Then they confuse correlation with causation. "The industrial age started the same time we see temperatures going up." Ok. Correlation.
You realize, of course, that in any field, causation is almost impossible to prove. If you have any idea of how to prove causation -- a concept which some philosophers have dismissed as an illusion or a broken model of primate reasoning which has no bearing on reality -- I am sure that the world at large would be extremely interested. I imagine there would be several prestigious awards for you and you could probably end up being a major historical figure!
No science can prove that one thing caused another. We can only demonstrate powerful correlations and draw from these our own theories about causation. Climate science and climate change has demonstrated these powerful correlations. Of course, we could be entirely mistaken, but there is some pretty solid evidence. But if we're going to focus on the "what if we're wrong" scenario, we might as well dismiss science altogether, because every bit of it is based on correlations, not proven causation. And in the case of climatology, we would also have to live with the consequences of that decision if we were right.
And then ignore all the times the temperature went up when the industrial age was still tens of thousands of years away. And then forget that science requires the ability to test hypotheses, like "if CO2 is causing the increase, taking the CO2 away will make it stop."
Really? Where are climatologists ignoring previous climate cycles? This claim has always completely baffled me. It's preposterous to claim that climatologists are ignoring climate cycles. They are fully aware of them. It's a major field of study. This is a convenient line of argument, because you can set up the straw man of the ignorant climatologist and easily topple it. But it's just that: a straw man. No climatologist is denying that there are natural climate cycles. Climatologists are well aware the current climate change fits within the natural cycle -- the issue is that human influence is altering the natural cycle. The climate is shifting more rapidly than ever before, and all the evidence points to this being a result of human activities. There is not a single climate scientist who doesn't believe in a natural cycle of ice ages and warm periods. Apparently, the simple belief that we would prefer the climate to remain as stable as possible and so reducing this human impact is a good idea makes climatologists deniers of, uh, climatology, which is the science that studies the historical climate cycles.
And there are testable hypothesis in climatology. There are models. There are controlled experiments at a smaller scale. There are temperature predictions, for example, the prediction that this will be the warmest decade on record. This will be proved true or false by the end of the year. But I guess it's easier to say "there are no testable hypothesis!!!1111oneonone" than, you know, actually bring them up and discuss which ones are out there, which ones have been proven correct, and which ones have been proven to be false.
One thing I will never understand is how people could come to the conclusion that the Earth is simply too vast for us to affect in significant way. Where have they been for the past hundred years?
Because the constitution isn't a listing of rights, but powers of the federal government. One of the objections to the bill of rights was that it would be interpreted as a complkete list, and look - that's what happened.
It's important to look behind the superficial arguments opposing the Bill of Rights and more deeply into what those who followed that line believed. The federalists, like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, were the ones making the argument that the Bill of Rights would be interpreted as a comprehensive list. This was not what they actually believed. This was pure misdirection. The federalists were opposed to the Bill of Rights because they favored a more powerful and centralized government. John Adams believed the British system of government was the best possible, king and all, and fought for America's system to be the same. Hamilton, John Jay, and the others followed this line to varying degrees. Naturally, as soon as they got into power, they started passing laws like the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to say bad things about the President. Adams arrested many anti-federalist newspaper editors under this law, flagrantly violating freedom of speech and expression.
The federalists were not actually opposed to the Bill of Rights because they feared it would limit the rights of the people to only those enumerated. They feared the Bill of Rights because it would limit the power of the government. The federalists were determined the stomp over the rights of the people to the greatest extent possible, as evidenced by laws like the Sedition Act. They were not looking out for people and freedom.
Political arguments in the past were no different than political arguments today. Context has to carefully be considered. The Bill of Rights preserved and enshrined the rights of the people, and they have done so time and again. We would have lost a lot without them.
How much more can we write about Louis Pasteur or the Treaty of Worms or Heilongjiang? Wikipedia has had a ton of stuff poured into it and doesn't really need new contributors. Not surprising they're trying to drive contributors off. One thing I've learned in life, when people are being dicks they're doing it for a reason that benefits them.
There's an unimaginably vast amount of useful information that could still be added to Wikipedia, and plenty of it is low-hanging fruit. The problem is not that new contributors don't have anything to contribute. The problem is that Wikipedia has become a vas and bureaucratic sprawling network of cliques. If you don't have the right friends, you're not going to have very much success in editing any article anybody cares about, whether such edits are substantive and informational or not. There will always be some rule or guideline that will be used against you. And this "inner circle", so to speak, is not interesting in adding material. The biggest way to "contribute" on Wikipedia for the past couple of years is to delete articles and raise the standards of notability to ridiculous levels.
Nobody is arguing that there should be Wikipedia pages on your local pizza joint or your brother Joe. We're talking about a standard of notability that basically amounts to if Some Administrator X hasn't heard of it, it isn't notable. As a result, plenty of useful and relatively notable pages disappear. The natural effect of this and wikilawyering is to drive contributors away. Check out the deletion logs for various pages, discussion pages, and the like. You can see this for yourself.
Deletionists are reaping what they sow. But that doesn't mean much, since this is what they wanted. They want a controlled online Brittanica, and that's what Wikipedia is turning into.
Another sad thing about this is that it forges Windows UI style to Linux and other OS, and stops being consistent with the rest of the system.
The Slashdot summary doesn't really make this clear, and the article of course assumes everyone is running on Windows, but this is incorrect. This is a Windows theme decision only; the Linux and OS X themes will still fit in with their platforms. You can see this here, the actual development documents linked to in the article.
That said, I find it hard to see how anyone can argue with Mozilla choosing to conform to the UI design standards of the Windows platform for the Windows version of Firefox. Seems to me they're making the correct decision. Would we want them to keep the OS 9 Firefox theme for the OS X version of Firefox?
Now you can go bicker in a wikipedia discussion about whether or not the article about this 'scandal' deserves to contain the word "unprecedented" in the title.
The scandal wasn't about the Bush administration replacing Department of Justice lawyers with their own appointees, as many Presidents have done before. The scandal was about the Bush Administration, particularly Gonzalez and Sampson, firing Bush-appointed lawyers who weren't "performing" well enough. There's a big difference. Especially since the DoJ is supposed to be nonpartisan, and the criterion for performance seemed to be whether or not you pursued indictments against Democrats before or after election-time.
Bush didn't clear house in the DoJ like previous Presidents had in an attempt for both sides to get along. Most of the prosecutors on this case were leftovers from Clinton.
Then what's up with this press release from the DoJ under Bush saying that a third had submitted their resignations by March 14th and the remaining lawyers were set to be "transitioned" by June? Why did Gonzalez's Chief of Staff claim they fired all the Clinton appointees, with most gone by April 2001?
The Department of Justice isn't supposed to be full of partisan hacks, and most of them aren't. Just because the case was against a prominent Republican Senator doesn't mean Democratic lawyers were on the case. That's why there was such a big hullaboo about the firings of DoJ lawyers for political reasons. Those lawyers were Bush appointees, and they were allegedly fired because they weren't going after enough Democrats.
It's not replayability, it's bragging rights. Always has been.
Exactly. For example, those less-than-six digiters now get in achievements to rub it in even more, as if the number accompanying their every post wasn't enough.:(
One day, I'll have a one-digit user ID. You all just wait.
Haley Barbour, former head of the RNC, that is. Again, party affiliation only gets mentioned when it makes Republicans look evil or Democrats look good. Note: I don't like either party. I just find the pattern to be interesting.
Haley Barbour never expressed anything but mild opposition to the bill. It was passed by overwhelming majorities, so even if he had had the will to veto something that apparently a lot of people support (which he has in the past -- we have the highest grocery tax in the nation, and it was proposed that we cut that and raise the cigarette tax. He vetoed that bill on the grounds that he said he wouldn't raise taxes.), it would just be overridden. That said, it was bipartisan. Almost nobody opposed it. So why should party affiliation be mentioned?
The most important shortcomings to me are:
1. No way to truly defeat this feature.
2. No way to control this feature. (i.e. displaying bookmarks)
3. No provision for clearing the Awesome Bar.
Then you'll be happy to know 1 and 2 are both fixed. I'm not sure what you mean by 3. You can delete whatever entries you want by hitting Delete. They've added the following about:config options in 3.1:
* browser.urlbar.match.title: Returns results that match the text in the title.
* browser.urlbar.match.url: Returns results that match the text in the URL.
* browser.urlbar.restrict.bookmark: Returns only results that are from the bookmarks.
* browser.urlbar.restrict.history: Returns only results that are from the browser's history.
* browser.urlbar.restrict.tag: Returns only results that have been tagged.
You can also prefix any address with @ to match it to URLs without going in in changing that option.
Yes -- I use the package manager, and I'm done. I was just trying to think back to the last two things I installed in Windows, and that was it. I noticed you ignored the Zune example.
I think, but I don't remember, Firefox still saves your downloads by default to the desktop in Ubuntu too. If not, you could explain maybe more like "open Konqueror (or whatever their filebrowser is), and then click on the Downloads folder". Gee, that's kind of like the Windows steps.;) There's no reason you have to enter in the uri manually, just like you don't have to do that in Windows.
And if the scenario is exactly as you describe it -- why is the perception different for Macs? After all, surely people sometimes want to download software that runs only on Windows and they don't know how to find it for OS X?
That has happened to me twice -- once because I wanted the newest Wine, and once because I wanted the latest Firefox beta. In the case of Wine, I followed these simple steps. In the case of the Firefox beta, I think I just copy and pasted some commands given by Mozilla. Neither one of those can begin to compare to the hoops I had to jump through to install the Zune software on Vista (I spent the better part of an hour googling a cryptic installation error, tried all of the Microsoft solutions, none of which worked, and then finally found I had to turn the Windows Firewall on) or the Silverlight addons for Visual Studio.
The App Store model, cheezy as it may be, works precisely because it's easy to find, easy to run, and easy to find & install applications. Linux doesn't have it yet. Having to spend hours Googling for what apps depend on what other apps, and how to install each of them in their own peculiar way, is largely what keeps Linux sidelined for now.
I am pretty sure that all modern Linux distributions come with a full-blown GUI frontend for their package management system that handles all of that for you. Here's how I install Application X on Ubuntu -- I go to Add/Remove Programs, scroll through the categories or search for Application X, select it, and click "install." Done. The problems you're talking about don't exist anymore.
Don't know what the hell they were thinking with that. I hope there's still some method of switching between tabs without reaching for the mouse.
You can still switch tabs with Ctrl+Tab, it's just the fancy effects to go along with it are gone, as well as it switching based on recency instead of order. It'll work the same way it does in Firefox 3. You can also switch between tabs with Ctrl+PageUp and Ctrl+PageDown.
I've not seen any proof of problems with ethics and accountability. There may be some questions but the e-mail hack put some of those questions to bed (though that didn't stop people from claiming it confirmed them). The biggest issue I see is that she's a woman who's attained a relatively high office and isn't beholden to the Feminist movement. They -can't- allow her to succeed. She's not cut from the right mold.
The bipartisan Alaska Legislative Council found that she abused her power and violated ethics laws in the so-called "Troopergate" scandal. Palin has been going around claiming that it clears her of any wrongdoing, but the report itself says:
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 2952.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
You can read the full report here. Also, the email hack did not put any questions to bed. Some of them in the hacked account do appear to have been illegally conducting government business, but either way, we haven't seen all of the emails in that account, and that specific account was not even the one she was accused of using to conduct government activity with. She had two Yahoo accounts, kind of like she's under multiple investigations.
This is outrageous! I don't think I can vote for the Senator running for president that voted for that bill that goes completely the wrong way on copyright reform, so I guess I'll have to vote for
The Senate vote was unanimous
Damn.
I wonder if any of the third party candidates opposed this bill...
All the major actions on the bill took place Friday, when McCain and Obama were out campaigning/on their way to the debate. I can't find any list of the absent Senators, but I think it's likely they were among them -- although, of course, you may feel the same way about Senators who could have voted against a bill but were out doing other things.
(That said, the stealther should get some bug fixes. It doesn't remove whole history but if visiting example.com and example2.com before putting it on, then visiting example2.com and example3.com and turning it off again, example 2 has been removed from history, etc.)
Stealther has deleted my entire history/downloads/saved form information/etc on several occasions, and judging by the reviews, I'm not alone. I think that's caused by leaving it on when closing the browser (which would explain why some people seem to have no problems), but I'm not really willing to lose all my browsing information again.
That *isn't* a normal notebook. That is a high-medium to high performance notebook. For everyone else they are lucky to get 2 GB of RAM and a dual-core CPU. Of course Vista will run on it, but XP or Linux is going to run like 10 times better on the thing.
I have a Dell Inspiron 1520 with 2GB RAM, and Vista runs very fast; I've never detected any discernible lag. It takes a few seconds longer to boot than Kubuntu, but my applications open much, much faster on Vista. Kubuntu definitely does not run 10x better than Vista on my laptop. It would be generous to say it runs 1x as fast.
I think the point was that everybody wanted the Mac, so nobody even tried to crack either of the other machines until the Mac was claimed.
First of all, you don't know this. Second of all, that doesn't explain why neither the Windows or Linux boxes were hacked until the next day, after the rules changed to make it easier. So even if it was that they were all going after the Mac first, why didn't anybody succeed with the other computers for the rest of the day?
He's on the Senate committee that is responsible for them. He's going to vote for it, you can be assured.
McCain voted for telecom immunity the first time around, so it would indeed be pretty hard to imagine him not voting for it now, especially with him ramping up his pro-administration rhetoric more and more, lately. His campaign has issued multiple statements that McCain wholeheartedly endorses telecom immunity. Here's to hoping Obama actually votes against this, and the Senate does something to block it -- although I doubt it, since the Senate is split evenly (49-49) between Democrats and Republicans, and most of the Democrats don't have the spine to be seen voting against something that's PROTECTING US AGAINST TERRORISTS OMG.
Luckily it's getting better, perhaps one day... (BTW, it's possible that all of this is, in some way, already possible and I missed it:) - didn't have much incentive to check often how bookmarks are implemented...). I've heard next version of FF will rethink bookmarks... (FF3 was supposed to do that but the idea was pushed later?)
Actually, it was supposed to be in Firefox 2, and was pushed back to Firefox 3. Firefox 3 has one-click bookmarking, although you have to double-click the star icon to add information to a bookmark. That extra dialog pops up as a little box that obscures a small part of the webpage, and you can add your short description and tags using only tab. It sounds like it includes much of what you want, but not quite everything.
Actually the side who filibusters is the side with the minority, since they are trying to prevent measures they know will lose to coming to vote. So logically the side that filibusters the most in recent years should be the side that couldn't win with voting power in the most recent years.
You're perfectly right, but the Republicans have shattered the all-time filibustering record this session. Virtually every bill that's gone through the Senate has been filibustered, which is partly why nothing gets done -- almost every bill requires 60 votes to pass the Senate.
Oh, and guess who set the previous record? The Republicans, the last time they were the minority.
I have Vista too, and I mostly agree with his assessment. The "nag screens" come up rarely, probably less often than I get a sudo prompt in Kubuntu (which I dual boot.) While Linux boots slightly faster, in my experience, Vista is much faster once it is running. I guess this makes me an astroturfer too? Originally, I had planned to wipe Vista, because all I heard was bad things. I was pleasantly surprised. Personally, I think it's the best Windows yet, as far as that goes.
I understand that some people do have serious problems with it, but it's not this all-horrible failure it's made out to be.
URLs are the key to http IMO - they're the ones to keep in memory as they're unique, unlike page titles and bookmarks. When I type "sla" in the address bar, I want slashdot.org, not some random blog post with the term 'slashdot' in the title I happened to pass by at some point.
It learns from past behavior, so once you go to Slashdot a couple of times via that method, you'll get slashdot.org. That said, I agree with you that the old functionality should be there too.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize, of course, that in any field, causation is almost impossible to prove. If you have any idea of how to prove causation -- a concept which some philosophers have dismissed as an illusion or a broken model of primate reasoning which has no bearing on reality -- I am sure that the world at large would be extremely interested. I imagine there would be several prestigious awards for you and you could probably end up being a major historical figure!
No science can prove that one thing caused another. We can only demonstrate powerful correlations and draw from these our own theories about causation. Climate science and climate change has demonstrated these powerful correlations. Of course, we could be entirely mistaken, but there is some pretty solid evidence. But if we're going to focus on the "what if we're wrong" scenario, we might as well dismiss science altogether, because every bit of it is based on correlations, not proven causation. And in the case of climatology, we would also have to live with the consequences of that decision if we were right.
Really? Where are climatologists ignoring previous climate cycles? This claim has always completely baffled me. It's preposterous to claim that climatologists are ignoring climate cycles. They are fully aware of them. It's a major field of study. This is a convenient line of argument, because you can set up the straw man of the ignorant climatologist and easily topple it. But it's just that: a straw man. No climatologist is denying that there are natural climate cycles. Climatologists are well aware the current climate change fits within the natural cycle -- the issue is that human influence is altering the natural cycle. The climate is shifting more rapidly than ever before, and all the evidence points to this being a result of human activities. There is not a single climate scientist who doesn't believe in a natural cycle of ice ages and warm periods. Apparently, the simple belief that we would prefer the climate to remain as stable as possible and so reducing this human impact is a good idea makes climatologists deniers of, uh, climatology, which is the science that studies the historical climate cycles.
And there are testable hypothesis in climatology. There are models. There are controlled experiments at a smaller scale. There are temperature predictions, for example, the prediction that this will be the warmest decade on record. This will be proved true or false by the end of the year. But I guess it's easier to say "there are no testable hypothesis!!!1111oneonone" than, you know, actually bring them up and discuss which ones are out there, which ones have been proven correct, and which ones have been proven to be false.
One thing I will never understand is how people could come to the conclusion that the Earth is simply too vast for us to affect in significant way. Where have they been for the past hundred years?
It's important to look behind the superficial arguments opposing the Bill of Rights and more deeply into what those who followed that line believed. The federalists, like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, were the ones making the argument that the Bill of Rights would be interpreted as a comprehensive list. This was not what they actually believed. This was pure misdirection. The federalists were opposed to the Bill of Rights because they favored a more powerful and centralized government. John Adams believed the British system of government was the best possible, king and all, and fought for America's system to be the same. Hamilton, John Jay, and the others followed this line to varying degrees. Naturally, as soon as they got into power, they started passing laws like the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to say bad things about the President. Adams arrested many anti-federalist newspaper editors under this law, flagrantly violating freedom of speech and expression.
The federalists were not actually opposed to the Bill of Rights because they feared it would limit the rights of the people to only those enumerated. They feared the Bill of Rights because it would limit the power of the government. The federalists were determined the stomp over the rights of the people to the greatest extent possible, as evidenced by laws like the Sedition Act. They were not looking out for people and freedom.
Political arguments in the past were no different than political arguments today. Context has to carefully be considered. The Bill of Rights preserved and enshrined the rights of the people, and they have done so time and again. We would have lost a lot without them.
There's an unimaginably vast amount of useful information that could still be added to Wikipedia, and plenty of it is low-hanging fruit. The problem is not that new contributors don't have anything to contribute. The problem is that Wikipedia has become a vas and bureaucratic sprawling network of cliques. If you don't have the right friends, you're not going to have very much success in editing any article anybody cares about, whether such edits are substantive and informational or not. There will always be some rule or guideline that will be used against you. And this "inner circle", so to speak, is not interesting in adding material. The biggest way to "contribute" on Wikipedia for the past couple of years is to delete articles and raise the standards of notability to ridiculous levels.
Nobody is arguing that there should be Wikipedia pages on your local pizza joint or your brother Joe. We're talking about a standard of notability that basically amounts to if Some Administrator X hasn't heard of it, it isn't notable. As a result, plenty of useful and relatively notable pages disappear. The natural effect of this and wikilawyering is to drive contributors away. Check out the deletion logs for various pages, discussion pages, and the like. You can see this for yourself.
Deletionists are reaping what they sow. But that doesn't mean much, since this is what they wanted. They want a controlled online Brittanica, and that's what Wikipedia is turning into.
It's the warm smell of colitas, a plant, not of coitus. ;)
The Slashdot summary doesn't really make this clear, and the article of course assumes everyone is running on Windows, but this is incorrect. This is a Windows theme decision only; the Linux and OS X themes will still fit in with their platforms. You can see this here, the actual development documents linked to in the article.
That said, I find it hard to see how anyone can argue with Mozilla choosing to conform to the UI design standards of the Windows platform for the Windows version of Firefox. Seems to me they're making the correct decision. Would we want them to keep the OS 9 Firefox theme for the OS X version of Firefox?
The scandal wasn't about the Bush administration replacing Department of Justice lawyers with their own appointees, as many Presidents have done before. The scandal was about the Bush Administration, particularly Gonzalez and Sampson, firing Bush-appointed lawyers who weren't "performing" well enough. There's a big difference. Especially since the DoJ is supposed to be nonpartisan, and the criterion for performance seemed to be whether or not you pursued indictments against Democrats before or after election-time.
Then what's up with this press release from the DoJ under Bush saying that a third had submitted their resignations by March 14th and the remaining lawyers were set to be "transitioned" by June? Why did Gonzalez's Chief of Staff claim they fired all the Clinton appointees, with most gone by April 2001?
The Department of Justice isn't supposed to be full of partisan hacks, and most of them aren't. Just because the case was against a prominent Republican Senator doesn't mean Democratic lawyers were on the case. That's why there was such a big hullaboo about the firings of DoJ lawyers for political reasons. Those lawyers were Bush appointees, and they were allegedly fired because they weren't going after enough Democrats.
Exactly. For example, those less-than-six digiters now get in achievements to rub it in even more, as if the number accompanying their every post wasn't enough. :(
One day, I'll have a one-digit user ID. You all just wait.
Haley Barbour never expressed anything but mild opposition to the bill. It was passed by overwhelming majorities, so even if he had had the will to veto something that apparently a lot of people support (which he has in the past -- we have the highest grocery tax in the nation, and it was proposed that we cut that and raise the cigarette tax. He vetoed that bill on the grounds that he said he wouldn't raise taxes.), it would just be overridden. That said, it was bipartisan. Almost nobody opposed it. So why should party affiliation be mentioned?
Then you'll be happy to know 1 and 2 are both fixed. I'm not sure what you mean by 3. You can delete whatever entries you want by hitting Delete. They've added the following about:config options in 3.1:
* browser.urlbar.match.title: Returns results that match the text in the title.
* browser.urlbar.match.url: Returns results that match the text in the URL.
* browser.urlbar.restrict.bookmark: Returns only results that are from the bookmarks.
* browser.urlbar.restrict.history: Returns only results that are from the browser's history.
* browser.urlbar.restrict.tag: Returns only results that have been tagged.
You can also prefix any address with @ to match it to URLs without going in in changing that option.
I think, but I don't remember, Firefox still saves your downloads by default to the desktop in Ubuntu too. If not, you could explain maybe more like "open Konqueror (or whatever their filebrowser is), and then click on the Downloads folder". Gee, that's kind of like the Windows steps. ;) There's no reason you have to enter in the uri manually, just like you don't have to do that in Windows.
And if the scenario is exactly as you describe it -- why is the perception different for Macs? After all, surely people sometimes want to download software that runs only on Windows and they don't know how to find it for OS X?
What if it's not in the App Store?
That has happened to me twice -- once because I wanted the newest Wine, and once because I wanted the latest Firefox beta. In the case of Wine, I followed these simple steps. In the case of the Firefox beta, I think I just copy and pasted some commands given by Mozilla. Neither one of those can begin to compare to the hoops I had to jump through to install the Zune software on Vista (I spent the better part of an hour googling a cryptic installation error, tried all of the Microsoft solutions, none of which worked, and then finally found I had to turn the Windows Firewall on) or the Silverlight addons for Visual Studio.
I am pretty sure that all modern Linux distributions come with a full-blown GUI frontend for their package management system that handles all of that for you. Here's how I install Application X on Ubuntu -- I go to Add/Remove Programs, scroll through the categories or search for Application X, select it, and click "install." Done. The problems you're talking about don't exist anymore.
Actually, passing Acid3 at this point apparently means supporting the standard wrongly because of a recent change in the spec. I think that illustrates why we shouldn't rely on tests like the Acid Tests too much when determining standards compatibility.
You can still switch tabs with Ctrl+Tab, it's just the fancy effects to go along with it are gone, as well as it switching based on recency instead of order. It'll work the same way it does in Firefox 3. You can also switch between tabs with Ctrl+PageUp and Ctrl+PageDown.
The bipartisan Alaska Legislative Council found that she abused her power and violated ethics laws in the so-called "Troopergate" scandal. Palin has been going around claiming that it clears her of any wrongdoing, but the report itself says:
You can read the full report here. Also, the email hack did not put any questions to bed. Some of them in the hacked account do appear to have been illegally conducting government business, but either way, we haven't seen all of the emails in that account, and that specific account was not even the one she was accused of using to conduct government activity with. She had two Yahoo accounts, kind of like she's under multiple investigations.
All the major actions on the bill took place Friday, when McCain and Obama were out campaigning/on their way to the debate. I can't find any list of the absent Senators, but I think it's likely they were among them -- although, of course, you may feel the same way about Senators who could have voted against a bill but were out doing other things.
Stealther has deleted my entire history/downloads/saved form information/etc on several occasions, and judging by the reviews, I'm not alone. I think that's caused by leaving it on when closing the browser (which would explain why some people seem to have no problems), but I'm not really willing to lose all my browsing information again.
I have a Dell Inspiron 1520 with 2GB RAM, and Vista runs very fast; I've never detected any discernible lag. It takes a few seconds longer to boot than Kubuntu, but my applications open much, much faster on Vista. Kubuntu definitely does not run 10x better than Vista on my laptop. It would be generous to say it runs 1x as fast.
First of all, you don't know this. Second of all, that doesn't explain why neither the Windows or Linux boxes were hacked until the next day, after the rules changed to make it easier. So even if it was that they were all going after the Mac first, why didn't anybody succeed with the other computers for the rest of the day?
McCain voted for telecom immunity the first time around, so it would indeed be pretty hard to imagine him not voting for it now, especially with him ramping up his pro-administration rhetoric more and more, lately. His campaign has issued multiple statements that McCain wholeheartedly endorses telecom immunity. Here's to hoping Obama actually votes against this, and the Senate does something to block it -- although I doubt it, since the Senate is split evenly (49-49) between Democrats and Republicans, and most of the Democrats don't have the spine to be seen voting against something that's PROTECTING US AGAINST TERRORISTS OMG.
Actually, it was supposed to be in Firefox 2, and was pushed back to Firefox 3. Firefox 3 has one-click bookmarking, although you have to double-click the star icon to add information to a bookmark. That extra dialog pops up as a little box that obscures a small part of the webpage, and you can add your short description and tags using only tab. It sounds like it includes much of what you want, but not quite everything.
You're perfectly right, but the Republicans have shattered the all-time filibustering record this session. Virtually every bill that's gone through the Senate has been filibustered, which is partly why nothing gets done -- almost every bill requires 60 votes to pass the Senate.
Oh, and guess who set the previous record? The Republicans, the last time they were the minority.
I have Vista too, and I mostly agree with his assessment. The "nag screens" come up rarely, probably less often than I get a sudo prompt in Kubuntu (which I dual boot.) While Linux boots slightly faster, in my experience, Vista is much faster once it is running. I guess this makes me an astroturfer too? Originally, I had planned to wipe Vista, because all I heard was bad things. I was pleasantly surprised. Personally, I think it's the best Windows yet, as far as that goes.
I understand that some people do have serious problems with it, but it's not this all-horrible failure it's made out to be.
It learns from past behavior, so once you go to Slashdot a couple of times via that method, you'll get slashdot.org. That said, I agree with you that the old functionality should be there too.