Stalingrad Enemy At the Gates came close, maybe in it's first 10 minutes. After that, Hollywood falls far short of the horror and what really happened (as much as I can tell from reading this fascinating retelling of the battle for Stalingrad)...
There's been an ongoing debate among us about which is the better history. On the one side Dave, Rick, and others favor the dry academic 'cause and effect' of macroeconomics and political philosophy that lead to the World War 1914-1945. Others among us push for the 'real story', the oral tradition of the grunt soldier's pains and trials from the trench in the actual battle-- it doesn't matter how the forces got there, the drama of the day comes from a baker holding a rifle.
Stalingrad mixes both, but in an acceptable fashion: Beevor rightly frames his story around the causes and impetus behind Hitler's folly and Stalin's incompetence, but then follows those mishaps all the way down to how they drew 500,000 men in the German 6th army to starvation and death in the steppes of the Volga.
This is not an easy read. Do not try it if you have a fear of lice, rot, cold, or desparate hopelessness-- you will feel them as you read.
Beevor's foreshadowing was sometimes distracting, but then, as the reader, I had to tell myself that it was only foreshadowing because I didn't know the details of the battle-- this is history, not fiction. The author draws us to seminal mistakes in judgement, crucial firefights that end up dooming thousands later on, the chaos of war that brings entropy-- and death-- to millions.
I saw "Pando" a grove of Aspen that is now acknowledged as the largest living creature on earth. It is in the mountains in central Utah, where I used to work as a tour guide.
by any stretch of the imagination, in fact there are probably numerous untold exploits available for this software. Its just a matter of time, as with any opensource product.
And let`s also remember that _because_ it is open source, we now have thousands of developers who can view the code, find potential exploits, and then propose patches, QUICKLY and WITHOUT BIAS. Unfortunately, for patches to the same styled exploits that would exist in a closed source networking protocol, we would need to depend on a small team of developers under a common management structure (one pointy haired boss = single point of failure).
Open Source != secure Open Source == better method toward security
Where does the "art" enter into this? Are you we to assume that the DJs who are varnishing, scratching, and otherwise farking up the media actually know what they will get when they do this, or are they just screwing around and hoping something comes out?
I realize this is the natural progression from Jimi setting his guitar on fire-- but you won`t catch me at a concert.
Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech, "To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT. Unfortunately, due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals."
Yeah, they delivered pizza in the greater cambridge area, including a couple of visits to the math labs at MIT.
I don`t think slashdot is the most productive place for this kind of debate. I welcome your arguments-- refreshingly clear and well-thought (rare on slashdot, I think we can agree on that).
Please come pitch your case on a href="http://www.thought-control.org">http://www.t hought-control.org. Post your article, and we can debate there
Explain me a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Bush keeps referring to it, yet there's no link whatsoever!
There may be no direct link, but that`s not the direct point (IMHO). The logic behind it (for me) is as follows:
Terrorism, based on fundamentalist extremism, will always exist in certain people`s hearts
That terrorism is limited to goofballs bombing a volkswagen or `small scale` incidents unless they receive major funding, logistical support, intel, and backing
Certain states, with abolute dictatorial powers (therefore no responsibility to their citizens or the wider community of nation-states), were willing to back such terrorists, or at least fascilitate their actions
Once you match up #1 and #3, bad things happen on a much larger and more dangerous scale. Because OBL had Afgani resources at his disposal, 9-11 was made much easier for him.
OBL obviously fits #1 listed. Iraq fit #3 listed. While no linkage directly existed, the possibility of mixing OBL together with Iraqi bio- and chemical weapons was too much of a risk.
I would prefer it be very difficult to kill people in general. That way, we'd only do it when we really needed to.
Everyone prefers not to kill (except the murderous bastards). This is a straw-man position, and politically naive.
If you look at history, anytime one side was able to kill the other without having to really risk themselves, the shitty side of history results -- genocide, oppression, etc. Just because it's your side that happens to have the better guns, tech, germs or whatever doesn't mean it's a Good Thing.
No, if you look at history, shitty things happen all the time. There is evidence to the contrary: when forces are balanced, then only the tension builds, not the solution (eventually the tension breaks with very bad results: UK-DE before WWI, US-JP before WWII, UK-FR 100 years war, GR-Persia...). The only time peace occurs is when overwhelming force exists on one side (the benevolent side).
Hell, look at us: We've been way out ahead for, what, 20 years now and already we're invading other nations so our political leaders can distract the masses from economic problems or the fact that they can't stop terrorism (70% of Americans believe Iraq sponsored 9-11, and why not? They're ay-rabs, ain't they?).
How does political trolling like this get modded up to +5?
Anyhow, I understand that we live in reality and that these things happen. I just don't think that most geeks would want to be a part of it if they really thought it over, which is why I said what I did.
"Most geeks" is a spurious term. If you think they are all left-leaning pinkos, you`re wrong. If you think they`re Edvard Teller madmen, you`re wrong. Geeks are all over the spectrum. I would imagine there are some geeks who lost their brothers/fathers/sisters/mothers in 9-11, and would have no qualms in putting the hurt on some goat-farking terrorist camp via remote control.
This could be a break for Sun Microsystems though if they would do something with Solaris under x86 ala Linux or BSD. (freely downloadable I meant to say).
Why would Sun want to make Solaris freely available? Why would Brasil want to buy more proprietary hardware from the US? You`ve missed the whole point of what Brasil is trying to do here: native support, native distro, native jobs and IT industry.
Even open source leaders like Red Hat, who do make source code available, stand to benefit little immediately: the native-blood syndrome is too strong.
I would imagine that Brasil is more than willing to go `low-tech` on some of their infrastructure as long as it is free or homegrown: they don`t need Lotus notes, email will do; they don`t need Oracle 9i, PostGreSQL will do, etc.
Frankly, smart cards shouldn't be on that list, as the intended use(storing money on the card) has not been perfected against people hacking the card for more money.
So does cold hard cash. Instead of a card-reader, the bad guy just needs a knife. Are you saying we shouldn't use cash, because it isn't "secure"?
Smart cards trust the "client", and as any MMORPG developer can tell you, that's a bad thing.
Again, so does cash. All money trusts the 'client' to a certain extent: your bank account has a big gaping hole with your PIN and account number.
Paper money and credit cards at least have some protection, smart cards on the other hand are a relitively easy fraud source for anyone with a card writer, and the resources to use it; unlike any other method, you end up with a perfect "digital copy" of the money.
Well, anyone with a half-decent digital printer can roll his own Jacksons and Franklins. Again, the law is the law, and the men in suits will find you no matter your "method" of crime.
Sundance does not exist to forward any agenda except Robert Redfords. The reason that there is no "Gun ownership of white people movies" is because they don't try hard enough. Maybe it's because they don't make good movies.
How do you reconcile those two sentences? a) If Sundance (I used to live there too) exists for Robert Redford's agenda, then you've just echoed my original point. So, I return to my original post.
b) How do we know if they make good movies or not? With the Redford agenda in place, we can never know.
Look, I am not trying to be racist, personally attacking you, or be 'boorish' or 'low character'. There is no way to compare who, between us, is more cultured. We could compare resumes, book lists, language abilities, movie trivia-- it's all subjective. The very fact that you use terms such as 'boorish' and 'low character' show that you are aware of this (and think of yourself of some higher grade, as do all people except maybe Tom Arnold).
I am simply pointing out an existing bias at Sundance. There is nothing wrong with bias-- all subjective competitions have a bias (or collection of biases) at their center. As such, Star Wars ASCII doesn't fit the set of biases that exist at Sundance. I would think that you could agree to that.
You really need to get out from in front of that dead interface and go outside and see real life, buddy. Inject some new code into that aging architecture. True independence exists because the proper channels are closed to legitimate pursuers.
1. I am not your 'buddy'. Paully Shore is probably a better candidate for that.
2. I experience plenty of outside life. I've lived in 5 different countries in the last two years, and well... let's not get in a pissing contest there.
3. You've missed my point: Sundance Film Festival was originally created by Mr Redford as a venue for independent film for young talent that couldn't get a shot in Hollywood. To a large degree if fills that mission. However, there is also a PC cluture among the selection crew that favors certain themes. To wit: a film that promoted gun ownership or white people or whatever non-PC topic you can think wouldn't stand a chance at Sundance, even if the film was genius in structure, and "shut out" from Hollywood (ala the original mission of Sundance).
"Is This NASA?!?" "Yes-- how did you get this number?" "Shut UP! Listen-- I'm sick and tired of your boring launches and stupid bug experiments and... hang on..." [toilet flushes in background] "... anyway. hey!"
Okay... I'll bite.
Really? This statement is thrown about as if it's as obvious as stateing hte sky is blue. But do you really have proof of this?
Only what the market shows: most major research and heavy computing projects are done on Linux clusters, not Windows clusters. Linux is a good substitute for mass calculations that were previously performed on *NIX mainframes, but now handled by Linux clusters. If this isn't proof, I don't know what is.
I can do everything with my Windows box that I can do with my BSD box. It's also JUST as stable. Neither system crashes for me. I leave both on 24/7.
good for you. I never mentioned anything about stability. You're the one introducing sterotypes here. I will note from my personal experience that Windows chokes for me about once a month, while my Linux boxes have yet to crash (2+ years and counting).
I have no doubt you can 'do everything' on your windows box that you can on your BSD box. if you read my post again, that was my point: M$ will try to move the argument into "end user functionality" and away from raw lifting power, server consolidation, TCO, or stability.
This is the same as all open source claims to fame. Another good one is that open source has less bugs. I've not found this to be true.
Good, because it isn't. I don't think any rational developer thinks there are _less_ bugs in Linux, but that they are more transparent and _fixed much more quickly_. There is a wealth of antecdotal evidence toward this.
If you compare closed source with open source software of equal complexity both seem to have plenty of bugs. Sure, the open source bugs are fixed immediately, in CVS, but no doubt so are the closed source bugs.
Oops. That's where you and I part ways. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT the closed source bugs are fixed right away-- first of all, no one may know they are there (because we cannot see the source), and it falls to the company to fix them once found (if and when that company feels like getting around to it). How can you bandy around such and equivocation that open source and closed source bug fixes are fixed at the same rate? Now it is my turn to ask for proof...
Neither are particularly usefull to me as an end user. I don't want to run development code.
Neither do I. Again, read my post. You sound perfect for their lab.
And even when fixes are backported, open source software tends to cause me to recompile.
Hrmmm.. Red Hat Network could solve that for you.
I'd really like to see the open source community provide the proof of their claims as they continually chide others for not haveing.
Proof is in the pudding. Linux is gaining marketshare. M$ sees a threat. q.e.d.
From the article: "The end-to-end scenarios is where things don't work quite as well with Linux"
I would wager that they are going to simply let business customers loose in the environment, and those PHB will try to do the same plug-and-play things they are used to doing: downloading software off the internet, drag-and-drop spreadsheet into word, find servers across a network...
The key here, and what M$ is banking on, is their GUI, and their idiot-level engineering (clippy being the extreme example). No one will go down to a terminal to do their file transfers or configure a network, they will all want to compare GUIs and wizards. Admittedly, M$ has an edge of Linux on this.
Were they to compare raw computing power and stability, they would lose-- and they know that. This is about spin: M$ will spin the comparisons to their advantages (just like anyone would).
yeah-- i agree. But it was faster to simply reboot the machine into windows and do it the way thier manual said, rather than hunt for software to do the IP over USB (this was all in Japanese)...
With such an overt political appointment, the RIAA may have just committed a tactical error: now they are seen as sitting on one side of the bench, whereas before they were seen as a 'legitimate' lobbying group for a powerful industry.
This may affect several points: 1. Yes, the GOP is in power, but Hollywood and the Music industry are standard DEM strongholds. They may not like their new boy, or at least won't invite him to the parties at Rob Reiner's house.
2. They have now unzipped their fly, and are acting pretty brazenly partisan with such a move. This will turn many democrats in congress into automatic defense mode, who may slow legislation down 'just because'.
3. In the end, Bush & Co. may end up having to choose between supporting a major US export (entertainment) vs. giving money to those 'liberal jack-offs in hollywood'-- depending on what Karl Rove says about electoral trends, that could break either way.
Slashdot Mirror
Stalingrad
Enemy At the Gates came close, maybe in it's first 10 minutes. After that, Hollywood falls far short of the horror and what really happened (as much as I can tell from reading this fascinating retelling of the battle for Stalingrad)...
There's been an ongoing debate among us about which is the better history. On the one side Dave, Rick, and others favor the dry academic 'cause and effect' of macroeconomics and political philosophy that lead to the World War 1914-1945. Others among us push for the 'real story', the oral tradition of the grunt soldier's pains and trials from the trench in the actual battle-- it doesn't matter how the forces got there, the drama of the day comes from a baker holding a rifle.
Stalingrad mixes both, but in an acceptable fashion: Beevor rightly frames his story around the causes and impetus behind Hitler's folly and Stalin's incompetence, but then follows those mishaps all the way down to how they drew 500,000 men in the German 6th army to starvation and death in the steppes of the Volga.
This is not an easy read. Do not try it if you have a fear of lice, rot, cold, or desparate hopelessness-- you will feel them as you read.
Beevor's foreshadowing was sometimes distracting, but then, as the reader, I had to tell myself that it was only foreshadowing because I didn't know the details of the battle-- this is history, not fiction. The author draws us to seminal mistakes in judgement, crucial firefights that end up dooming thousands later on, the chaos of war that brings entropy-- and death-- to millions.
I highly recommend this book.
(review originally appeared here
I saw "Pando" a grove of Aspen that is now acknowledged as the largest living creature on earth. It is in the mountains in central Utah, where I used to work as a tour guide.
opensource != secure
Thanks Egan, good safety tip.
by any stretch of the imagination, in fact there are probably numerous untold exploits available for this software. Its just a matter of time, as with any opensource product.
And let`s also remember that _because_ it is open source, we now have thousands of developers who can view the code, find potential exploits, and then propose patches, QUICKLY and WITHOUT BIAS. Unfortunately, for patches to the same styled exploits that would exist in a closed source networking protocol, we would need to depend on a small team of developers under a common management structure (one pointy haired boss = single point of failure).
Open Source != secure
Open Source == better method toward security
Where does the "art" enter into this? Are you we to assume that the DJs who are varnishing, scratching, and otherwise farking up the media actually know what they will get when they do this, or are they just screwing around and hoping something comes out?
I realize this is the natural progression from Jimi setting his guitar on fire-- but you won`t catch me at a concert.
Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech, "To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT. Unfortunately, due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals."
Yeah, they delivered pizza in the greater cambridge area, including a couple of visits to the math labs at MIT.
Thanks for the invitation davejenkins. I would take you up on it, but none of the DNS servers near me have ever heard of thought-control.org
Please make sure you have the www
I can reach it from seoul, tokyo, washington dc, and london...
IP 208.186.180.200 (if that helps)
Qrlx,
t hought-control.org. Post your article, and we can debate there
I don`t think slashdot is the most productive place for this kind of debate. I welcome your arguments-- refreshingly clear and well-thought (rare on slashdot, I think we can agree on that).
Please come pitch your case on a href="http://www.thought-control.org">http://www.
There may be no direct link, but that`s not the direct point (IMHO). The logic behind it (for me) is as follows:
I would prefer it be very difficult to kill people in general. That way, we'd only do it when we really needed to.
Everyone prefers not to kill (except the murderous bastards). This is a straw-man position, and politically naive.
If you look at history, anytime one side was able to kill the other without having to really risk themselves, the shitty side of history results -- genocide, oppression, etc. Just because it's your side that happens to have the better guns, tech, germs or whatever doesn't mean it's a Good Thing.
No, if you look at history, shitty things happen all the time. There is evidence to the contrary: when forces are balanced, then only the tension builds, not the solution (eventually the tension breaks with very bad results: UK-DE before WWI, US-JP before WWII, UK-FR 100 years war, GR-Persia...). The only time peace occurs is when overwhelming force exists on one side (the benevolent side).
Hell, look at us: We've been way out ahead for, what, 20 years now and already we're invading other nations so our political leaders can distract the masses from economic problems or the fact that they can't stop terrorism (70% of Americans believe Iraq sponsored 9-11, and why not? They're ay-rabs, ain't they?).
How does political trolling like this get modded up to +5?
Anyhow, I understand that we live in reality and that these things happen. I just don't think that most geeks would want to be a part of it if they really thought it over, which is why I said what I did.
"Most geeks" is a spurious term. If you think they are all left-leaning pinkos, you`re wrong. If you think they`re Edvard Teller madmen, you`re wrong. Geeks are all over the spectrum. I would imagine there are some geeks who lost their brothers/fathers/sisters/mothers in 9-11, and would have no qualms in putting the hurt on some goat-farking terrorist camp via remote control.
I for one welcome our new Microsoft ove... oh... wait.
1000th post!
(heh... who knew?)
This could be a break for Sun Microsystems though if they would do something with Solaris under x86 ala Linux or BSD. (freely downloadable I meant to say).
Why would Sun want to make Solaris freely available? Why would Brasil want to buy more proprietary hardware from the US? You`ve missed the whole point of what Brasil is trying to do here: native support, native distro, native jobs and IT industry.
Even open source leaders like Red Hat, who do make source code available, stand to benefit little immediately: the native-blood syndrome is too strong.
I would imagine that Brasil is more than willing to go `low-tech` on some of their infrastructure as long as it is free or homegrown: they don`t need Lotus notes, email will do; they don`t need Oracle 9i, PostGreSQL will do, etc.
Will it have two adversaries face off pointing their guns at each other and smiling? Will the guns then be empty?
Will it have the adversaries come at each other while the camera zooms in on the convergence point?
Will it use wire-fu?
Will the screenplay be written by an ADHD ten-year-old?
Will it run Linux?
(okay, that last one doesn't have anything to do with John Woo films, it just seems to be a requirement for this site...)
Frankly, smart cards shouldn't be on that list, as the intended use(storing money on the card) has not been perfected against people hacking the card for more money.
So does cold hard cash. Instead of a card-reader, the bad guy just needs a knife. Are you saying we shouldn't use cash, because it isn't "secure"?
Smart cards trust the "client", and as any MMORPG developer can tell you, that's a bad thing.
Again, so does cash. All money trusts the 'client' to a certain extent: your bank account has a big gaping hole with your PIN and account number.
Paper money and credit cards at least have some protection, smart cards on the other hand are a relitively easy fraud source for anyone with a card writer, and the resources to use it; unlike any other method, you end up with a perfect "digital copy" of the money.
Well, anyone with a half-decent digital printer can roll his own Jacksons and Franklins. Again, the law is the law, and the men in suits will find you no matter your "method" of crime.
Sundance does not exist to forward any agenda except Robert Redfords. The reason that there is no "Gun ownership of white people movies" is because they don't try hard enough. Maybe it's because they don't make good movies.
How do you reconcile those two sentences? a) If Sundance (I used to live there too) exists for Robert Redford's agenda, then you've just echoed my original point. So, I return to my original post.
b) How do we know if they make good movies or not? With the Redford agenda in place, we can never know.
Look, I am not trying to be racist, personally attacking you, or be 'boorish' or 'low character'. There is no way to compare who, between us, is more cultured. We could compare resumes, book lists, language abilities, movie trivia-- it's all subjective. The very fact that you use terms such as 'boorish' and 'low character' show that you are aware of this (and think of yourself of some higher grade, as do all people except maybe Tom Arnold).
I am simply pointing out an existing bias at Sundance. There is nothing wrong with bias-- all subjective competitions have a bias (or collection of biases) at their center. As such, Star Wars ASCII doesn't fit the set of biases that exist at Sundance. I would think that you could agree to that.
You really need to get out from in front of that dead interface and go outside and see real life, buddy. Inject some new code into that aging architecture. True independence exists because the proper channels are closed to legitimate pursuers.
1. I am not your 'buddy'. Paully Shore is probably a better candidate for that.
2. I experience plenty of outside life. I've lived in 5 different countries in the last two years, and well... let's not get in a pissing contest there.
3. You've missed my point: Sundance Film Festival was originally created by Mr Redford as a venue for independent film for young talent that couldn't get a shot in Hollywood. To a large degree if fills that mission. However, there is also a PC cluture among the selection crew that favors certain themes. To wit: a film that promoted gun ownership or white people or whatever non-PC topic you can think wouldn't stand a chance at Sundance, even if the film was genius in structure, and "shut out" from Hollywood (ala the original mission of Sundance).
Have you been to Sundance? How many times?
i doubt it. there are no gender issues, minority ascending, or strongly environmental issues in it.
Flame me if you will, but honestly-- we did a Palm App for Sundance a while back, and there is a definite slant to things there...
"Is This NASA?!?"
"Yes-- how did you get this number?"
"Shut UP! Listen-- I'm sick and tired of your boring launches and stupid bug experiments and... hang on..."
[toilet flushes in background]
"... anyway. hey!"
Okay... I'll bite.
Really? This statement is thrown about as if it's as obvious as stateing hte sky is blue. But do you really have proof of this?
Only what the market shows: most major research and heavy computing projects are done on Linux clusters, not Windows clusters. Linux is a good substitute for mass calculations that were previously performed on *NIX mainframes, but now handled by Linux clusters. If this isn't proof, I don't know what is.
I can do everything with my Windows box that I can do with my BSD box. It's also JUST as stable. Neither system crashes for me. I leave both on 24/7.
good for you. I never mentioned anything about stability. You're the one introducing sterotypes here. I will note from my personal experience that Windows chokes for me about once a month, while my Linux boxes have yet to crash (2+ years and counting).
I have no doubt you can 'do everything' on your windows box that you can on your BSD box. if you read my post again, that was my point: M$ will try to move the argument into "end user functionality" and away from raw lifting power, server consolidation, TCO, or stability.
This is the same as all open source claims to fame. Another good one is that open source has less bugs. I've not found this to be true.
Good, because it isn't. I don't think any rational developer thinks there are _less_ bugs in Linux, but that they are more transparent and _fixed much more quickly_. There is a wealth of antecdotal evidence toward this.
If you compare closed source with open source software of equal complexity both seem to have plenty of bugs. Sure, the open source bugs are fixed immediately, in CVS, but no doubt so are the closed source bugs.
Oops. That's where you and I part ways. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT the closed source bugs are fixed right away-- first of all, no one may know they are there (because we cannot see the source), and it falls to the company to fix them once found (if and when that company feels like getting around to it). How can you bandy around such and equivocation that open source and closed source bug fixes are fixed at the same rate? Now it is my turn to ask for proof...
Neither are particularly usefull to me as an end user. I don't want to run development code.
Neither do I. Again, read my post. You sound perfect for their lab.
And even when fixes are backported, open source software tends to cause me to recompile.
Hrmmm.. Red Hat Network could solve that for you.
I'd really like to see the open source community provide the proof of their claims as they continually chide others for not haveing.
Proof is in the pudding. Linux is gaining marketshare. M$ sees a threat. q.e.d.
From the article: "The end-to-end scenarios is where things don't work quite as well with Linux"
I would wager that they are going to simply let business customers loose in the environment, and those PHB will try to do the same plug-and-play things they are used to doing: downloading software off the internet, drag-and-drop spreadsheet into word, find servers across a network...
The key here, and what M$ is banking on, is their GUI, and their idiot-level engineering (clippy being the extreme example). No one will go down to a terminal to do their file transfers or configure a network, they will all want to compare GUIs and wizards. Admittedly, M$ has an edge of Linux on this.
Were they to compare raw computing power and stability, they would lose-- and they know that. This is about spin: M$ will spin the comparisons to their advantages (just like anyone would).
yeah-- i agree. But it was faster to simply reboot the machine into windows and do it the way thier manual said, rather than hunt for software to do the IP over USB (this was all in Japanese)...
thanks.
You are welcome to read my review a couple weeks ago posted over at www.newmobilecomputing.com
With such an overt political appointment, the RIAA may have just committed a tactical error: now they are seen as sitting on one side of the bench, whereas before they were seen as a 'legitimate' lobbying group for a powerful industry.
This may affect several points:
1. Yes, the GOP is in power, but Hollywood and the Music industry are standard DEM strongholds. They may not like their new boy, or at least won't invite him to the parties at Rob Reiner's house.
2. They have now unzipped their fly, and are acting pretty brazenly partisan with such a move. This will turn many democrats in congress into automatic defense mode, who may slow legislation down 'just because'.
3. In the end, Bush & Co. may end up having to choose between supporting a major US export (entertainment) vs. giving money to those 'liberal jack-offs in hollywood'-- depending on what Karl Rove says about electoral trends, that could break either way.
Drinking and electronics can only lead to one thing: metal-bending suicidal sarcastic kleptomaniacal robots.
Bite my shiny metal daffodil.
And you think people didn't go to Linuxtag for the same reason? I would say you are sorely mistaken, if so.
I DO think they go to LinuxTag for the same reason. Did you not read further in my post? Perhaps the grammar was poor, or beyond you...