straight from whitehouse.gov.
Your world perspective is immenseley immature, and I really feel sorry for you. Go to the library and read a book or two. It doesn't hurt after a few hundred pages.
What point is that? The only point I just proved is that people like yourself can't debate issues logically, which was my point in the first place. cheers! :)
Iraq's too dangerous to go to, these days. You can thank Bush for that. There are huge swathes of it where US troops can't go.
Got proof?
Anyway, this film will open some eyes, hopefully those of republicans who vote that way because of their parents, not because they've actually sat down and thought about it. If you love America, whatever your political affiliation, you should see that film. It's in some small way an antidote to at least some of the crap that's filling the airwaves these days.
Anyway, let's go down the "bad democrat" hit list one by one, just for fun.
Bush, and the US government in general, through a policy of utter secrecy, has fostered lots of theories about how it works and who pulls the strings. A tragic event like 9/11 comes along, and straight away new and powerful legislation is brought to the table. Legislation that is a drastic and dramatic turn away from the core values of America. Anyone thinking back through their history lessons for a comparable event will undoubtedly turn to the Reichstag fire. If Bush simply went along with the public feeling at the time and put money and effort into an independent investigation into what happened that day, there would be a lot less comparisons between Hitler and Bush. Bush appears to be actively trying to snub the public's demands for information. Bush gave $3m to the 9/11 investigation (and one year to complete its findings), whereas $5m went to a study on whether legalized gambling would be viable. Which one is more important to you? How many wars have been started over gambling recently? Exactly. The 9/11 commission didn't even end up with anyone getting punished for failure. How on earth can 3,000 people die and no-one gets punished? Clinton got fired for getting a blowjob, yet somehow 3,000 lives don't matter? Moving on, Bush obviously has no regard for democracy. He's publicly said he prefers dictatorships over democracies, as they're "easier". He's imprisoned US citizens in Cuba without trial, without access to lawyers, without even being charged. Then, after their ordeal, they get a military tribunal by a biassed military. Great. Yay freedom. If Bush really is as for democracy and freedom as he says, he's doing a really, really bad job at showing it. Those facts you just can't argue with.
Bush is a chimp? It's a pretty accurate description. I've seen chimps have that startled look Bush does when someone asks him a tough question. They don't have the intelligence to say "that's a trick question!" like the President does, so I guess the comparison is a little far-fetched. If you're so against name-calling, how can you stand the SBVFT fiasco?
Bush was AWOL/a deserter: he was, and there is evidence to prove it. That's now an established FACT. So many people have come forward with evidence supporting it, yet no-one's come forward with evidence disproving it. There's a cash reward that hasn't been claimed yet. That's pretty easy money if he did serve. During the time Kerry was off in Vietnam, getting shot at while defending the US, Bush was being carried through a career as paid campaign worker, on a campaign of volunteers, because he was a liability to his father. Bush used to turn up to the office late, boast about his drinking the night before, then leave early. The night Bush's candidate lost, Bush got drunk, pissed on someone's car, and verbally assaulted a police officer. Not to mention his cocaine habit. That's good presidential material how, exactly? :)
I can understand what you're saying, but the democratic ethos isn't to assume anyone's a "bad" person until they prove it. Republicans don't go that far - I've spoken with lots and lots in my time, and there are common themes of thought amongst them. "poor people hate to work, and are lazy" is one. "Immigrants are bad" is another. "Gay people are evil" is a favorite. They are actually part of the republican manifesto - I'm not making it up. I'm not guessing. I'm not trying to villify the party - they're doing that themselves. There is a huge difference between how democrats and republicans view different people. Democrats don't p
And when the new foreign policy was condensed to "Yeeehaawww!"
If guns made people safe, the US, Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia would be reeeeeally, reeeeally safe places, with no-one dying, and peace and tranquility reigning supreme.
Just because there isn't a piece entitled "Bill Clinton is taking away your civil rights" doesn't mean it's unbalanced.
If I made a list of the good/bad things microsoft has done, and found that I had more anti-MS points than pro-MS points, does that mean I am anti-MS in my personal leanings? There is no evidence for it at all.
joke. please laugh. i'm here all week.
That's the single best way to fuck your child up. Kids need to be around kids. If they aren't, they end up lacking social skills, which are essential. You can have the best qualifications in the world, but if you come across as a twat in your interview, forget it.
And when you're listening to music on the train, and it goes through a tunnel? Or you use the underground? There go your tunes ;)
We already have those PDAs - they're the MS smartphones. They can do all of that, and have reasonable power consumption.
Reliability isn't an issue - you're more likely to break something crucial on the outside of the phone than the hard disk. Portable hard disks are quite versatile, so I seriously doubt you can kill it that easily.
What makes this phone specially adept at that? We've had phones for years with cameras and bluetooth - surely that's all you need to capture and stream data from them. Heck, it's a phone - it can send the data via the cellular network. A hard disk isn't going to be much use in that scenario :)
Portable hard disks aren't as fragile as you think. After all, iPods use them, and I still have a working 1st gen iPod from about 3 years ago, and that's been across to the states a few times, round europe, everywhere, and I'm not the most careful owner :)