The lyrics are slightly more than just the the Lord's Prayer translated: it significantly repeats some sections and alters the overall order quite a bit. Someone at Civfantaics put up a transcription with an OK translation, Baba Yetu
A native speaker later put up a a much better translation. of some of the sections.

That covers the song pretty well, so I won't re-tread that, but the the Swahili language Lord's Prayer I Googled didn't match up with the song, or the version in my bible, so here it is for anyone interested:

(Mathayo 6, 9-13):

Baba yetu uliye mbinguni:
Jina lako litukuzwe.
Ufalme wako ufike.
Utakalo lifanyike duniani kama mbinguni.
Utupe leo chakula chetu tunachohitaji.
Utusamehe makosa zetu,
kama nasi tunavyowasamehe waliotukosea.
Usitutie katika majaribu,
lakini utuokoe na yule Mwovu.

[The optional doxology, which isn't in the text follows,]
Kwa kuwa ufalme ni wako, na nguvu, na utukufu, hata milele.

Sony has clung to the abysmal DualShock analog-stick layout* and the awful split d-pad for THREE console generations now, are you really surprised to see this?

*Yes, fanboys, the layout sucks. It is historical fact that Sony tacked the analog sticks on as an afterthought, placing them where they are only because there was no room anywhere else on the original "digital" controller. If that was actually a good location for controls, the digital buttons would have been there already.

This may be my American sensibilities showing through, but what I want to know is why, for the love of god, the European standard for fuel economy is liters/100km? Why not km/liter, which is a much more convenient format for any sort of day-to-day use, and is in keeping with the standard format measurement of efficiency (Output/Input)?

What advantage does using L/100km convey? I am honestly interested

There are some well respected philosophers of ethics who argue for essentially that very viewpoint. Peter Singer is probably the most famous. Interestingly, Singer is also a big animal-rights proponent.

As disgusting as I find some of his views, I have to admit they are logically consistent within his (what I consider warped) ethical framework.

I didn't find anything with a few cursory Google searches, but I would honestly like to see a source for that. Who is getting compensation?

As far as I have heard, the US was paying for medical treatment for the children who were hurt, which is good, but that was the extent of it. I could see them getting additional, non-medical financial compensation. Beyond that, I would be very surprised.

Thanks for the analogy, it is often far too hard to convince people that context is everything, and partial truths can be worse than outright lies.

Although a better comparison in this situation would be an undercover cop shot by the homeowner during a break-in by actual armed criminals.

Was the US right to kill the Reuters journalists? You phrase it as if they were specifically targeted (not true) and were identifiable as journalists (also not true).

They broke the rules of their own profession and employer by willingly embedding themselves with a group of armed insurgents in a combat zone, without ID or notifying their superiors. It was a sad accident that two journalists got killed, but the military isn't to blame.

You may have forgotten that this was news BEFORE the video was leaked. There was an inquiry and a report. The facts were already known, leaking the video didn't add anything but graphic sensationalism and fuel for anti-American propaganda.

Had Assange just released the video as it was, I would have less of a problem with him. He is a bad man because he deliberately left out all that context while presenting the video in a highly sensationalist manner, manipulated to look like a cover-up of a civilian massacre. I'll ask you: How does twisting the truth make him a "good guy"?

Every time I post on this, I get modded toll by somebody with an agenda, but I think it's important so I try again.

Assange is a narcissist. He isn't doing anything honorable by dumping all this classified stuff. Leaking information which reveals wrongdoing is noble, wholesale dumping of classified material is chaos. Some secrets are secret for good reasons. For example:

What good comes from leaking the cables of a diplomat clandestinely investigating human rights abuses? It simultaneously gave the oppressive regime a reason to be more oppressive and the names of people to go after, but Assange knows best - people have a right to know! See WikiLeaks just made the world more repressive

How about undermining a democratic reformer in Zimbabwe? Did that do any good? I have a good friend in Zimbabwe, he's in enough danger already just for supporting the MDC. Now a cleptocratic tyrant has the excuse he needs to hold on to power, prolonging the misery of an entire country, and my friend might end up in jail, or dead. But I suppose the death and deprivation of faceless Africans won't keep Julian up at night.

Oddly, one case where Mr. Assange saw fit to withhold information was the "Collateral Murder" video. Not because it could endanger somebody, but because it didn't fit with the narrative he constructed. Rather than objectively present the video with the relevant context, he purposefully left out any mention of the convoy that was approaching or the attacks that had recently occurred that same day, implying that the helicopter was just randomly firing at a group of people. He implies that the pilot's identification of weapons was incorrect, but fails to provide a copy or even a link to the report (which was released, though names are redacted), which details fun facts like the RPGs and AKs they found on and around the "civilians". He doesn't mention that the Reuters employees had not told anyone where they were going to be, and were not wearing ANY press identification. I could go on...

The point is that Assange has always had an agenda, and it certainly isn't exposing government wrongdoing, or even presenting the uncolored, unfiltered truth (if it doesn't suit him). I don't know why so many people here idolize him.

For some reason, I read your original post in the voice of "Debbie Downer" and I actually thought you were being pretty darn funny.

Then I read your response, and realized you are being serious.

...or ARE you?

Maybe your sense of humor is overly-strict. Maybe you're just having a bad day. Maybe you're the next Andy Kaufman, goofing us all with a lecture on what makes jokes funny. I'm too tired to figure it out, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Responding to jokes like Debbie Downer because you don't think they are funny does not add anything to the conversation. Responding, as you did, in perfect sincerity is worthy of a /. WHOOSH.

Defending your post with a checklist of what a joke requires to be funny just makes you look even MORE stiff and grumpy. If you don't like /. humor, set your preferences to down-rank +funny mods or just scroll down.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt though. We all have bad days. I've groaned at horrible jokes and typed out bitter responses only to be saved by the "cancel" button. I've also missed obvious jokes and written stuff so dumb I wish I could erase it. Preview and Cancel are my friends now.

Now, if you'd signed your original post
" - Debbie Downer"
THAT would have been funny!