Speaking of volunteers, if you don't want to give money, why not donate time? That way you control what happens with your donation.

Not true. In Netherland (where the government gives more to foreign aid than the internationally agreed 0.8% of GDP (most western countries give a less), donations are fully tax deductible. There's less need here to help your neighbour with his medical expenses, but people here give a lot to human rights and environmental organisations (Amnesty and Greenpeace are among the largest).

as per RFCs 1001 and 1002 for TCP/IP and somewhere else for IPX (IPX packet type 20 IIRC). However, if you ran it over "NetBEUI" or NetBIOS Extended User Interface, rather than IPX or TCP/IP, NetBIOS was running directly over 802.2/LLC i.e. no layer 3 protocol in there, so no routing. I think Microsoft removed this option a number of years ago, which is a shame, because that was a way of ensuring that there was no chance your NetBIOS file and print shares were accessible over the Internet.

The HP T-series thin clients are quite nice. I have one in production driving a wall-mounted display. It's a t5000 series, specifically the t5735. It has DVI, VGA, parallel and serial, audio, USB, everything that a normal desktop has, AMD Sempron 2100+, 512MB RAM, 1 GB internal flash, and runs Debian Linux 4.0. By default, it has a stripped down Debian install, but has Gnome and gives you root access - I just added the packages that I needed and was ready to go (though it also has software for Citrix and RDP, etc. HP lists it for around $500, I got an open box demo, with full warranty, for $130.

Which version of Snow Leopard does all of that?

I've found it to be pretty good so far, on both my Mac and my wife's.

I've not heard of this other stuff. It sounds a little made-up, or at least cherry-picked.

I think that people who work harder and contribute more should be taxed less and that people who work less and contribute less should be taxed more as an incentive to increase our society's productivity.

But hey, go ahead with your snarky comments.

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.