The difference between a terrorist and another type of combatant isn't history or what the group is fighting for. It is whether they target civilian populations or not and use terror as a tactic. The term terrorist has been rendered meaningless in recent times. Now we see "terrorist attack on army base". Targeting a military force is not terrorism, regardless of the group who does it.
This works well for how I read slashdot - I scan down the page for interesting comments, and then open some of the summarized lower level children in a new tab and read through them. If someone posted an interesting point, it is easy for me to view all of the replies.
Admittedly, I have not used the beta much, but I have not been able to figure out how to read in my style. Say that I am reading at the +4 comment level. I have no way of discerning if a particular child comment is replying to the +4/5 parent above it, or if there are several intermediate posts. I have no way to see all of the replies to a particular post.
My experience with classic mode is that I'm reading a conversation, and I have a choice of where I want to dig in further to the conversation. My experience with beta mode is that I'm just reading a bunch of random comments with no good understanding of their relation to each other.
I wear almost nothing but jeans and jean shorts most days.........But to say it doesn't fit in "regular" pants I just don't think is accurate. You most definitely do not need a fanny pack or anything like that.
Believe me, jean shorts are the pants equivalent of a fanny pack.
I see this atheism/agnosticism argument all the time and it really just seems to come down to semantics. An atheist is comfortable saying that they don't believe in something, whereas an agnostic (for some reason only in the case of a god argument) has to be super literal and state that anything (living teapots on Saturn) could exist. Face it, you don't believe that invisible pink unicorns exist. You don't believe that there are living teapots on Saturn.