Gore, Kerry, and both Clintons. They all saw the same intel. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for WMD, but he wasn't a liar. When the UN Security Council voted over 75 times, finding Iraq in violation of the cease-fire agreement, they weren't lying. When we found training manuals, storage facilities, and documentation on WMD, that wasn't a lie.
There were clearing WMD in Iraq. The intelligence communities of the entire fucking world all agreed on it. We have documents to show they existed.
Bush did fuck up. He didn't fuck up by lying about WMD. He fucked up by going on national television and telling Iraq that in two weeks we were going to invade and then look for them. Immediately after that, we saw a huge caravan of military trucks leaving Iraq going into Syria. Powell said most of the WMD were likely leaving before we got there, and we'd never find them now.
Imagine a scenario where the cops sent you an email saying they were going to raid your house in two weeks looking for weed. What are the chances they'd find weed two weeks later?
If you think Iran isn't pursing nukes now, I don't know what to tell you. Iran is bragging about missle launches. They are bragging about progress in nuclear technology. And last time I checked, the entire UN is saying Iran is developing nukes. But again, clearly in your world, these are all lies. In fact, the entire fucking world is all lying about the same thing. And you alone know the truth, despite no knowledge of the situation whatsoever.
So far he has pissed off military commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq by refusing to listen to their advice on how to best end conflicts in those nations.
He promised to improve relations with Iran, and yet Iran has said that Obama is worse than Bush. Yet, conversely, by giving creedence to Ahmadinejad, we have former (supposed) allies like France bashing us and calling us out.
Under Bush, Iran and North Korea gave us the finger and persued nukes. We were at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Under Obama, Iran and North Korea gave us the finger and persued nukes. We were at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Before 9/11, many Americans were ignorant of the fact that they are largely hated around the world. The media spun the situation, claiming the world hating Americans is a new phenomenon due only to Bush. Bush certainly didn't help our global image in many ways, but the media won't tell you how he preserved peace in Liberia, or how many people in Iraq thank him for being a liberator. They won't tell you that it was uncovered that many of our detractors (France, Germany, Russia) that didn't want us going into Iraq had something to hide, and were dealing weapons illegally to Saddam for oil.
They like to cover up that Bush at the G8 summit pledged to double our world-leading relief packages we send out. Even when we're hurting financially at home, we continue to send money around the globe, even to many countries who profess to hate us. We send relief to Palestine, despite being led by a terrorist organization at the moment, and despite the fact that on 9/11 people in Palestine were literally celebrating the deaths of innocent Americans.
Bush was a terrible speaker, and he made people uneasy by drawing lines in the sand. However, he wasn't Hitler. He wasn't a warmonger.
Obama isn't the second coming. He isn't the next Kennedy. He hasn't made the world love us.
Despite what the media claims, I think you'll find in the long run, they'll likely have similar legacies. Americans want immediate satisfaction. When Americans realize war doesn't end overnight, that the economy doesn't repair itself overnight, and that most things they elected Obama for won't happen overnight, they'll turn. His approval ratings are already really low.
He publicly blasts Washington for being selfish and corrupt, but he filled his cabinet with selfish and corrupt Washington politicians. The entire system (both parties) is pretty fucked up. In rooting for one party over the other blindly, we ignore the fact that none of these guys are serving us well. It is a disgrace. But people seem to enjoy the show.
Al Gore won a Novel PEACE Prize for reporting bad science.
Even if he had good intentions (we should pollute far less), he still did report plenty of bad science. I find it odd that the world is all bent out of shape convinced that human created carbon created Katrina, when we have no real-world evidence to prove that humans control the climate. Also, historical evidence has always shown that high carbon levels actually correspond with cooling periods, where as when carbon drops, the planet warms. We like to cover that up. Meanwhile, we ignore the fact that we do know CFCs, HCFCs, and such destroy ozone and fuck up the globe. We've known this forever, and do nothing to curtail CFC and HCFC levels. Riddle me this, Batman. Why are aerosol cans and styrofoam socially acceptable again?
He is also a massive hypocrite who makes good use of his private jet and massive personal energy usage.
We should not salute such people when there are honest pioneers of environmental awareness.
Not to mention that environmental awareness is a bit different from peace.
The problem with any discussion of Democrat and Republican platforms is that neither party even remotely espouses the supposed platforms they stand for.
You have supposed liberals championing for government control, censorship, and the removal of rights. (Clinton, Biden, Reid)
You have supposed fiscal conservatives handing out bushels of money left and right. (McCain and Bush)
Both parties voted for war. Both parties voted for massive bailouts. Both parties keep putting money in their pocket. Both parties voted for domestic spy programs. Both parties keep creating new federal bureaucracy without doing anything to really make our lives better.
At the end of the day, we need a certain dose of the Libertarians, who want less government and more personal freedom, except they're naive in thinking if we ignore the rest of the world, they'll ignore us.
6. WARRANTY DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY The System Software and the contents, programs, and services on or provided through the System Software, including Internet Features are provided "AS IS". SCE and its affiliated companies expressly disclaim any implied warranty of merchantability, warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and warranty of non-infringement.
SCE AND ITS AFFILIATED COMPANIES EXCLUDE ALL LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF PROFIT, OR ANY OTHER LOSS OR DAMAGE SUFFERED BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY, WHETHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL HOWEVER ARISING, AS A RESULT OF ACCESSING TO OR USING THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE OR ANY OF THE CONTENTS, PROGRAMS, FEATURES OR SERVICES ON OR PROVIDED THROUGH THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE. SO LONG AS THIS PROVISION IS ENFORCEABLE IN YOUR JURISDICTION, THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND DISCLAIMERS SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
The decent thing for Sony to do is pay up. However, they may not be legally required to do so. I'm not a lawyer or a judge. However, Sony's business practices here aren't really unheard of. If you brick a motherboard because a BIOS doesn't flash correctly to the EEPROM, and your motherboard is out of warranty, then you're screwed.
Certain projects shouldn't fork. Sun wouldn't open up Java for the longest time, because they didn't want forks of Java, and they didn't want to repeat what they went through with Microsoft.
I propose a new license that operates on a few basic principles.
1 - You can redistribute and modify the source code. 2 - You may compile the original source code, and even compile modified versions for personal use. 3 - You may not redistribute modified binaries.
In this scenario, users can compile themselves, test, fix bugs, write patches, etc. They can submit patches upstream, but upstream still largely controls the project and prevents major forks. You would still attract community developers.
I think a license like this would work well for Flash.
Sony doesn't force the update on anyone. You have to download it and install it yourself, agreeing to a legal disclaimer in the process.
So technically, Sony didn't break it. You did.
And if the console is still under warranty, they fix it. It it isn't under warranty, they charge. That is pretty standard as far as business practices go.
The decent thing would be for Sony to do all these repairs for free if they can tell the console was bricked by the update. But Sony isn't being particularly worse than most companies here.
Didn't the New York Stock Exchange move over to Linux because Microsoft couldn't provide a good, low-latency RT kernel? They begged Microsoft, wanted to stay with Microsoft, and Microsoft couldn't provide them with a solution.
I work for a newspaper. We've had plenty of layoffs, and we'll go down the drain as a typical newspaper. However, we don't touch fact-checkers and researchers because we're hoping to have a second life as a content company. We purchased just about every paper in Nebraska and Iowa and created a news service of our papers. We're already selling content.
I only read CNN.com these days. But let me look at the same list:
Wolf Blitzer: Don't watch TV, but quick Google searches show he has defended military action, is more concerned with Israeli relations, and has called out other people on CNN for being liberal. He suggested if you're liberal, you may not be a good Catholic. He sure sounds really liberal.
Anderson Cooper: Claims to be independent. I'm pulling up his blog, and on the first page he is criticizing Obama. Clearly, he is overtly liberal.
Campbell Brown: Appears to be liberal.
Lou Dobbs: Supported Bush, so he must be very liberal. The first few search results show Dobbs is a finance man first who has been extremely critical of Democrats on most issues.
Larry King: This is a guy I've watched a lot. He is an aging Jewish guy, not a huge market for liberals. But apparently in his auto-biography he is a self-professed liberal. That being said, his reporting and interviews seem to be pretty moderate/centrist.
John King appears to be a conservative, or enough that he is called out by liberals to be Cheney's puppy.
Fareed Zakaria is a self-professed liberal.
And on all the debate shows, CNN brings on people from both sides. You won't see MSNBC do that. Fox News will do that, but Fox News is extremely biased on the whole and makes little effort to hide their bias.
You look at CNN, you see people in the left, right and middle.
I work for a newspaper that is circling the drain. When I was hired, a VP (who later became our new CEO and Publisher) spoke to us and said that since radio and TV didn't kill the newspaper, then we shouldn't take the internet as a serious threat.
In reality, both radio and TV provided immediate news, but people still enjoyed turning to the morning paper for more in-depth coverage that neither radio nor TV seemed to provide. The internet was a different beast. It provided immediacy, in-depth coverage, and also allowed the end user to more easily and directly voice their opinions.
Print media was so naive, and arrogant that they refused to change until it was too late. Even now, most print media hasn't realized the err of their ways. I suggested in a meeting with our VP of Content Initiatives that we should do live chats, original video, blogs, user comments on stories, running diaries, etc. and was scoffed at.
Today, we have implemented all of those things except running diaries, but only after the paper started circling the drain.
Please point me to your collection of honest, fact-based blogs without editorial bias and a full-time staff of fact checkers. I'd honestly love to see them.
I have no qualms with new media emerging. It is just that all my friends honestly seem to prefer blogs because of their obvious bias.
CNN caries conservative commentators, liberal commentators, etc. CNN has perhaps shifted a bit more to the left in recent years, but CNN usually gives each side some air time. When we went back into Iraq, CNN was giving the White House's take, interviewing protesters, interviewing both parties in Congress, and even showing Al Jazeera's take.
I'll never forget during the Atlanta Olympics, I saw CNN do a story that there were reports Ted Turner hired people to physically man-handle the homeless, and forcibly move them outside the city before the Olympics. What amazed me was that Ted Turner owned CNN, and the network had the balls to report against their own boss.
Of course, Ted Turner is rich, and the homeless are not. So nothing happened with the story.
As someone who studied journalism for years, and work for a newspaper, it is very much the truth. The paper I work for is certainly conservative, but most print media is liberal. What amazes me is most of my friends insist that MSNBC has no slant, while most of my coworkers insist that Fox News has no slant.
When a certain media source matches your own particular views, people tend to think it isn't slanted because it tells you what you want to hear.
That doesn't mean it isn't slanted. Objective journalism is all but dead in this country, because biased news generates more income.
I know that is exactly what happened. But since the word Linux was replaced with Android, people got all confused and somehow think this proves that Android isn't open source.
If someone was taking Linux and illegally distributing proprietary, commercial Linux apps with it, they'd get a cease and desist. That doesn't mean that Linux isn't open source because you're prohibited from illegally distributing certain closed source apps with it.
It requires considerably more iron to run it than Wiki software, and the software licenses are very expensive.
We invested initially in Sharepoint, but can't afford to roll it out for the entire company.
Cheap is the last word I'd use to describe Sharepoint.
Depending on how and what you use Sharepoint for, companies should consider looking at MediaWiki and/or Alfresco for document storage, indexing, processing, sharing, etc.
Fedora also has been working on fast boot times as well.
Unfortunately, openSUSE (which has been my favorite distro) doesn't seem to have the same number of active developers it once had. And they haven't been working towards integrating the advancements that Ubuntu/Fedora have developed to speed up boot times.
Slashdot Mirror
You know who also said there were WMD in Iraq?
Gore, Kerry, and both Clintons. They all saw the same intel. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for WMD, but he wasn't a liar. When the UN Security Council voted over 75 times, finding Iraq in violation of the cease-fire agreement, they weren't lying. When we found training manuals, storage facilities, and documentation on WMD, that wasn't a lie.
There were clearing WMD in Iraq. The intelligence communities of the entire fucking world all agreed on it. We have documents to show they existed.
Bush did fuck up. He didn't fuck up by lying about WMD. He fucked up by going on national television and telling Iraq that in two weeks we were going to invade and then look for them. Immediately after that, we saw a huge caravan of military trucks leaving Iraq going into Syria. Powell said most of the WMD were likely leaving before we got there, and we'd never find them now.
Imagine a scenario where the cops sent you an email saying they were going to raid your house in two weeks looking for weed. What are the chances they'd find weed two weeks later?
If you think Iran isn't pursing nukes now, I don't know what to tell you. Iran is bragging about missle launches. They are bragging about progress in nuclear technology. And last time I checked, the entire UN is saying Iran is developing nukes. But again, clearly in your world, these are all lies. In fact, the entire fucking world is all lying about the same thing. And you alone know the truth, despite no knowledge of the situation whatsoever.
How likely is that scenario?
Put down the fucking kool-aid.
So far he has pissed off military commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq by refusing to listen to their advice on how to best end conflicts in those nations.
He promised to improve relations with Iran, and yet Iran has said that Obama is worse than Bush. Yet, conversely, by giving creedence to Ahmadinejad, we have former (supposed) allies like France bashing us and calling us out.
Under Bush, Iran and North Korea gave us the finger and persued nukes. We were at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Under Obama, Iran and North Korea gave us the finger and persued nukes. We were at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Before 9/11, many Americans were ignorant of the fact that they are largely hated around the world. The media spun the situation, claiming the world hating Americans is a new phenomenon due only to Bush. Bush certainly didn't help our global image in many ways, but the media won't tell you how he preserved peace in Liberia, or how many people in Iraq thank him for being a liberator. They won't tell you that it was uncovered that many of our detractors (France, Germany, Russia) that didn't want us going into Iraq had something to hide, and were dealing weapons illegally to Saddam for oil.
They like to cover up that Bush at the G8 summit pledged to double our world-leading relief packages we send out. Even when we're hurting financially at home, we continue to send money around the globe, even to many countries who profess to hate us. We send relief to Palestine, despite being led by a terrorist organization at the moment, and despite the fact that on 9/11 people in Palestine were literally celebrating the deaths of innocent Americans.
Bush was a terrible speaker, and he made people uneasy by drawing lines in the sand. However, he wasn't Hitler. He wasn't a warmonger.
Obama isn't the second coming. He isn't the next Kennedy. He hasn't made the world love us.
Despite what the media claims, I think you'll find in the long run, they'll likely have similar legacies. Americans want immediate satisfaction. When Americans realize war doesn't end overnight, that the economy doesn't repair itself overnight, and that most things they elected Obama for won't happen overnight, they'll turn. His approval ratings are already really low.
He publicly blasts Washington for being selfish and corrupt, but he filled his cabinet with selfish and corrupt Washington politicians. The entire system (both parties) is pretty fucked up. In rooting for one party over the other blindly, we ignore the fact that none of these guys are serving us well. It is a disgrace. But people seem to enjoy the show.
Al Gore won a Novel PEACE Prize for reporting bad science.
Even if he had good intentions (we should pollute far less), he still did report plenty of bad science. I find it odd that the world is all bent out of shape convinced that human created carbon created Katrina, when we have no real-world evidence to prove that humans control the climate. Also, historical evidence has always shown that high carbon levels actually correspond with cooling periods, where as when carbon drops, the planet warms. We like to cover that up. Meanwhile, we ignore the fact that we do know CFCs, HCFCs, and such destroy ozone and fuck up the globe. We've known this forever, and do nothing to curtail CFC and HCFC levels. Riddle me this, Batman. Why are aerosol cans and styrofoam socially acceptable again?
He is also a massive hypocrite who makes good use of his private jet and massive personal energy usage.
We should not salute such people when there are honest pioneers of environmental awareness.
Not to mention that environmental awareness is a bit different from peace.
The problem with any discussion of Democrat and Republican platforms is that neither party even remotely espouses the supposed platforms they stand for.
You have supposed liberals championing for government control, censorship, and the removal of rights. (Clinton, Biden, Reid)
You have supposed fiscal conservatives handing out bushels of money left and right. (McCain and Bush)
Both parties voted for war. Both parties voted for massive bailouts. Both parties keep putting money in their pocket. Both parties voted for domestic spy programs. Both parties keep creating new federal bureaucracy without doing anything to really make our lives better.
At the end of the day, we need a certain dose of the Libertarians, who want less government and more personal freedom, except they're naive in thinking if we ignore the rest of the world, they'll ignore us.
Both parties are all about money and big business.
Those are the facts. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
Then you agreed to this:
6. WARRANTY DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
The System Software and the contents, programs, and services on or provided through the System Software, including Internet Features are provided "AS IS". SCE and its affiliated companies expressly disclaim any implied warranty of merchantability, warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and warranty of non-infringement.
SCE AND ITS AFFILIATED COMPANIES EXCLUDE ALL LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF PROFIT, OR ANY OTHER LOSS OR DAMAGE SUFFERED BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY, WHETHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL HOWEVER ARISING, AS A RESULT OF ACCESSING TO OR USING THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE OR ANY OF THE CONTENTS, PROGRAMS, FEATURES OR SERVICES ON OR PROVIDED THROUGH THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE. SO LONG AS THIS PROVISION IS ENFORCEABLE IN YOUR JURISDICTION, THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND DISCLAIMERS SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
The decent thing for Sony to do is pay up. However, they may not be legally required to do so. I'm not a lawyer or a judge. However, Sony's business practices here aren't really unheard of. If you brick a motherboard because a BIOS doesn't flash correctly to the EEPROM, and your motherboard is out of warranty, then you're screwed.
Certain projects shouldn't fork. Sun wouldn't open up Java for the longest time, because they didn't want forks of Java, and they didn't want to repeat what they went through with Microsoft.
I propose a new license that operates on a few basic principles.
1 - You can redistribute and modify the source code.
2 - You may compile the original source code, and even compile modified versions for personal use.
3 - You may not redistribute modified binaries.
In this scenario, users can compile themselves, test, fix bugs, write patches, etc. They can submit patches upstream, but upstream still largely controls the project and prevents major forks. You would still attract community developers.
I think a license like this would work well for Flash.
Except I am playing my PS3 games just fine without the update.
Last night specifically I was playing MLB The Show.
As a PS3 owner who hasn't installed the 3.0 update, I can verify the article is wrong.
I haven't installed the 3.0 update. I just played my PS3 last night (MLB The Show). I watch movies on it just fine.
My PS3 is far from useless.
I haven't installed the update. I still play all my games just fine.
There is no forced decision.
Sony doesn't force the update on anyone. You have to download it and install it yourself, agreeing to a legal disclaimer in the process.
So technically, Sony didn't break it. You did.
And if the console is still under warranty, they fix it. It it isn't under warranty, they charge. That is pretty standard as far as business practices go.
The decent thing would be for Sony to do all these repairs for free if they can tell the console was bricked by the update. But Sony isn't being particularly worse than most companies here.
Didn't the New York Stock Exchange move over to Linux because Microsoft couldn't provide a good, low-latency RT kernel? They begged Microsoft, wanted to stay with Microsoft, and Microsoft couldn't provide them with a solution.
I work for a newspaper. We've had plenty of layoffs, and we'll go down the drain as a typical newspaper. However, we don't touch fact-checkers and researchers because we're hoping to have a second life as a content company. We purchased just about every paper in Nebraska and Iowa and created a news service of our papers. We're already selling content.
I only read CNN.com these days. But let me look at the same list:
Wolf Blitzer: Don't watch TV, but quick Google searches show he has defended military action, is more concerned with Israeli relations, and has called out other people on CNN for being liberal. He suggested if you're liberal, you may not be a good Catholic. He sure sounds really liberal.
Anderson Cooper: Claims to be independent. I'm pulling up his blog, and on the first page he is criticizing Obama. Clearly, he is overtly liberal.
Campbell Brown: Appears to be liberal.
Lou Dobbs: Supported Bush, so he must be very liberal. The first few search results show Dobbs is a finance man first who has been extremely critical of Democrats on most issues.
Larry King: This is a guy I've watched a lot. He is an aging Jewish guy, not a huge market for liberals. But apparently in his auto-biography he is a self-professed liberal. That being said, his reporting and interviews seem to be pretty moderate/centrist.
John King appears to be a conservative, or enough that he is called out by liberals to be Cheney's puppy.
Fareed Zakaria is a self-professed liberal.
And on all the debate shows, CNN brings on people from both sides. You won't see MSNBC do that. Fox News will do that, but Fox News is extremely biased on the whole and makes little effort to hide their bias.
You look at CNN, you see people in the left, right and middle.
I work for a newspaper that is circling the drain. When I was hired, a VP (who later became our new CEO and Publisher) spoke to us and said that since radio and TV didn't kill the newspaper, then we shouldn't take the internet as a serious threat.
In reality, both radio and TV provided immediate news, but people still enjoyed turning to the morning paper for more in-depth coverage that neither radio nor TV seemed to provide. The internet was a different beast. It provided immediacy, in-depth coverage, and also allowed the end user to more easily and directly voice their opinions.
Print media was so naive, and arrogant that they refused to change until it was too late. Even now, most print media hasn't realized the err of their ways. I suggested in a meeting with our VP of Content Initiatives that we should do live chats, original video, blogs, user comments on stories, running diaries, etc. and was scoffed at.
Today, we have implemented all of those things except running diaries, but only after the paper started circling the drain.
Blogs are better for trust?
Please point me to your collection of honest, fact-based blogs without editorial bias and a full-time staff of fact checkers. I'd honestly love to see them.
I have no qualms with new media emerging. It is just that all my friends honestly seem to prefer blogs because of their obvious bias.
CNN caries conservative commentators, liberal commentators, etc. CNN has perhaps shifted a bit more to the left in recent years, but CNN usually gives each side some air time. When we went back into Iraq, CNN was giving the White House's take, interviewing protesters, interviewing both parties in Congress, and even showing Al Jazeera's take.
I'll never forget during the Atlanta Olympics, I saw CNN do a story that there were reports Ted Turner hired people to physically man-handle the homeless, and forcibly move them outside the city before the Olympics. What amazed me was that Ted Turner owned CNN, and the network had the balls to report against their own boss.
Of course, Ted Turner is rich, and the homeless are not. So nothing happened with the story.
As someone who studied journalism for years, and work for a newspaper, it is very much the truth. The paper I work for is certainly conservative, but most print media is liberal. What amazes me is most of my friends insist that MSNBC has no slant, while most of my coworkers insist that Fox News has no slant.
When a certain media source matches your own particular views, people tend to think it isn't slanted because it tells you what you want to hear.
That doesn't mean it isn't slanted. Objective journalism is all but dead in this country, because biased news generates more income.
I know that is exactly what happened. But since the word Linux was replaced with Android, people got all confused and somehow think this proves that Android isn't open source.
I was trying to clarify the situation.
Why is the modded interesting?
Android is 100% open source.
It is possible to use non-OSS apps with Android.
If someone was taking Linux and illegally distributing proprietary, commercial Linux apps with it, they'd get a cease and desist. That doesn't mean that Linux isn't open source because you're prohibited from illegally distributing certain closed source apps with it.
It requires considerably more iron to run it than Wiki software, and the software licenses are very expensive.
We invested initially in Sharepoint, but can't afford to roll it out for the entire company.
Cheap is the last word I'd use to describe Sharepoint.
Depending on how and what you use Sharepoint for, companies should consider looking at MediaWiki and/or Alfresco for document storage, indexing, processing, sharing, etc.
Fedora also has been working on fast boot times as well.
Unfortunately, openSUSE (which has been my favorite distro) doesn't seem to have the same number of active developers it once had. And they haven't been working towards integrating the advancements that Ubuntu/Fedora have developed to speed up boot times.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/web_services_browser/daddy_did_you_break_the_web.html
Dean Hachamovitch here retells the tale, though I first read it in an article 3 years ago about the IE 7 launch.
You wouldn't happen to log in and post under you real name, would you?
No, you're an AC troll.
I take it you haven't seen this ad.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/878989144.html