It's unfair to tar one billion people because of the words of one angry individual.

"BFilter" does a fair job of removing so of the things people have listed above. For example: ads, google analytics, etc. I have been using it for 6 months, and it does work well.

Mental illness runs in the family and affects economic status. So poor parents pass on their mentally ill genes to their kids thus their kids are more likely to be mentally ill and on some kind of treatment. My own personal experience registers this is as true. I see a lot of emotional problems, especially mood instability, with poorer people. I wouldnt be surprised if this was a chicken and egg problem explained without the "OMG BIG GOVERNMENT/CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY" angle slashdot tends to sell.

I currently have cookies enabled for mail.google.com, but not for google.com. Gmail has worked fine since I made this change, and Google search at least acts like I am not logged in (but they could still correlate ip addresses and so forth, my goal is to be aware of who is tracking things as much as it is to prevent it).

That's because we are a civilized nation - we don't believe we are the only people in the world who deserve these rights, we believe everyboy does. That's why we tend to get sucked into fights to preserve democracy and such, though our track record lately is only so-so.

So yeah it sucks that he gets to enjoy our freedoms, but it's the right thing to do.

How is this bigot not modded troll/flamebait?
To turn a blind eye to murder due to the victims ideology, race, or religion is reprehensible.

Imagine the year is 1941:

A few attacks on individuals, especially those who hail from an enemy culture and religion , are not nearly enough to bother with invading Germany. Real Americans aren't Jews and don't care what happens to them any more than we'd care if some thoughtful soul was murdering Japs.

Does the above seem any different?

I prefer to go to Google's dictionary because it loads much faster than the others. I just want a definition and if I want it expanded upon, thankfully Google provides links to external sites.

It's by no means perfect but it's probably not complete and with the inclusion of, at the very least, a wikipedia link, I can get a full and detailed definition if required.

Imo, most dictionary sites are ugly and too graphic intensive for a site where people are only interested in words.

You can watch the progress live, here:
http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

no court or tribunal is going to accept your definition if it has the impact that it will.

I agree. My definition is that everyone should agree on a definition, or not use the word. The politicians want to use a charged word for something other than its real meaning. The courts want to use it for various reasons that differ based on their jurisdiction. No one wants to use the word in a clear manner, and thus the word has no meaning. If it doesn't accurately describe a concept, it isn't language. I'm just asking that it be used clearly or not at all, and just about anyone using the word "war" doesn't want clarity.

Sorry, but that's all that matters for considerations of "collective punishment" which is the topic we're all talking about in this article.

That's nice. Talk about that all you like. But I never commented on it, and have no opinion on it. I was commenting on War. It's relevant to the discussion at hand because actions are legal or not depending on how people thousands of miles away define a word. But I'm certainly not restricted to only using the word in that context.

If you want to imagine that war means something else in other contexts, feel free, but don't waste people's time having them chase down rabbit holes only to find out that the whole argument has been pointlessly off-topic.

I've been clear about it. Saying something is ok in war or not in war, and not ok at other times, or vice versa depends explicitly on the definition of war. And so I'm questioning the definition of war and the usage thereof. That you seem to disagree with me, but can't come up with anything other than "because they said so" for it. I've never been good with that explanation. If politicians want to use the "war" word, then they should be held to the tightest standards regarding it. They declared a war, and when people examine their actions in relation to it and find it's a direct violation of the rules of war, their response is that it's a war, and they deserve protections, but not their enemies, who aren't playing by the rules. Interestingly, that isn't a new complaint, but has been used for the past 30+ years for wars all over the world.

I guess I'm a dinosaur like that.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good w...ill torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis

You can also use renegotiation to derive new keys after X amount of data has passed. This would be for long running connections.

If you need that much security, you're probably better off going with a wired mouse anyway. Besides, you also get better accuracy and less/no lag.

The advantage is on the typical user side. As a Mac user over two architecture transitions, I've really appreciated just being able to pull down a single executable from a site and have it "just work". Disk space is cheap and my tolerance for pointless frustration decreases steadily with age. A distribution mechanism like fat binaries makes it so the user really has to go out of their way to get it wrong.

Tell me how an Apple developer can run a server allowing the client to select the program and it'll download and install the correct version, like Debian repositories. That problem has already been solved, and the solution is better (it also gives you plenty of other features).

Oh, and closed-source companies can have their own repositories too. Example: http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/

There are places this would be very useful to have. Anytime we're distributing binaries to users, hosting binaries on a network file share, or carrying portable media, it's a big pain in the butt to maintain completely separate architecture trees. In some cases it wastes a lot of space too if there's significant data files along with the executables, because we generally wind up replicating that in each arch install tree.

I've definitely appreciated OS X's universal binaries in the past, it's a shame to lose an opportunity for having that on Linux. Guess I'm not going to see bundled, versioned libraries like OS X Frameworks anytime either, sigh.