Only on Facebook and Fox.

I must admit that I'm torn on this one. Who to cheer for? A corrupt politician or Oracle? Can we have a no-holds-barred cage match and shoot the winner in the head?

Yea, they could but, what company wants to spend 2-5 times the staff, time and money just to get the same result as your competitors. By doing it this way, their costs should be on par for development of Chrome and Safari. Mozilla is a strange duck in this arena as far as development so comparing them isn't quite right.

I agree; as long as they continue to play nice with the rest of the vendors, I'm all for them being in the race.

We're here to mourn one of our fallen heroes. Fuck you for dragging this bullshit in! I will now count you in the same category as the Westboro Baptist Church.

Are you going for a funny mod? I'm all for their current track but, that doesn't mean for a second that I trust them, just that I'll give them a chance.

When it's the next generation of them, yes. That doesn't mean they will, though. We'll have to wait and see and be wary.

All of us who know Microsoft's history in this area need to watch them carefully and make sure that none of the people we advise are caught unaware. That being said, as long as they don't pull their old behavior, I'm all for their current track.

I'm getting the impression that is why they are shipping the Spartan web browser. I've been getting the feeling that they've been having troubles coding IE to support many HTML5 features without breaking a their legacy crap. Add to that the browser is heavily integrated into the win32s code and you're in for a coding nightmare. They were never going to be able to develop for changes as fast as competing browsers with that model and they knew it. As such, this move makes the most sense given their options. As long as they stay dedicated to working with web standards, I'm all for it. I'm just going to be very wary given their history with the web.

Thanks for that... X-(

Why should we limit it to East Texas?

Actually, from what I have read, the environmental impact study is complete and the project was approved on that basis. The holdup now is that because this project has foreign governments involved there is a review that has to be done by the U.S. State Department to see if the project is in the national interests of the United States. This is the process the oil companies and Republicans are trying to bypass. The environmental issue is a smokescreen at this point to avoid answering why they want to bypass the national interest question.

I agree. I just wanted to point out the difference of trying to accurately portray the actual life cost of LSD. It gets really hard to track once you count in behavior while on the drug. But, even with that factored in, its death rate is no where near the level its current drug classification implies.

Funneling billions upon billions of dollars a year into criminal gangs and militarized police forces to combat them over drugs is one of the stupidest things we have done in the last century.

And, thank you, by the way. I think that is the nicest complement I have ever received online.

Part of it was public awareness. You'd find it common in previous generations that people would tell you "it's all in your head" and other less than helpful answers to problems you had with things as allergies and many other health issues. Now, as this study suggests, that once there was public awareness, people were having their children avoiding high allergy risk foods and in doing so making the problem worse as humans are prone to do.

True, but the number of deaths for doing something stupid while on LSD is another matter. With it, and other substances, you need to take into account the actions people take while their behavior is modified. It does make it a complete mess to try and scientifically track the adverse effects of these substances.

At this point, I see making these substances illegal, all of them, is causing more problems than they solve. It's time to make drugs legal and create a (sub)-Department of Harmful Recreation Substances to track quality, adverse reactions and to make sure the public is properly informed on the actual effects of all these substances. It would save an incredible amount of money, $225 billion in anti-drug enforcement in the U.S. alone and create new revenue to deal with the problems caused by people being stupid. People try to say that drugs would be even more available but, you can go less than a mile in almost every town in the U.S. and purchase any drug you wish. Criminalizing it is not keeping it off the street and it never will. It would save lives by minimizing health issues from inconsistent dosing, poor to no quality control and lack of reliable information of these substances to say nothing of the current arms race between the new designer drugs that have never been tested and the DEA.