1: Build a Great Attractor
2: Suck up thousands of galaxies into a toroidal naked singularity
3: Avoid any pesky humans throwing relativistic neutron stars around the universe
4: Hold off neutrino birds at all costs
5: Escape universe
PFFT! *hits the switch on his improbability drive*
What's wrong with just letting people save money on their own for their retirement? I say we end Social Security and let people plan for themselves.
A-FRICKEN-MEN!!!
If you look at your tax stubs, you'll notice that there's nothing on it labeled "Social Security Tax", or "Retirement tax". What you'll find is something called FICA, which stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. It is, in effect, an INSURANCE POLICY, NOT A RETIREMENT FUND. It never has been, and was never intended to be.
Insurance is not something you would expect to be paid in-full at some point (with the exception of life insurance, which you don't personally benefit from anyway), yet many people expect that very thing from Social Security. Insurance is intended to protect a responsible individual from catastrophe, not negligence.
In a perfect society, every individual saves for their own retirement. Everyone earns a decent wage and is never disabled (by means of birth defect or injury) to the point that they can't do so. In reality, there are many cases where this just doesn't work out; whether it be for legitimate or illegitimate reasons.
Enter Social Security. Now over the next few decades, enter a whole lot of very irresponsible people who take the system for granted, expecting taxpayers to fund their retirement in its entirety. Now add a bunch of politicians who attempt to appease these people by promising them that very thing. Now you have the mess that is Social Security today.
There's a fine line that needs to be walked when it comes to software patents. Either extreme will stunt growth.
On the one extreme, if software patents run rampant and out of control, more monopolies will form, and new technologies will be slow to come forth, because almost regardless of the direction you go, you'll be stepping on someone's toes.
On the other extreme, if you eliminate them altogether, there will be so much competition that there will be little to no profit from spending the time and money on research to produce new technologies. Sure, there are a lot of 30-yr-old geeks out there living in their parents' homes who are more than happy to develop them just for the challenge/fame of it, but even they have to eat sometime.
I'm at a loss as to the disparity between these two sources, but suffice to say that, in practice, communism results in the inability of individuals to excercise ownership over anything.
IN a comunist/socialist systme, the people own the code. (Since the people own everything.)
Perhaps in theory, but I think reality is quite different. According to Mr. Dictionary, communism is:
"A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."
In other words "Sure, you own it, but we have absolute control over it", in which case, you don't really own anything. Ownership is pretty pointless, when you can't make the decisions as to what to do with whatever it is you supposedly own. Ask anyone who came out of Soviet Russia as to how much property they thought they really owned. "Yes, it's your land, but we are going to build a munitions plant on it."
HOLY CRAP. You mean to tell me that when the sun gets hotter, the Earth gets hotter as well???
Do you ever get the impression that scientists think they are way too smart for their (and our) own good?
For every cooky doomsday theory out there, there is other scientific data that refutes it. Truth be told, I don't think anyone knows what the hell they're talking about.
Iraq had turned over thousands upon thousands of pages of documentation regarding the destruction of their WMD.
Yes... "I'm a communist dictator who financially supports terrorism in Israel, and has shot, tortured, and gassed thousands of my own people, but trust me when I tell you that I have no WMDs! Here are documents that I swear are complete and haven't been altered!". Gosh, if we had just trusted the guy like we should have, we could've avoided all of this, yes?
The US didn't even bother reading them all
How are you in a position to know this? What is your source?
You have to use a USB mic/line-in. Too bad, other than that glaring detail, it's perfect.
Ah... And once you've plugged your keyboard and mouse in to the only two USB ports that it has....? I guess you're going to need a tiny hub to go with your tiny Mac.
.... for a desktop, as they seem to be attempting to pass it off as. Sure, you could use it as one, but it would seem more appropriate to use it as a portable, in which case, why not just get a laptop?
Where's the mic port? Is it just my ignorance of Apple hardware showing, or is there not one?
He had no WMD. He had no WMD programmes. Sounds to me like he was complying alright...
Well then, maybe you should have lodged a formal complaint against the UN, demanding that they lift their sanctions against Iraq. Saddam had been demanding that all along. Although he as claiming to be in the process of destroying the wepaons that he was supposed to, at the same time, he was not granting full access to UN weapons inspectors as the resolution had demanded. In short, no, he was not in compliance whatsoever, thus the sanctions were not lifted.
Let me put pacifist liberal hat on for a moment... Perhaps if the UN would have just lifted its sanctions long ago, and trusted the word of a mass murderer, this situation would never have escalated to this point. In fact, the UN shouldn't sanction anyone who butchers thousands or even millions their own people, because that'll just make them angry, and make things even worse!
Oh yeah, the UN. I remember those guys. Let's all take a trip down memory lane as we examine the members of this fine establishment, defender of freedom and human rights world-wide, shall we?
Iraq (Member since 1945)
Attacks Iran in 1980 in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and customary international law prohibiting wars of aggression.
Uses poison gas against Iranian troops in 1983.
Launches deliberate attacks on Iranian civilian targets.
Guilty of significant breaches of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, using prisoners as human shields and torturing them physically and mentally (and we're sure as hell not talking naked pyramids, either)
Launches a campaign of extermination and genocide against the Kurds of Northern Iraq from 1987-1988 where anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in various manners including chemical.
More wonderful Iraqi humanitarian acts here
Afghanistan (Member since 1946)
Harbored terrorists of the likes of Bin Laden. Even the most staunch lefties don't deny the Taliban's strong connection to Al Quaeda
The Islamic Republic of Iran (Member since 1945)
Cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his cronies sieze control of Iran in 1979 through (what else) terrorism. He establishes a "theocracy" that would make any liberal forget any reference to God that George Bush has ever made; no elections, executions of homosexuals, atheists, adulterers, and prostitutes. Also a major financial contributor to terrorism all over the Middle East.
Pakistan (Member since 1947)
In 1970, Pakistan sets out on one of the largest missions of genocide of this century in an effort to eliminate the Awami League, which demanded regional autonomy for East Pakistan (known today as Bangladesh), and an end to military rule. "Kill three million of them, and the rest will eat out of our hands.", said President Yahya Khan. At the least, an estimated 1 MILLION people were killed in this massacre.
Sudan (Member since 1956)
To this very day the Sudanese government, through military action and starvation, is systematically slaughtering the black Sudanese of Darfur.
Cuba (Member since 1945)
Fidel Castro. Need I say more?
Rwanda (Member since 1962)
At the time of admission to the UN, Rwanda was under the control of the ethnic group Hutu, guilty of butchering over a half million people between 1959 and 1994 when they were finally overthrown.
And that is just a few. Many of the above are Islamic states (and members of the UN) that rule their people with an iron fist, employing torture and execution for moral offences that many a liberal would wear as a badge of honor. Why the left continues to support an organization made up of such thugs is beyond comprehension, and demonstrates ignorance on an astronomical level, and an utter lack of perspective.
The utter impotence of the UN comes as no surprise to me when you factor in the scum that has joined its ranks over the years. Remember, France and Germany are NOT the UN! They are merely two nations outnumbered in a large organization of Islamic radicals and communist tyrants.
If a policeman shoots a murderer who fails to comply with the officer's demands, he is considered a hero.
If Bush destroys the government of a mass murderer (by the hundreds of thousands, mind you) who fails to comply with the demands of the U.N., he is considered a criminal.
Does anyone really believe that Saddam complied, or had any intention of complying with the U.N. resolutions?
You know, it's really funny how you can put something like "radical left-wing anarchist" in your post, and people's eyes will immediately lock-on to that, and ignore everything else. For example:
How does the view of moderate IP laws automaticly make someone an enemy of God?
Can you show me where I made the connection that people who support the moderation IP laws are enemies of God? In fact, can you show me any place in my post where I took a shot at anyone who supports IP law moderation?
My entire post was aimed at those who would do away with them completely, along with just about any other type of authority. I personally support IP, but I definately support the moderation of those laws because they have gotten entirely out of hand, but here I am repeating myself, and I shouldn't have to, should I?
I'd rather not make it personal, but rest assured, I was in no-wise suggesting that all (or even a majority) of OSS supporters think that way; I'm all for OSS myself. My comments were based on comments I've seen elsewhere on Slashdot from time to time posted by some individuals who would do away with IP and copyrights in their entirety (I've seen them). Note that this means that most hard-left anarchists oppose IP altogether; not that all who oppose IP are hard-left anarchists.
I do agree that copyrights and especially IP in their current form have gotten way out of hand. But there are some who would take this to an extreme. On the one extreme, we have people like Bill Gates, who I'm sure would like to create his own communist regime where he owns it all. On the other extreme, we have the likes of people that I mentioned in my post. There needs to be a happy medium.
We'd be supporting the idea of the government owning all intellectual property.
However, not to defend Mr. Gates (and surely to piss off a lot of the OSS community), but there is some small degree of validity to his statement, though he used the wrong word.
Many people who completely reject the idea of intellectual property (not all) aren't really communists as Mr. Gates would propose, but in fact, radical left-wing anarchists. They despise authority in any form that it comes in; that is why such things as IP and copyrights are hated so much. The idea of God introduces a supreme authority, so they hate him even more.
They wear the "communist" label with pride, not understanding who they really are, or what communism really is and what it has done to nearly every single society that has been foolish enough to try it.
They are the modern day hippy, when it comes right down to it. They stand for and oppose the same things and the same principles.
I'm sure that 80% figure is correct, and there is no doubt that the majority of Americans live in densly populated areas. Nonetheless, as I mentioned in another reply, there are a far greater number of small communities than there are large ones.
It's not about population, it's about surface area. Those smaller communities must be served as well, so fiber must be laid and maintained over great distances where, relatively speaking, no one lives to pay for it.
In my electric company example, the exact same principle applies. You may live 20 miles from the nearest community, yet (at least here in Illinois) you must be served with electricity. It costs quite a lot to set up those lines and keep them maintained, therefore, *everyone* in the area pays more than they would in larger metropolitan areas.
In context, fiber outside of population centers is free.
I'm not quite sure how you're coming to that conclusion (by comparison, perhaps?). Fiber is never free. Laying fiber isn't free, and maintaining what must be hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber most certainly isn't free. Whether it's telephone, data, cable, or electricity, it costs vendors more per capita to serve smaller communities. There are far more smaller communities than there are large ones and they must be served, even though they aren't nearly as cost-effective.
Broadband prices in the US might seem outrageous compared to other parts of the world, but consider this for a moment. This is probably a bit simplistic, but we have a significantly larger area of land to cover with fiber than Japan does.
United States = 3,618,770 sq. miles
Japan = 147,500 sq. miles
3618770 / 147500 means the US is roughly 24.5 times larger than Japan
I pay about $35 for 1.5Mbps
24Mbps / 1.5Mbps = 16
16 * $35 = $560
$560 (what I'd theoretically pay for 24Mbps) / $30 (what Japan pays) = 18.7
So although our area is 24.5 times greater, our prices in this undoubtedly wildly inaccurate calculation are only 18.7 times greater.
Though the numbers no doubt could use a lot of work, I think the principle is solid. When I lived in the Chicago area, I paid about $30/mo. for very reliable electrical service. Now that I've moved back to the central region of the state (and thus far less densly populated), I pay 3-4 times that much for far less reliable service. It costs a lot of money to run cable, and the closer people are packed in, the easier and cheaper it is to get these types of services to them.
Aww, you guys are just mad because a search for "slashdot" on Wikipedia turns up such gems as the following:
The Slashdot editors are sometimes accused of posting (and even preferring) stories that are, themselves, thinly-disguised trolls, which encourage large numbers of postings in response, and of accepting kickbacks to post certain stories
The site's slogan is "News for nerds, stuff that matters", but Slashdot is sometimes criticized for posting inaccurate, highly biased, and/or inflammatory story summaries that incite heated posting, as opposed to serious news or commentary (see Slashdot subculture).
True or not, this is certainly the most opinionated "encyclopedia" I've ever seen. I don't think it's likely to be taken as seriously (and rightly so) as resources such as Britannica so long as this is the case.
Slashdot Mirror
1: Build a Great Attractor 2: Suck up thousands of galaxies into a toroidal naked singularity 3: Avoid any pesky humans throwing relativistic neutron stars around the universe 4: Hold off neutrino birds at all costs 5: Escape universe
PFFT! *hits the switch on his improbability drive*
What's wrong with just letting people save money on their own for their retirement? I say we end Social Security and let people plan for themselves.
A-FRICKEN-MEN!!!
If you look at your tax stubs, you'll notice that there's nothing on it labeled "Social Security Tax", or "Retirement tax". What you'll find is something called FICA, which stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. It is, in effect, an INSURANCE POLICY, NOT A RETIREMENT FUND. It never has been, and was never intended to be.
Insurance is not something you would expect to be paid in-full at some point (with the exception of life insurance, which you don't personally benefit from anyway), yet many people expect that very thing from Social Security. Insurance is intended to protect a responsible individual from catastrophe, not negligence.
In a perfect society, every individual saves for their own retirement. Everyone earns a decent wage and is never disabled (by means of birth defect or injury) to the point that they can't do so. In reality, there are many cases where this just doesn't work out; whether it be for legitimate or illegitimate reasons.
Enter Social Security. Now over the next few decades, enter a whole lot of very irresponsible people who take the system for granted, expecting taxpayers to fund their retirement in its entirety. Now add a bunch of politicians who attempt to appease these people by promising them that very thing. Now you have the mess that is Social Security today.
On the one extreme, if software patents run rampant and out of control, more monopolies will form, and new technologies will be slow to come forth, because almost regardless of the direction you go, you'll be stepping on someone's toes.
On the other extreme, if you eliminate them altogether, there will be so much competition that there will be little to no profit from spending the time and money on research to produce new technologies. Sure, there are a lot of 30-yr-old geeks out there living in their parents' homes who are more than happy to develop them just for the challenge/fame of it, but even they have to eat sometime.
Weird. Well, the resource I quoted was just www.dictionary.com which builds its information from the following resources:
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2001 Denis Howe
Jargon File 4.2.0
CIA World Factbook (1995)
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary
U.S. Gazetteer, U.S. Census Bureau
I'm at a loss as to the disparity between these two sources, but suffice to say that, in practice, communism results in the inability of individuals to excercise ownership over anything.
IN a comunist/socialist systme, the people own the code. (Since the people own everything.)
Perhaps in theory, but I think reality is quite different. According to Mr. Dictionary, communism is:
"A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."
In other words "Sure, you own it, but we have absolute control over it", in which case, you don't really own anything. Ownership is pretty pointless, when you can't make the decisions as to what to do with whatever it is you supposedly own. Ask anyone who came out of Soviet Russia as to how much property they thought they really owned. "Yes, it's your land, but we are going to build a munitions plant on it."
HOLY CRAP. You mean to tell me that when the sun gets hotter, the Earth gets hotter as well???
Do you ever get the impression that scientists think they are way too smart for their (and our) own good?
For every cooky doomsday theory out there, there is other scientific data that refutes it. Truth be told, I don't think anyone knows what the hell they're talking about.
Iraq had turned over thousands upon thousands of pages of documentation regarding the destruction of their WMD.
Yes... "I'm a communist dictator who financially supports terrorism in Israel, and has shot, tortured, and gassed thousands of my own people, but trust me when I tell you that I have no WMDs! Here are documents that I swear are complete and haven't been altered!". Gosh, if we had just trusted the guy like we should have, we could've avoided all of this, yes?
The US didn't even bother reading them all
How are you in a position to know this? What is your source?
... The MPAA and RIAA have filed suit against the FBI, since their software could be used to share copyrighted material.
You have to use a USB mic/line-in. Too bad, other than that glaring detail, it's perfect.
Ah... And once you've plugged your keyboard and mouse in to the only two USB ports that it has....? I guess you're going to need a tiny hub to go with your tiny Mac.
.... for a desktop, as they seem to be attempting to pass it off as. Sure, you could use it as one, but it would seem more appropriate to use it as a portable, in which case, why not just get a laptop?
Where's the mic port? Is it just my ignorance of Apple hardware showing, or is there not one?
He had no WMD. He had no WMD programmes. Sounds to me like he was complying alright...
Well then, maybe you should have lodged a formal complaint against the UN, demanding that they lift their sanctions against Iraq. Saddam had been demanding that all along. Although he as claiming to be in the process of destroying the wepaons that he was supposed to, at the same time, he was not granting full access to UN weapons inspectors as the resolution had demanded. In short, no, he was not in compliance whatsoever, thus the sanctions were not lifted.
Let me put pacifist liberal hat on for a moment... Perhaps if the UN would have just lifted its sanctions long ago, and trusted the word of a mass murderer, this situation would never have escalated to this point. In fact, the UN shouldn't sanction anyone who butchers thousands or even millions their own people, because that'll just make them angry, and make things even worse!
But of course, no one complains when it's the UN.
Oh yeah, the UN. I remember those guys. Let's all take a trip down memory lane as we examine the members of this fine establishment, defender of freedom and human rights world-wide, shall we?
Iraq (Member since 1945)
Attacks Iran in 1980 in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and customary international law prohibiting wars of aggression.
Uses poison gas against Iranian troops in 1983.
Launches deliberate attacks on Iranian civilian targets.
Guilty of significant breaches of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, using prisoners as human shields and torturing them physically and mentally (and we're sure as hell not talking naked pyramids, either)
Launches a campaign of extermination and genocide against the Kurds of Northern Iraq from 1987-1988 where anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in various manners including chemical. More wonderful Iraqi humanitarian acts here
Afghanistan (Member since 1946)
Harbored terrorists of the likes of Bin Laden. Even the most staunch lefties don't deny the Taliban's strong connection to Al Quaeda
The Islamic Republic of Iran (Member since 1945)
Cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his cronies sieze control of Iran in 1979 through (what else) terrorism. He establishes a "theocracy" that would make any liberal forget any reference to God that George Bush has ever made; no elections, executions of homosexuals, atheists, adulterers, and prostitutes. Also a major financial contributor to terrorism all over the Middle East.
Pakistan (Member since 1947)
In 1970, Pakistan sets out on one of the largest missions of genocide of this century in an effort to eliminate the Awami League, which demanded regional autonomy for East Pakistan (known today as Bangladesh), and an end to military rule. "Kill three million of them, and the rest will eat out of our hands.", said President Yahya Khan. At the least, an estimated 1 MILLION people were killed in this massacre.
Sudan (Member since 1956)
To this very day the Sudanese government, through military action and starvation, is systematically slaughtering the black Sudanese of Darfur.
Cuba (Member since 1945)
Fidel Castro. Need I say more?
Rwanda (Member since 1962)
At the time of admission to the UN, Rwanda was under the control of the ethnic group Hutu, guilty of butchering over a half million people between 1959 and 1994 when they were finally overthrown.
And that is just a few. Many of the above are Islamic states (and members of the UN) that rule their people with an iron fist, employing torture and execution for moral offences that many a liberal would wear as a badge of honor. Why the left continues to support an organization made up of such thugs is beyond comprehension, and demonstrates ignorance on an astronomical level, and an utter lack of perspective.
The utter impotence of the UN comes as no surprise to me when you factor in the scum that has joined its ranks over the years. Remember, France and Germany are NOT the UN! They are merely two nations outnumbered in a large organization of Islamic radicals and communist tyrants.
Some sources:http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html
http://humphrys.humanists.net/unfree.world.html
http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/
What if he has a history of murder? And what office is the highest officer in the country supposed to call?
If a policeman shoots a murderer who fails to comply with the officer's demands, he is considered a hero.
If Bush destroys the government of a mass murderer (by the hundreds of thousands, mind you) who fails to comply with the demands of the U.N., he is considered a criminal.
Does anyone really believe that Saddam complied, or had any intention of complying with the U.N. resolutions?
You know, it's really funny how you can put something like "radical left-wing anarchist" in your post, and people's eyes will immediately lock-on to that, and ignore everything else. For example:
How does the view of moderate IP laws automaticly make someone an enemy of God?
Can you show me where I made the connection that people who support the moderation IP laws are enemies of God? In fact, can you show me any place in my post where I took a shot at anyone who supports IP law moderation?
My entire post was aimed at those who would do away with them completely, along with just about any other type of authority. I personally support IP, but I definately support the moderation of those laws because they have gotten entirely out of hand, but here I am repeating myself, and I shouldn't have to, should I?
I'd rather not make it personal, but rest assured, I was in no-wise suggesting that all (or even a majority) of OSS supporters think that way; I'm all for OSS myself. My comments were based on comments I've seen elsewhere on Slashdot from time to time posted by some individuals who would do away with IP and copyrights in their entirety (I've seen them). Note that this means that most hard-left anarchists oppose IP altogether; not that all who oppose IP are hard-left anarchists.
I do agree that copyrights and especially IP in their current form have gotten way out of hand. But there are some who would take this to an extreme. On the one extreme, we have people like Bill Gates, who I'm sure would like to create his own communist regime where he owns it all. On the other extreme, we have the likes of people that I mentioned in my post. There needs to be a happy medium.
We'd be supporting the idea of the government owning all intellectual property.
However, not to defend Mr. Gates (and surely to piss off a lot of the OSS community), but there is some small degree of validity to his statement, though he used the wrong word.
Many people who completely reject the idea of intellectual property (not all) aren't really communists as Mr. Gates would propose, but in fact, radical left-wing anarchists. They despise authority in any form that it comes in; that is why such things as IP and copyrights are hated so much. The idea of God introduces a supreme authority, so they hate him even more.
They wear the "communist" label with pride, not understanding who they really are, or what communism really is and what it has done to nearly every single society that has been foolish enough to try it.
They are the modern day hippy, when it comes right down to it. They stand for and oppose the same things and the same principles.
I'm sure that 80% figure is correct, and there is no doubt that the majority of Americans live in densly populated areas. Nonetheless, as I mentioned in another reply, there are a far greater number of small communities than there are large ones.
It's not about population, it's about surface area. Those smaller communities must be served as well, so fiber must be laid and maintained over great distances where, relatively speaking, no one lives to pay for it.
In my electric company example, the exact same principle applies. You may live 20 miles from the nearest community, yet (at least here in Illinois) you must be served with electricity. It costs quite a lot to set up those lines and keep them maintained, therefore, *everyone* in the area pays more than they would in larger metropolitan areas.
In context, fiber outside of population centers is free.
I'm not quite sure how you're coming to that conclusion (by comparison, perhaps?). Fiber is never free. Laying fiber isn't free, and maintaining what must be hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber most certainly isn't free. Whether it's telephone, data, cable, or electricity, it costs vendors more per capita to serve smaller communities. There are far more smaller communities than there are large ones and they must be served, even though they aren't nearly as cost-effective.
Why not just paint a big apple on the cover of your laptop?
OMG, I'M KIDDING!!! *Takes cover*
Broadband prices in the US might seem outrageous compared to other parts of the world, but consider this for a moment. This is probably a bit simplistic, but we have a significantly larger area of land to cover with fiber than Japan does.
United States = 3,618,770 sq. miles Japan = 147,500 sq. miles
3618770 / 147500 means the US is roughly 24.5 times larger than Japan
I pay about $35 for 1.5Mbps
24Mbps / 1.5Mbps = 16
16 * $35 = $560
$560 (what I'd theoretically pay for 24Mbps) / $30 (what Japan pays) = 18.7
So although our area is 24.5 times greater, our prices in this undoubtedly wildly inaccurate calculation are only 18.7 times greater.
Though the numbers no doubt could use a lot of work, I think the principle is solid. When I lived in the Chicago area, I paid about $30/mo. for very reliable electrical service. Now that I've moved back to the central region of the state (and thus far less densly populated), I pay 3-4 times that much for far less reliable service. It costs a lot of money to run cable, and the closer people are packed in, the easier and cheaper it is to get these types of services to them.
That is certainly true! No one is going to accuse Wikipedia of not being thorough any time soon, that's for sure.
Aww, you guys are just mad because a search for "slashdot" on Wikipedia turns up such gems as the following:
The Slashdot editors are sometimes accused of posting (and even preferring) stories that are, themselves, thinly-disguised trolls, which encourage large numbers of postings in response, and of accepting kickbacks to post certain stories
The site's slogan is "News for nerds, stuff that matters", but Slashdot is sometimes criticized for posting inaccurate, highly biased, and/or inflammatory story summaries that incite heated posting, as opposed to serious news or commentary (see Slashdot subculture).
True or not, this is certainly the most opinionated "encyclopedia" I've ever seen. I don't think it's likely to be taken as seriously (and rightly so) as resources such as Britannica so long as this is the case.
I thought I felt a few micrograms lighter. Now if only my waistline would shrink with it.
The director could draw on an image, and then play it back with the image moving underneath his drawing
Pfft. John Madden has been doing this for years!