But, if the time "expensed" looking for books has another more important function [getting out of the house, small diversion from other shopping, enjoying the hunt], then the expense is nearly zero.
So work doesn't count as work if you enjoy it? I guess I'll be sending my employer his money back.
Isn't it a good thing that you don't feel compelled to upgrade? Doesn't it speak to the usability of the system as a whole to the desktop user?
Back in the day, new releases (of Red Hat) were a huge event. People pre-ordered burned copies of install CDs (most people didn't have any kind of broadband), so that they could be running the new software as quickly as possible.
Nowadays, we have a system that mostly works out of the box. Sure there are annoyances, but in my experience there aren't really any more than with other operating systems.
I think what we have now is better, and your comments speak to how far Linux has come.
and don't work well in the mountains unless you and the other guy are both within line of sight of each other. Repeaters can help work around the LoS problem but there probably aren't many in the area you are considering.
It's true that you only get line of sight (ish) to a repeater, but in mountainous areas, repeaters are often located on the tops of the mountains. In my experience, some of the farthest distances I've ever worked on VHF have been in the mountains (which is mostly in the Appalachians). I'm sure someone will say, "Rockies are different, etc." Fine. Like another poster said, "it depends."
Keep in mind too, that even though people use the term line-of-sight, you can clearly talk to people you can't physically see. (Not sure how much you know about radio, etc, and the term is a bit misleading.)
My experience is that being on the side of a mountain works great for simplex. In between two mountains, of course, less so.
Neither of the mentioned companies would touch GNU licensed software even with a nine meter (long) stick, because they can't claim the result for themselves, and only themselves. It's written that they have to give back to what they have taken from, which fundamentally collides with their philosophy.
That's not true. The essence of the GNU license is that source code must go forward, not backward. The source requirement is that wherever you give a binary, you have to give source with it. The requirement is not that modified source code goes back to the maintainer. In theory this is a pretty significant difference, and when creating specialized software using GNU licensed code, it is. In practice for something as large a project as a mainstream operating system though, there's maybe not much difference, as someone who bought the OS would put the code up on an FTP somewhere.
Also, you only have to provide source for what's GPL. Plenty of commercial software exists for Linux, if someone were to create a proprietary full-on desktop environment as you suggest, it would be no different. In that case, source for the modified kernel and modified userland tools would have to be provided to the end user, but source for the desktop itself could be kept closed source.
All that said, you can download the Darwin code from Apple, sans some drivers. I'm not sure why someone couldn't do the same thing with a linux-based proprietary OS. That's theory though. I suspect the real reason we haven't seen this done is control. It's a lot easier for Apple to control Darwin (of which Apple is the primary source of development) than it would be for a commercial company to control Linux. It's true that a company could fork Linux for its own proprietary system, but in that case the problem is that it would soon be out of date and be incompatible with current Linux kernels and drivers. I suppose it could still be done, but at some point you'd lose the benefit of being compatible with "Linux" (modern Linux that is).
GPA is one of those things that only matters if the interviewer thinks it matters. What makes the interviewer think it matters? The GPA _they_ got in college. It's a lot like a master's degree (or any degree at all in some cases). If an employer has one, they'll value it and require it. If they don't have one, they won't.
It's all about perspective. It's "I had a good GPA and I remember those slackers, and I'm not hiring one of them," vs. "I had a bad GPA too, but who didn't, we were 18."
At the end of the day, GPA is _one_ credential. Any job requiring any kind of special skills is going to require _many_ credentials.
What's funny is that the Slashdot community thinks it's outrageous to have a government run postal service (as evidenced by the current +5 moderation of parent), but at the same time thinks government run health care would be a great idea.
When I was looking for a laptop for my wife, we were in Best Buy (yeah yeah yeah, pipe it to/dev/null, etc), and she said, "I don't want one of the short screen ones." Short Screen? I had never heard that before, being a tech guy and all. It's interesting how to someone who hasn't heard all the marketing hype, it's very obvious what it is, but to those of us who read the ads, it's a "wide screen."
I do appreciate your comments. It _is_ an injustice that one can't have a differing point of view around here.
However, like I said in my original post, I don't _have_ a point of view. I just want some explanation of why this is bad. I'm not trolling here. I promise. Will someone please tell me what the problem with a national ID is in light of the things in my original post?
Thank you for this comment. You're right. Reasonable debate somehow seems impossible here.
The thing is, I can't say that I really have any opinion at all about National IDs. I really do just want someone to explain to me what the big deal is. Maybe I'm just stupid. Someone here already called me that today on another thread:)
I'm being totally serious here. Please don't flame. I just would like someone to carefully explain why a National ID is bad. We already have State IDs (Driver's Licenses) which are are required for virtually everything. We also have Passports, which some may argue are optional, but they are certainly not optional if you want to leave the country. We also have Social Security numbers and cards which you have to present if you want to get a job anywhere. The SSNs are presumably primary keys to a big database somewhere with all your information in it. Oh, and there are voter IDs too, but the requirements of those seems to vary by state (and maybe locale).
So my question is, since we already have State IDs with pictures on them, and National Social Security cards (without pictures, but with a big database somewhere attached to it), and National Passports (optional, but with picture), what's wrong with having a national ID card with your picture on it. Seriously asking.
Maybe I don't read enough/., but I don't know why that's the case. Logic would say that all products released before this law was put into place would be affected. XP was released before this law (the law is really recent, right?). By what mechanism (Windows update maybe?) is XP not affected?
You are exactly right with your last sentence. This is why there is a monthly rebate paid at the beginning of each month for the taxes that one would pay up to the poverty line. Since it is paid at the beginning of the month, the book refers to it as a "prebate." Those below the poverty line end up paying no net taxes; In fact, they get a prebate check each month for more than they could have possibly paid in taxes. Consult the chart here for info on the prebate.
In response to the rest of your post, doesn't the thought of these smaller companies paying taxes "out the wazoo" to keep their suppliers domestic bother you? The Fair Tax levels the playing field somewhat in this respect.
I guess I'm just too stupid to contemplate then. I will however, ignore your flame in the interest of good debate.
I would suggest that you quickly check the difference between "Regressive Tax," "Progressive Tax," and "Proportional Tax" (You can find these on Wikipeda).
What most people mean when they say regressive is that it is disproportionally unfair to the poor.
The Fair Tax is not regressive. It's somewhere between Proportional (Flat) and Progressive. This is because of one thing that I didn't mention, the monthly prebate. Since a straight-up taxation on retail spending would cause the poor to pay more taxes than they currently do, a provision was put in the Fair Tax that would cause people living below the poverty line to pay no taxes at all. At the beginning of every month, every taxpayer would receive a check for the amount they would pay in tax on the basic necessities of life. This dollar figure is basically the Fair Tax rate multiplied by the poverty line for the state of life that each person is in (i.e.: single, married, married with X number of kids, etc.). Because of this prebate, people living _below_ the poverty line will get a check for more than they could have possibly paid in taxes.
The Fair Tax by itself is a Proportional (Flat) Tax. With the prebate (and the lower-income paying a lower percentage of their income to tax), it becomes somewhat Progressive.
Now let's consider the current tax situation. Did you know that most people pay more into Social Security and Medicare than they do into income tax? Check your tax return, you are probably one of those people. Did you also know that above a certain wage, people don't pay Social Security or Medicare tax at all? Did you also know that a lot of rich people don't have wages at all (or very small wages), and that most of their income comes from dividend payments (on which no social security or medicare taxes are paid)? All these things together make the current system sound more regressive. Certainly more regressive than the Fair Tax.
I seriously recommend that you consider doing some reading on the Fair Tax. It is definitely not what you currently think it is.
This is why you should support the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax eliminates taxation of income, and instead creates a national retail sales tax. Under the Fair Tax, corporations would pay no taxes at all, and _all_ federal tax would be collected at the point of retail sale.
This sounds a little crazy at first, but currently corporations don't _really_ pay taxes at all; they only _collect_ taxes. This is because corporations pass _everything_ on to the consumer in one way or another. Think about it for a minute. If corporate taxes go up, a large corporation like say, Wal-Mart, has one of three options. 1: Raise prices, 2: Keep the prices the same and lose profit, 3: Keep the prices the same and cut quality of service or quality of products. Option 1 obviously hits the consumer. Option 2 hits the owners of the corporation. Who are these owners? Shareholders. Who are these shareholders? Well, that's anyone with a 401K or any other kind of retirement plan. Thus, option 2 is hitting the general public. Option 3 obviously hits the consumers as well. Since corporations have 3 options to consider when dealing with taxes, and they all end up trickling down to the consumer, one has to start to wonder why not just tax the consumer directly and be done with it? What happens if we take away corporate taxes? Prices for consumables will go down because the cost to produce them will go down. Everything you buy has an embedded tax component to it. Basically it's the tax that was paid by every company which handled the product along the way (e.g.: raw materials, wholesale of components, assembly into new product, wholesale to retailer, etc). If the taxes on these "intermediate" companies go away, the retail price of the item is going to go down. Some don't believe this, but I do. Why? Free market forces _must_ drive this cost down. That's the principle our entire economy is based on. If one company tries to hold out and keep their prices up and keep the extra profit for themselves, one (or many) of their competitors will lower their prices to grab extra market share (Economics 101). Because of the lowered prices, the new tax which would be levied at the register would make the item cost (after the Fair Tax is added) roughly the same as it did under an income tax system.
So what's the difference? The difference is that there would be NO INCOME TAX. You would take home 100% of your paycheck, and items for retail sale would cost roughly the same. That's huge. Never mind the savings caused by corporations no longer requiring teams of accountants to find and exercise loopholes in the current income tax laws (How much do you think it cost Google in accounting time to move some of their stuff overseas?).
The other major benefit of the Fair Tax is that with tax only collected at the time of retail sale, consumers know _exactly_ how much tax they are paying. Under the current system, tax is paid at so many places along the way (each corporation who handles every product paying income tax) that people have absolutely no idea how much tax they are paying. Since people don't really know, the government can quietly raise taxes on corporations, making the price of goods go up, and making the people none the wiser. People will probably just assume corporate greed or inflation. Under the Fair Tax, and people seeing exactly what they're paying in taxes, it becomes much harder for the government to raise the rate. As proof of this, does anyone live in a state with a retail _state_ sales tax? I do, and I know how much public opposition there is anytime anyone wants to raise the rate.
Anyway, I could go on and on about the Fair Tax. (Some may argue that I already have.) When talking to people about the Fair Tax for the first time, the first impression they seem to get is that there must be some hidden gotcha in there somewhere, and they are very skeptical about it. I would suggest one read the book (Title: The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS. (No sponsored link here:) )). As I
The first group will test you on your knowledge of STL (Standard Template Library) and ask about the use of iterators to implement list traversal. These are typically research departments. The second group will test you on your knowledge of pointers, linked lists, doubly linked lists, and ask such questions as how to detect if a list has a loop or how to remove an item. These are more the actual development departments.
I have to disagree. Just because that may be the experience _you_ have had, doesn't mean that it's the case everywhere. I, for one, use the STL on a daily basis in a real, funded, delivered, simulation project with paying customers. However, if someone shows up at my office in 2007 and starts implementing their own linked list in my code, I'm gonna throw a fit, but I'm _not_ going to automatically think that they're stupid. I'll think that their past experiences led them to think they _needed_ to do it (Hypothetical here, don't pick it apart). Different teams have different methodologies, often with good reason. A person's background makes a huge difference in which paradigms they think are good and which ones they think less of. It's all about what exposure someone has had. Exposure to many different paradigms is, of course, a good thing. My impression is that you have had exposure to exactly one type of development paradigm, dismissing methods which are easier, but in some cases may require a bit more resources, only good for "research" and not good enough for "actual development departments." I would suggest that you carefully reconsider some of your opinions. Make some test programs. Learn something new. You just might like it, and you just might find that it could even help _you_ in your current work.
Great! Post as AC and call me names. What class. But this is what I've come to expect from liberals. When you know you're beat, you just start yelling and name calling. Go ahead, call me a Nazi, you know you want to.
So what should have been mentioned to the commission, that some guy had no concrete evidence but had a gut feeling?
The fact that this is non-news but is still getting reported makes it propaganda.
Yeah, I'm sure that's just it. Bush and his Administration just knowingly let it happen so they could get more popularity at the polls. I bet you're one of the 42% of Americans that think Bush fixes gas prices, too. Black Helicopters, anyone?
This just in: Bin Laden is going to attack Americans. Big Deal. He already _had_ attacked Americans.
For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called "findings" that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden.
Interesting, Bill Clinton said last Sunday night or whenever it was that He "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy." I guess that turned out to be a lie if Rice was being pressured to set one herself.
There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming.
Sound to me something like, "we don't _really_ have any proof, but I have a hunch."
This is non-news. Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?
Slashdot Mirror
But, if the time "expensed" looking for books has another more important function [getting out of the house, small diversion from other shopping, enjoying the hunt], then the expense is nearly zero.
So work doesn't count as work if you enjoy it? I guess I'll be sending my employer his money back.
Isn't it a good thing that you don't feel compelled to upgrade? Doesn't it speak to the usability of the system as a whole to the desktop user?
Back in the day, new releases (of Red Hat) were a huge event. People pre-ordered burned copies of install CDs (most people didn't have any kind of broadband), so that they could be running the new software as quickly as possible.
Nowadays, we have a system that mostly works out of the box. Sure there are annoyances, but in my experience there aren't really any more than with other operating systems.
I think what we have now is better, and your comments speak to how far Linux has come.
and don't work well in the mountains unless you and the other guy are both within line of sight of each other. Repeaters can help work around the LoS problem but there probably aren't many in the area you are considering.
It's true that you only get line of sight (ish) to a repeater, but in mountainous areas, repeaters are often located on the tops of the mountains. In my experience, some of the farthest distances I've ever worked on VHF have been in the mountains (which is mostly in the Appalachians). I'm sure someone will say, "Rockies are different, etc." Fine. Like another poster said, "it depends."
Keep in mind too, that even though people use the term line-of-sight, you can clearly talk to people you can't physically see. (Not sure how much you know about radio, etc, and the term is a bit misleading.)
My experience is that being on the side of a mountain works great for simplex. In between two mountains, of course, less so.
Check an online repeater directory either here:
http://www.artscipub.com/repeaters/states/Colorado.asp
or here:
http://www.usrepeaters.com/
to see if there's one near the top of a mountain you're interested in backpacking on.
As another poster said, find a local radio club and ask them. Local hams will know best where the coverage is in your area.
That's not true. The essence of the GNU license is that source code must go forward, not backward. The source requirement is that wherever you give a binary, you have to give source with it. The requirement is not that modified source code goes back to the maintainer. In theory this is a pretty significant difference, and when creating specialized software using GNU licensed code, it is. In practice for something as large a project as a mainstream operating system though, there's maybe not much difference, as someone who bought the OS would put the code up on an FTP somewhere.
Also, you only have to provide source for what's GPL. Plenty of commercial software exists for Linux, if someone were to create a proprietary full-on desktop environment as you suggest, it would be no different. In that case, source for the modified kernel and modified userland tools would have to be provided to the end user, but source for the desktop itself could be kept closed source.
All that said, you can download the Darwin code from Apple, sans some drivers. I'm not sure why someone couldn't do the same thing with a linux-based proprietary OS. That's theory though. I suspect the real reason we haven't seen this done is control. It's a lot easier for Apple to control Darwin (of which Apple is the primary source of development) than it would be for a commercial company to control Linux. It's true that a company could fork Linux for its own proprietary system, but in that case the problem is that it would soon be out of date and be incompatible with current Linux kernels and drivers. I suppose it could still be done, but at some point you'd lose the benefit of being compatible with "Linux" (modern Linux that is).
GPA is one of those things that only matters if the interviewer thinks it matters. What makes the interviewer think it matters? The GPA _they_ got in college. It's a lot like a master's degree (or any degree at all in some cases). If an employer has one, they'll value it and require it. If they don't have one, they won't.
It's all about perspective. It's "I had a good GPA and I remember those slackers, and I'm not hiring one of them," vs. "I had a bad GPA too, but who didn't, we were 18."
At the end of the day, GPA is _one_ credential. Any job requiring any kind of special skills is going to require _many_ credentials.
What's funny is that the Slashdot community thinks it's outrageous to have a government run postal service (as evidenced by the current +5 moderation of parent), but at the same time thinks government run health care would be a great idea.
When I was looking for a laptop for my wife, we were in Best Buy (yeah yeah yeah, pipe it to /dev/null, etc), and she said, "I don't want one of the short screen ones." Short Screen? I had never heard that before, being a tech guy and all. It's interesting how to someone who hasn't heard all the marketing hype, it's very obvious what it is, but to those of us who read the ads, it's a "wide screen."
By the way, I hate wide screens too.
Indeed, correlation is not the same as causation, or is that not true when a political agenda is involved?
Killer NIC? Is this anything like the EtherKiller?
Congratulations for showing us that Godwin's Law is still in full force.
At the time of this writing, the parent was modded 4, Informative. Informative? You people have got to be kidding.
I do appreciate your comments. It _is_ an injustice that one can't have a differing point of view around here.
However, like I said in my original post, I don't _have_ a point of view. I just want some explanation of why this is bad. I'm not trolling here. I promise. Will someone please tell me what the problem with a national ID is in light of the things in my original post?
Thank you for this comment. You're right. Reasonable debate somehow seems impossible here.
The thing is, I can't say that I really have any opinion at all about National IDs. I really do just want someone to explain to me what the big deal is. Maybe I'm just stupid. Someone here already called me that today on another thread :)
I'm being totally serious here. Please don't flame. I just would like someone to carefully explain why a National ID is bad. We already have State IDs (Driver's Licenses) which are are required for virtually everything. We also have Passports, which some may argue are optional, but they are certainly not optional if you want to leave the country. We also have Social Security numbers and cards which you have to present if you want to get a job anywhere. The SSNs are presumably primary keys to a big database somewhere with all your information in it. Oh, and there are voter IDs too, but the requirements of those seems to vary by state (and maybe locale).
So my question is, since we already have State IDs with pictures on them, and National Social Security cards (without pictures, but with a big database somewhere attached to it), and National Passports (optional, but with picture), what's wrong with having a national ID card with your picture on it. Seriously asking.
Maybe I don't read enough /., but I don't know why that's the case. Logic would say that all products released before this law was put into place would be affected. XP was released before this law (the law is really recent, right?). By what mechanism (Windows update maybe?) is XP not affected?
You are exactly right with your last sentence. This is why there is a monthly rebate paid at the beginning of each month for the taxes that one would pay up to the poverty line. Since it is paid at the beginning of the month, the book refers to it as a "prebate." Those below the poverty line end up paying no net taxes; In fact, they get a prebate check each month for more than they could have possibly paid in taxes. Consult the chart here for info on the prebate.
In response to the rest of your post, doesn't the thought of these smaller companies paying taxes "out the wazoo" to keep their suppliers domestic bother you? The Fair Tax levels the playing field somewhat in this respect.
I guess I'm just too stupid to contemplate then. I will however, ignore your flame in the interest of good debate.
I would suggest that you quickly check the difference between "Regressive Tax," "Progressive Tax," and "Proportional Tax" (You can find these on Wikipeda).
What most people mean when they say regressive is that it is disproportionally unfair to the poor.
The Fair Tax is not regressive. It's somewhere between Proportional (Flat) and Progressive. This is because of one thing that I didn't mention, the monthly prebate. Since a straight-up taxation on retail spending would cause the poor to pay more taxes than they currently do, a provision was put in the Fair Tax that would cause people living below the poverty line to pay no taxes at all. At the beginning of every month, every taxpayer would receive a check for the amount they would pay in tax on the basic necessities of life. This dollar figure is basically the Fair Tax rate multiplied by the poverty line for the state of life that each person is in (i.e.: single, married, married with X number of kids, etc.). Because of this prebate, people living _below_ the poverty line will get a check for more than they could have possibly paid in taxes.
The Fair Tax by itself is a Proportional (Flat) Tax. With the prebate (and the lower-income paying a lower percentage of their income to tax), it becomes somewhat Progressive.
Now let's consider the current tax situation. Did you know that most people pay more into Social Security and Medicare than they do into income tax? Check your tax return, you are probably one of those people. Did you also know that above a certain wage, people don't pay Social Security or Medicare tax at all? Did you also know that a lot of rich people don't have wages at all (or very small wages), and that most of their income comes from dividend payments (on which no social security or medicare taxes are paid)? All these things together make the current system sound more regressive. Certainly more regressive than the Fair Tax.
I seriously recommend that you consider doing some reading on the Fair Tax. It is definitely not what you currently think it is.
This is why you should support the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax eliminates taxation of income, and instead creates a national retail sales tax. Under the Fair Tax, corporations would pay no taxes at all, and _all_ federal tax would be collected at the point of retail sale.
This sounds a little crazy at first, but currently corporations don't _really_ pay taxes at all; they only _collect_ taxes. This is because corporations pass _everything_ on to the consumer in one way or another. Think about it for a minute. If corporate taxes go up, a large corporation like say, Wal-Mart, has one of three options. 1: Raise prices, 2: Keep the prices the same and lose profit, 3: Keep the prices the same and cut quality of service or quality of products. Option 1 obviously hits the consumer. Option 2 hits the owners of the corporation. Who are these owners? Shareholders. Who are these shareholders? Well, that's anyone with a 401K or any other kind of retirement plan. Thus, option 2 is hitting the general public. Option 3 obviously hits the consumers as well. Since corporations have 3 options to consider when dealing with taxes, and they all end up trickling down to the consumer, one has to start to wonder why not just tax the consumer directly and be done with it? What happens if we take away corporate taxes? Prices for consumables will go down because the cost to produce them will go down. Everything you buy has an embedded tax component to it. Basically it's the tax that was paid by every company which handled the product along the way (e.g.: raw materials, wholesale of components, assembly into new product, wholesale to retailer, etc). If the taxes on these "intermediate" companies go away, the retail price of the item is going to go down. Some don't believe this, but I do. Why? Free market forces _must_ drive this cost down. That's the principle our entire economy is based on. If one company tries to hold out and keep their prices up and keep the extra profit for themselves, one (or many) of their competitors will lower their prices to grab extra market share (Economics 101). Because of the lowered prices, the new tax which would be levied at the register would make the item cost (after the Fair Tax is added) roughly the same as it did under an income tax system.
So what's the difference? The difference is that there would be NO INCOME TAX. You would take home 100% of your paycheck, and items for retail sale would cost roughly the same. That's huge. Never mind the savings caused by corporations no longer requiring teams of accountants to find and exercise loopholes in the current income tax laws (How much do you think it cost Google in accounting time to move some of their stuff overseas?).
The other major benefit of the Fair Tax is that with tax only collected at the time of retail sale, consumers know _exactly_ how much tax they are paying. Under the current system, tax is paid at so many places along the way (each corporation who handles every product paying income tax) that people have absolutely no idea how much tax they are paying. Since people don't really know, the government can quietly raise taxes on corporations, making the price of goods go up, and making the people none the wiser. People will probably just assume corporate greed or inflation. Under the Fair Tax, and people seeing exactly what they're paying in taxes, it becomes much harder for the government to raise the rate. As proof of this, does anyone live in a state with a retail _state_ sales tax? I do, and I know how much public opposition there is anytime anyone wants to raise the rate.
Anyway, I could go on and on about the Fair Tax. (Some may argue that I already have.) When talking to people about the Fair Tax for the first time, the first impression they seem to get is that there must be some hidden gotcha in there somewhere, and they are very skeptical about it. I would suggest one read the book (Title: The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS. (No sponsored link here :) )). As I
Great! Post as AC and call me names. What class. But this is what I've come to expect from liberals. When you know you're beat, you just start yelling and name calling. Go ahead, call me a Nazi, you know you want to.
So what should have been mentioned to the commission, that some guy had no concrete evidence but had a gut feeling? The fact that this is non-news but is still getting reported makes it propaganda.
I think it's pretty clear that you don't watch any news on TV.
Yeah, I'm sure that's just it. Bush and his Administration just knowingly let it happen so they could get more popularity at the polls. I bet you're one of the 42% of Americans that think Bush fixes gas prices, too. Black Helicopters, anyone?
This just in: Bin Laden is going to attack Americans. Big Deal. He already _had_ attacked Americans.
For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called "findings" that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden.
Interesting, Bill Clinton said last Sunday night or whenever it was that He "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy." I guess that turned out to be a lie if Rice was being pressured to set one herself.
There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming.
Sound to me something like, "we don't _really_ have any proof, but I have a hunch."
This is non-news. Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?