"Except for those people who bought and paid for SP1 and do not have a good fast internet connection to download the hundgreds of MBs of patches released to bring SP1 up to the current 'standard'."
And how about those that spend months or more evaluating SP1 for their application, going through some expensive and rigorous certification process, and who have not done the same for SP2? Can they simply take Microsoft's word for it?
>So, yes, it does indeed explicitly warn you that removing songs from the library removes them from the iPod.
You get no warning that switching to manual deletes the device. None at all. Experimenting with settings should not destroy a person's work. That's UI hall of shame material. When it happens to the user, they feel like they have been a victim of a crime. One user literally believed that and used the argument to successfully get a refund after a "no refunds or exchanges" deal.
>On the other hand, if you have an iPod that's set to sync automatically, and you decide to switch it to manual >sync, iTunes will then say "ok, wiseguy, do it yourself" and delete all the music on your iPod so you can in >fact do it yourself. That's annoying. But not "broken."
If it actually *said* "ok, wiseguy..." then it would be acceptable. But it does not even warn you.
One person that I gave an Ipod to as a gift, returned it the second day, because she had spent the first day carefully putting material on the Ipod, experimented with manual sync because it's the only documented way to "delete a file" from the Ipod without deleting it from the notebook, and it destroyed all her work. She saw it as a privacy violation. I didn't disagree. No warning, no message, no undo, just an instantaneous deletion of all the work the user had done. Most uncool. Decidedly broken, no matter how many times you say it isn't.
Consider a university campus in California with 30,000 20 year old girls. The poor ones drive brand new Mustangs becuase they can't afford brand new BMW's. They all have Ipods, possibly for no better reason than the white earbuds are a fad.
This is a world where $300 blue jeans (not exaggerating) are de rigeur.
Malaysia is a different world where you get executed by firing squad for possessing a joint.
With all due respect, I don't think Apple gives a floating crap whether kids in Malaysia buy Ipods. Maybe they care if kids will work for $25 a month in factories in Malaysia, I don't know, kinda doubt it.
>3. It is highly overpriced compared to its competitors.
It is highly priced. but "overpriced" is a function of the market. The market disagrees with you. Remember, the Ipod's success is a gestalt of the point-and-drool simplicity of Itunes, the appeal of the minimalist design, the heavy advertising targeted at specific demographics, and (do not underestimate this) the fad trend of white headphones.
>4. The batteries are of extremely low quality (talked to someone at work just this last week, he said everyone > in the family got one for last christmas (5 iPods), and 3 were dead by then).
A larger sample might give you better data.
>5. It does not work in cold weather (say, jogging in the winter).
I'll give you this one, but only because I don't live anywhere near that kind of weather, thank god.
The wheel control on the Ipod is well-received. You don't like it but you might find you'd get used to it a lot faster than you think. It really is a good design, at least for sighted users. I'd like to know how well blind users are doing with it.
>So, what's the allure of an iPod if I can buy a rival >I want an honest answer actually.
If you prefer something else, then there is no "allure."
I will not buy an Ipod, because I don't just want a player. I want something that records. Not merely "records", but records to professional audio quality using pro mikes and preamps. If it happens to decode MP3s, that's fine as a bonus, but I don't care. This device must have *no* form of DRM, because it would be *my* music, *my* compositions, *my* interviews, *my* depositions, *my* recordings being DRM'd and that would be unacceptable. In its current form, the Ipod is completely unacceptable because it has a tendency to erase things without confirmation. It's sort of a one-way sattellite device meant to make the synchronization and population of the device a no=effort no-brainer for an Itunes user, and that's all. Take a file off of Itunes, and it comes off your Ipod, no confirmation. That's accpetable to some people, but to me it's horrifying. That, more than anything else, stops me from buying an Ipod for myself.
I have bought them as gifts (you can get 60GB Ipods relatively cheaply now if you can find them because they are discontinued for the 80GB.) So far everybody is happy.
Personally, I don't like any of them. The barrier for entry for pro-quality recording is extremely high still, and this is partly due to arbitrary constraints.
Any filesystem device that does not follow the idiom of explicitly asking the user for confirmation before deleting files, is broken. Yes, I know all about DRM, and I know all about Itunes and Apple's policies and all that, and I don't care. The Ipod will delete *all* your files, just because you happened to clean up your Itunes folder. It will *NOT* say "Are you sure you want to delete these 14,697 files that you spent the last few months organizing?"
That's broken. After seeing how that "works" for other people with Ipods, there is no way I'll be buying any such thing. I realize fully it's that way by design, and I don't care. I'll have no part of it.
>You do still have the freedom of speech to be an ignorant fuck and say what you just said, don't you?
I know of a few situations where freedom of assembly is abridged, but in general I agree with you.
You cannot gather together with 75 other ignorant fucks on public land without getting permission from the government first. And you cannot do this at all unless you are willing and able to designate one of those 75 people as an individual who can take responsibility for the entire group. This sounds reasonable to some people, but it is completely contrary to the entire premise of the founding principle that drove the First Amendment into existence.
I have personally had my rights abridged by action related to this rule, and the experience has caused me to cease my support of the rulemaking process in the Federal Government.
I have personally been cited, had automatic weapons pointed at me, and threatened with up to five years in prison for doing nothing at all except peaceable assembly among a very loosely affiliated group. It will be impossible to convince me that this is not a total violation of my rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, but the government has consistently inisted otherwise. Until CFR 251 and 261 are changed such that they do not abridge the right of the people to peaceably assemble on public land, I will not accept the premise that no fundamental loss of civil rights has been suffered by the people.
Maybe you have not had the diligence to see your rights being abridged, or maybe you have not had the misfortune of being among a group that was targeted by the government, but that doesn't mean everyone has been so careless or so lucky.
"What a suprise, you failed to discredit any statements is the report, while giving no specific reasons why they are to be completely disregarded."
It's the morning that you are scheduled to testify before Congress.
On the President's desk is a folder containing his honorable discharge and a deposition from the Secretary of Defense affirming the legitimacy of this document.
On your desk is what, exactly?
Remember, you are accusing the President of the United States of desertion.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not in research, and not in law.
George Bush holds an honorable discharge. That means any claims of AWOL or desertion require an extraordinarily high standard of evidence. The article presents no such thing.
>Meanwhile, the best you can do in support of Bush is to say that he was honorably discharged.
It is the only fact he needs, to make the accusation of desertion moot.
>I defy you to discredit any of the statements made in that article.
I do not need to. The article can be 100% true and yet, not amount to a case that would show, to the required standards of proof, that Bush deserted his post.
I don't like GW Bush one bit, and this goes back to well before his first term as Governor. I will be happy to see his term end. I do not accept the AWOL Bush conjecture, but I am open to the possibility of legitimate, constructive evidence coming to light.
In logic, the problem with your case is painfully clear:
P: Bush was AWOL from the ANG. Q: Someone saw Bush in Alabama.
Q \rightarrow \neg P. {hypothesis}. \neg Q. {conjecture}. ____________________________________ \therefore P. {fallacy of denying the antecedent}.
>I PROVIDED EVIDENCE. Read the article I linked to.
Shouting doesn't make you right.
I did read your article. I'm well aware of the argument.
Absence of evidence is not evidecne of absence.
If you want to make the "AWOL Bush" case, you must make it with evidence that would counter the testimony on behalf of the Defense Department, together with the difficult fact that Bush has an honorable discharge.
These are much bigger problems for the AWOL Bush conjecture than you seem to understand. You do not have evidence sufficent to persuade a high court or a Congressional hearing that your conjecture is true.
Bush's entire career stinks to high heaven, but the "AWOL" angle is a dead end, at least until some real evidence comes to light. The case you support only persuades those already opposed to Bush on general principles. It does not stand a chance of persuading anyone who is impartial, let alone biased in favor of the President.
>I checked Hamlet from Project Gutenberg... It is about 200kB, with Hamlet having a fair fraction of the lines.
But Hamlet is not a transcendental, irrational number. Rather, it is a well-formed-formula in a well-defined grammar, and it is further formed into quite regular patterns (scans like poetry).
There is no comparison between this and memorizing something that for the most part, is a context-free random string.
So the guy know pi to 100,000 digits. I wonder if he actually knows it further. I also wonder how many digits he knows for, say, ln 2, or e, or sin(1) ?
Every generation of the cell phone gets more annoying. And I cannot remember the last orchestral concert I attended where someone didn't let a cell phone ring.
One of these was a composer's premiere that was being recorded and STILL, someone ruined it with a cell phone... three different times...
I can't wait until we get cell phones that will make a *really* loud noise and cannot be turned off at all.
>What exactly should naked people be arrested for?
Try it in a medium or small town in Italy, or anywhere in Greece that isn't "designated" clothing-optional. People have been arrested in the UK very recently for "indecent exposure", when they were doing nothing more than hiking naked.
The absence of any legitimate evidence to support the premise, means substantial weight must be given to the fact that he was honorably discharged.
>The case seems pretty clear that he WAS "Absent WithOut Leave"
And your evidence to support this conjecture consists of what, exactly?
>Failure to be prosecuted for going AWOL does not mean that it did not happen.
Since we are talking about questions of law and legal questions of fact here, I'm afraid you are completely wrong about that. There may be a case to be made, but you will need evidence. Consider that the evidence you need must be of a sufficient strength to persuade, for example, members of Congress, or the Department of Defense, to act on your assertions.
You have no such evidence.
I'm on your side, against Bush, and I'm telling you that pursuing this "AWOL Bush" idea is barking up the wrong tree, and ends up doing damage to the legitimate case against Bush.
"We permitted the evangelical right to seize power in the United States in a coup d'etat the likes of which Machiavelli would have been impressed with!"
If it helps you sleep to believe it was a coup, so be it. I find it far more frightening to consider that the current establishment may in fact be an expression of the general will of the American People.
"No, no, no; some third world, war-zone theocracies of the middle east and africa are with us in that particular bit of cultural enlightenment."
Also, much of Europe. Possibly, *most* of Europe. The places that are tolerant of nudity are *so* tolerant, some going as far as to practically make it mandatory in various situations, balance out the vast swaths of the continent where the attitudes are more or less like the US. At least in the US, there are large numbers of people who don't actually have this kind of attitude that's attributed to the US as a whole. Look at India, China, the Middle East, or Mexico for example (Just try going topless at a hot spring in Mexico... They *DO NOT* tolerate that sort of thing.)
"My point is, what the hell does anyone know about what people in Iran for example think about for example artistic nude?"
There are people in Iran who would consider *any* representational art to be an abomination, let alone, representing a nude figure. There are also people in Iran whose personal attitudes about such things would be similar to the typical person in, say, Switzerland.
>It's simply amazing the lengths you'll go to in order to make excuses for this guy.
You're reading me wrong. I hope the incoming Congress' first motion of their session introduces a bill to impeach.
I think people need to focus on his actual crimes, and stop trying to find anything of value in dry wells. He wasn't complicit in 9/11, and I personally even doubt he was negligent. And he wasn't AWOL from the TANG, probably isn't a cocaine addict, etc.
Focus on the legitimate case for impeachment and stop wasting time and effort, which enocurages others to waste time and effort, on red herrings.
Many of the claims that are repeated by some vocal opponents of the Bush Administration do far more harm than good, because they are poor arguments that only cloud the issues and distract attention from the real problems.
>The job in question is not business software. It's developing an entire operating system
In that case, you will be hiring people who studied Automata Theory and took the elective on Compiler design, I guess.
One way you get these people is to support them as interns, guiding them through their last year or so of college, both by helping them pay for it and by giving them a job opportunity in a place where they already have some experience. That's one of the ways my company handles the problem.
Can you give me an example of your typical programming and algorithmic questions? I'd be truly interested in that.
"Quit trying to equate Cliton and Bush here. Clition ACTIVELY persued and tried to kill Bin Laden prior to 9/11. He provided everything necessary for Bush to continue this effort, which Bush did not."
Bill is on the short list of people who could have simply met with George personally and explained the problem. Then Bill would be able to come out today and say "I personally sat in the Oval Office and explained this threat to President Bush."
The fattest person I've ever seen in my life was an Italian woman in Rome. Extreme example I realize, but I would never be able to support the claim that there aren't just as many obese Europeans as there are Americans.
And as for the social tolerance for nudity, I'd have to agree that certain parts of Europe are more relaxed, meaning that in general public nudity might only get you arrested, but not end up forcing you to register as a "sex offender" for it and be ordered to go door to door explaining to your neighbors that are a "sex offender."
There are far more beaches in Europe where nudity is forbidden, than where it is allowed.
Slashdot Mirror
"Except for those people who bought and paid for SP1 and do not have a good fast internet connection to download the hundgreds of MBs of patches released to bring SP1 up to the current 'standard'."
And how about those that spend months or more evaluating SP1 for their application, going through some expensive and rigorous certification process, and who have not done the same for SP2? Can they simply take Microsoft's word for it?
>I don't quite see the goverment requiring a permit from 75 people wanting to have a party
Who said anything about a party? You just participated in marginalizing the need for freedom of assembly.
>So, yes, it does indeed explicitly warn you that removing songs from the library removes them from the iPod.
You get no warning that switching to manual deletes the device. None at all.
Experimenting with settings should not destroy a person's work. That's UI hall of shame material. When it happens to the user, they feel like they have been a victim of a crime. One user literally believed that and used the argument to successfully get a refund after a "no refunds or exchanges" deal.
>On the other hand, if you have an iPod that's set to sync automatically, and you decide to switch it to manual
>sync, iTunes will then say "ok, wiseguy, do it yourself" and delete all the music on your iPod so you can in
>fact do it yourself. That's annoying. But not "broken."
If it actually *said* "ok, wiseguy..." then it would be acceptable. But it does not even warn you.
One person that I gave an Ipod to as a gift, returned it the second day, because she had spent the first day carefully putting material on the Ipod, experimented with manual sync because it's the only documented way to "delete a file" from the Ipod without deleting it from the notebook, and it destroyed all her work. She saw it as a privacy violation. I didn't disagree. No warning, no message, no undo, just an instantaneous deletion of all the work the user had done. Most uncool. Decidedly broken, no matter how many times you say it isn't.
>In Malaysia, the ipod isn't terribly popular.
The Ipod's market isn't really "Malaysia".
Consider a university campus in California with 30,000 20 year old girls. The poor ones drive brand new Mustangs becuase they can't afford brand new BMW's. They all have Ipods, possibly for no better reason than the white earbuds are a fad.
This is a world where $300 blue jeans (not exaggerating) are de rigeur.
Malaysia is a different world where you get executed by firing squad for possessing a joint.
With all due respect, I don't think Apple gives a floating crap whether kids in Malaysia buy Ipods. Maybe they care if kids will work for $25 a month in factories in Malaysia, I don't know, kinda doubt it.
>1. It cannot be treated as a USB harddrive
Yes it can, just not for MP3's.
>2. It can only use MP3's.
It reads several audio, video, and image formats.
>3. It is highly overpriced compared to its competitors.
It is highly priced. but "overpriced" is a function of the market. The market disagrees with you.
Remember, the Ipod's success is a gestalt of the point-and-drool simplicity of Itunes, the appeal of the minimalist design, the heavy advertising targeted at specific demographics, and (do not underestimate this) the fad trend of white headphones.
>4. The batteries are of extremely low quality (talked to someone at work just this last week, he said everyone
> in the family got one for last christmas (5 iPods), and 3 were dead by then).
A larger sample might give you better data.
>5. It does not work in cold weather (say, jogging in the winter).
I'll give you this one, but only because I don't live anywhere near that kind of weather, thank god.
The wheel control on the Ipod is well-received. You don't like it but you might find you'd get used to it a lot faster than you think. It really is a good design, at least for sighted users. I'd like to know how well blind users are doing with it.
>So, what's the allure of an iPod if I can buy a rival
>I want an honest answer actually.
If you prefer something else, then there is no "allure."
I will not buy an Ipod, because I don't just want a player. I want something that records. Not merely "records", but records to professional audio quality using pro mikes and preamps. If it happens to decode MP3s, that's fine as a bonus, but I don't care. This device must have *no* form of DRM, because it would be *my* music, *my* compositions, *my* interviews, *my* depositions, *my* recordings being DRM'd and that would be unacceptable. In its current form, the Ipod is completely unacceptable because it has a tendency to erase things without confirmation. It's sort of a one-way sattellite device meant to make the synchronization and population of the device a no=effort no-brainer for an Itunes user, and that's all. Take a file off of Itunes, and it comes off your Ipod, no confirmation. That's accpetable to some people, but to me it's horrifying. That, more than anything else, stops me from buying an Ipod for myself.
I have bought them as gifts (you can get 60GB Ipods relatively cheaply now if you can find them because they are discontinued for the 80GB.) So far everybody is happy.
Personally, I don't like any of them. The barrier for entry for pro-quality recording is extremely high still, and this is partly due to arbitrary constraints.
Any filesystem device that does not follow the idiom of explicitly asking the user for confirmation before deleting files, is broken. Yes, I know all about DRM, and I know all about Itunes and Apple's policies and all that, and I don't care. The Ipod will delete *all* your files, just because you happened to clean up your Itunes folder. It will *NOT* say "Are you sure you want to delete these 14,697 files that you spent the last few months organizing?"
That's broken. After seeing how that "works" for other people with Ipods, there is no way I'll be buying any such thing. I realize fully it's that way by design, and I don't care. I'll have no part of it.
>You do still have the freedom of speech to be an ignorant fuck and say what you just said, don't you?
I know of a few situations where freedom of assembly is abridged, but in general I agree with you.
You cannot gather together with 75 other ignorant fucks on public land without getting permission from the government first. And you cannot do this at all unless you are willing and able to designate one of those 75 people as an individual who can take responsibility for the entire group. This sounds reasonable to some people, but it is completely contrary to the entire premise of the founding principle that drove the First Amendment into existence.
I have personally had my rights abridged by action related to this rule, and the experience has caused me to cease my support of the rulemaking process in the Federal Government.
I have personally been cited, had automatic weapons pointed at me, and threatened with up to five years in prison for doing nothing at all except peaceable assembly among a very loosely affiliated group. It will be impossible to convince me that this is not a total violation of my rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, but the government has consistently inisted otherwise. Until CFR 251 and 261 are changed such that they do not abridge the right of the people to peaceably assemble on public land, I will not accept the premise that no fundamental loss of civil rights has been suffered by the people.
http://prop1.org/rainbow/
Maybe you have not had the diligence to see your rights being abridged, or maybe you have not had the misfortune of being among a group that was targeted by the government, but that doesn't mean everyone has been so careless or so lucky.
"What a suprise, you failed to discredit any statements is the report, while giving no specific reasons why they are to be completely disregarded."
It's the morning that you are scheduled to testify before Congress.
On the President's desk is a folder containing his honorable discharge and a deposition from the Secretary of Defense affirming the legitimacy of this document.
On your desk is what, exactly?
Remember, you are accusing the President of the United States of desertion.
Please have evidence of more substance.
>At this point, you're just being silly.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not in research, and not in law.
George Bush holds an honorable discharge. That means any claims of AWOL or desertion require
an extraordinarily high standard of evidence. The article presents no such thing.
>Meanwhile, the best you can do in support of Bush is to say that he was honorably discharged.
It is the only fact he needs, to make the accusation of desertion moot.
>I defy you to discredit any of the statements made in that article.
I do not need to. The article can be 100% true and yet, not amount to a case that would show, to the required standards of proof, that Bush deserted his post.
I don't like GW Bush one bit, and this goes back to well before his first term as Governor. I will be happy to see his term end. I do not accept the AWOL Bush conjecture, but I am open to the possibility of legitimate, constructive evidence coming to light.
In logic, the problem with your case is painfully clear:
P: Bush was AWOL from the ANG.
Q: Someone saw Bush in Alabama.
Q \rightarrow \neg P. {hypothesis}.
\neg Q. {conjecture}.
____________________________________
\therefore P. {fallacy of denying the antecedent}.
>I PROVIDED EVIDENCE. Read the article I linked to.
Shouting doesn't make you right.
I did read your article. I'm well aware of the argument.
Absence of evidence is not evidecne of absence.
If you want to make the "AWOL Bush" case, you must make it with evidence that would counter the testimony on behalf of the Defense Department, together with the difficult fact that Bush has an honorable discharge.
These are much bigger problems for the AWOL Bush conjecture than you seem to understand. You do not have evidence sufficent to persuade a high court or a Congressional hearing that your conjecture is true.
Bush's entire career stinks to high heaven, but the "AWOL" angle is a dead end, at least until some real evidence comes to light. The case you support only persuades those already opposed to Bush on general principles. It does not stand a chance of persuading anyone who is impartial, let alone biased in favor of the President.
>I checked Hamlet from Project Gutenberg... It is about 200kB, with Hamlet having a fair fraction of the lines.
But Hamlet is not a transcendental, irrational number. Rather, it is a well-formed-formula in a well-defined grammar, and it is further formed into quite regular patterns (scans like poetry).
There is no comparison between this and memorizing something that for the most part, is a context-free random string.
So the guy know pi to 100,000 digits. I wonder if he actually knows it further. I also wonder how many digits he knows for, say, ln 2, or e, or sin(1) ?
Every generation of the cell phone gets more annoying. And I cannot remember the last
orchestral concert I attended where someone didn't let a cell phone ring.
One of these was a composer's premiere that was being recorded and STILL, someone ruined it with a cell phone... three different times...
I can't wait until we get cell phones that will make a *really* loud noise and cannot be turned off at all.
>What exactly should naked people be arrested for?
Try it in a medium or small town in Italy, or anywhere in Greece that isn't "designated" clothing-optional.
People have been arrested in the UK very recently for "indecent exposure", when they were doing nothing more than hiking naked.
>>And he wasn't AWOL from the TANG,
>How do you know this?
The absence of any legitimate evidence to support the premise, means substantial weight must be given
to the fact that he was honorably discharged.
>The case seems pretty clear that he WAS "Absent WithOut Leave"
And your evidence to support this conjecture consists of what, exactly?
>Failure to be prosecuted for going AWOL does not mean that it did not happen.
Since we are talking about questions of law and legal questions of fact here, I'm afraid you are completely wrong about that. There may be a case to be made, but you will need evidence. Consider that the evidence you need must be of a sufficient strength to persuade, for example, members of Congress, or the Department of Defense, to act on your assertions.
You have no such evidence.
I'm on your side, against Bush, and I'm telling you that pursuing this "AWOL Bush" idea is barking up the wrong tree, and ends up doing damage to the legitimate case against Bush.
"We permitted the evangelical right to seize power in the United States in a coup d'etat the likes of which Machiavelli would have been impressed with!"
If it helps you sleep to believe it was a coup, so be it. I find it far more frightening to consider that the current establishment may in fact be an expression of the general will of the American People.
"No, no, no; some third world, war-zone theocracies of the middle east and africa are with us in that particular bit of cultural enlightenment."
Also, much of Europe. Possibly, *most* of Europe. The places that are tolerant of nudity are *so* tolerant, some going as far as to practically make it mandatory in various situations, balance out the vast swaths of the continent where the attitudes are more or less like the US. At least in the US, there are large numbers of people who don't actually have this kind of attitude that's attributed to the US as a whole. Look at India, China, the Middle East, or Mexico for example (Just try going topless at a hot spring in Mexico... They *DO NOT* tolerate that sort of thing.)
"My point is, what the hell does anyone know about what people in Iran for example think about for example artistic nude?"
There are people in Iran who would consider *any* representational art to be an abomination, let alone, representing a nude figure. There are also people in Iran whose personal attitudes about such things would be similar to the typical person in, say, Switzerland.
>It's simply amazing the lengths you'll go to in order to make excuses for this guy.
You're reading me wrong. I hope the incoming Congress' first motion of their session introduces a bill to impeach.
I think people need to focus on his actual crimes, and stop trying to find anything of value in dry wells.
He wasn't complicit in 9/11, and I personally even doubt he was negligent. And he wasn't AWOL from the TANG,
probably isn't a cocaine addict, etc.
Focus on the legitimate case for impeachment and stop wasting time and effort, which enocurages others to waste time and effort, on red herrings.
Many of the claims that are repeated by some vocal opponents of the Bush Administration do far more harm than good, because they are poor arguments that only cloud the issues and distract attention from the real problems.
"I think the Trans Texas Corridor is a major step in the direction of impoverishing Texas and the rest of the United States."
You say that like you think it's a bad thing.
>The job in question is not business software. It's developing an entire operating system
In that case, you will be hiring people who studied Automata Theory and took the elective on Compiler design, I guess.
One way you get these people is to support them as interns, guiding them through their last year or so
of college, both by helping them pay for it and by giving them a job opportunity in a place where they already have some experience. That's one of the ways my company handles the problem.
Can you give me an example of your typical programming and algorithmic questions? I'd be truly interested in that.
>Damn, America is so far infront the others will never catch them. You've even beaten the Hungarians...
I would prefer to see "America" broken down reasonable into regions, if not states, and then compared to roughly equivalent regions.
>What it comes down to is that Clinton made reasonable efforts and Bush irresponsibly ignored them.
He ignored a routine memo that he gets pestered with every morning.
Nobody seems to have mentioned to anyone that this particular daily memo had more significance than the signal
to noise ratio would normally suggest.
"Quit trying to equate Cliton and Bush here. Clition ACTIVELY persued and tried to kill Bin Laden prior to 9/11. He provided everything necessary for Bush to continue this effort, which Bush did not."
Bill is on the short list of people who could have simply met with George personally and explained the problem.
Then Bill would be able to come out today and say "I personally sat in the Oval Office and explained this threat to President Bush."
Why didn't he bother to do that?
The fattest person I've ever seen in my life was an Italian woman in Rome.
Extreme example I realize, but I would never be able to support the claim that
there aren't just as many obese Europeans as there are Americans.
And as for the social tolerance for nudity, I'd have to agree that certain parts of Europe are more
relaxed, meaning that in general public nudity might only get you arrested, but not end up forcing you
to register as a "sex offender" for it and be ordered to go door to door explaining to your neighbors that
are a "sex offender."
There are far more beaches in Europe where nudity is forbidden, than where it is allowed.