Pangloss

I have to say, I didn't think much of Vista at first -- just eye candy, is what I kept saying. Now having used it for a week, I have to say I'm starting to really like it. The added usability features are actually quite... useful. It's almost addictive how useable this interface is, and the combination of Vista and IE7 is really quite powerful. Toss Office 2007 into the mix and it's a pretty impressive package. Apple and Linux will certainly be able to compete with this, but MS is definitely raising the bar. The real question is going to be user acceptance. Casual users are going to find Vista almost as daunting as Linux or Macintosh, and if that's the case then both users and (especially small) companies may be prompted to rethink their approach. Vista may well open a door of opportunity here, even as it continues to impress.

Didn't you know? Half of FNC's audience is the population of the liberal blogosphere. (grin)

Offensive? Why is it offensive? I guess I could understand objectionable, but offensive seems a bit harsh. Do you mean because of the use of the word "we", implying that you believe in god as well?

If memory serves, the technically correct answer to the question in terms of classic typography is that words get "en" spaces and sentences get "em" spaces. Unfortunately computers don't have the ability to make this distinction with the normal space character (the space bar does an "en" space), which is why everyone started using two spaces instead of one after sentences at the beginning of the digital revolution. There is an actual "em" space character in the standard unicode character set, but if I remember correctly it can only be accessed with a code sequence. So you can program it into a web page, but you can't type it out on a normal basis.

New stats were released today revealing that 60 raids and 210 arrests have resulted directly from the attack and raid that lead to the death of Zarqawi. Drop in the bucket, perhaps, but I'll bet the victims of those 210 terrorists think differently.

I wish you'd told me about this thread, I don't normally read this particular board. I agree more than disagree with you, Bascule. I agree with the point that global warming is "real", I just think the case is consistently overstated, and it's done for no good (i.e. scientifically useful) reason. The most consistently applied (and only useful) application of global warming research is "making Republicans feel bad", not "saving the planet" as is claimed. But when I say "we shouldn't proceed on the assumption that global warming is real", that doesn't mean I think we should continue burning fossil fuels with abandon or ignoring the obvious consequences of air pollution. What it means is that I think we have sufficient motive AS IS for cleaning up those problems, and we are making progress in resolving them, so what's the problem? The thing that really gets me is the way some (*not all*) skeptics and scientists will complain bitterly about the religious right when it comes to stem cell research or birth control, but when it comes to global warming they become the most closed-minded, faithful zealots around.

Augustus's wasn't exactly a bed of roses either.

My wife and I are watching the Mexico-Iran game and really enjoying it. They're showing the games here in HDTV and the picture quality is awesome.

I agree with this position. I was opposed to going to war, I cringed the moment WMDs came up because the flaw in that reasoning was so obvious, and I voted for Kerry in 2004. That having been said.... I disagree with this, as do most Iraqis. They want us gone, yes, but they don't regret the war or the departure of Saddam. Every poll reflects this -- you're simply wrong. You're also overstating and oversimplifying. We're not "bombing an entire nation to get to a few bad guys". We're pacifying an insurgency. At some point when the country is stable, we'll leave. What you don't like about it isn't the action, but who's committing it. You're so determined to make the United States (and specifically Republicans/Bush) wrong that anything that happens MUST be spun in a negative manner. Do you think that that would not be the case if WMDs had been found? Do you think that that would not be the case if Iraq/Hussein had been behind 9/11 and we'd have 100% support for invasion? Do you think that that would not be the case if we simply hadn't invaded at all? Congratulations: You are epitomizing everything that's wrong with the far left in this debate.

Interesting points.

I haven't made up my mind on this one yet. I'm leaning towards the position put forth by KLB in this thread, but I think the telecoms have raised some legitimate concerns that have not been addressed. The content providers are clearly fueling the Net Neutrality argument, and if I'm just helping one multinational conglomerate versus another one, I'm less interested in that. With that in mind, I want to add a bit of balance to this thread by pointing out that the position put forth by KLB is being supported by vast amounts of money from content providers like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, etc. What I do think is a good thing is that this debate is coming to the fore, and that we'll hash it out in the general net populace. There's just a lot here that I don't fully grok yet, even though I've been reading about it for weeks, and I'm looking forward to more discussions on the subject. My main concern here is that the issue may be more complicated than the simple "yea" or "nay" being debated at the moment. I'm also concerned that by "neutrality" what they really mean is "yeah you can spend a lot of money installing a new router, but then we're going to tell you what content you can carry on it, and you don't get any say in the matter even though you paid for that router".

Hmm, I see, just because I have the audacity to question someone who apologizes for terrorists, blames their acts on Americans, and have the unmitigated gall to actually want to hold anyone in this world (besides Americans) accountable for their behavior... yes, that must be it -- I must be a REPUBLICAN! (Eww! Unclean!) You want to go with Freethinker? Great. Have fun storming the castle. Just keep splitting everything up into "good Democrats" and "evil Republicans", and I'm sure you'll have the whole world's problems solved in no time. Those of us who live in the real world are going to focus on realistic answers rather than prejudice and ideological hatred.

Wow -- defeatism and apologism all wrapped up into one ugly post. Want a pillow with your coffin?

Ohhhhhhhh.... I didn't realize there's more than one game. But still, that's kind of a dumb way to state that statistic, isn't it? They made it sound like 32 billion different people were going to watch somehow....

News reports are saying that as many as 32 billion people will watch the World Cup. Um... aren't there only 6.5 billion people in the whole world? This statistic was repeated on ABC News tonight and I thought the anchorperson had gone bonkers. But sure enough I did a quick Google and found this story: http://www.dawn.com/2006/06/02/spt15.htm What the heck is going on here? Do I need to run out and buy four more televisions in order to meet my obligation as a human being?!

What's the point of this, anyway? I really don't think the war on terror is going to end with a photo finish and a controversial call from the French ice-skating judge.

Well they were talking about external threats, but you certainly point towards an important consideration, which is that there have been a number of news stories lately that suggest that domestic terrorism may not be gone either. There was some talk about this earlier in the week following the terrorist captures up in Canada.

WTC in '93 I guess? On another note, it's interesting how this story continues to develop. Apparently the attack that got Zarqawi was timed to coincide with raids on 17 other locations, which produced intel that lead to 39 more raids today. It's turning out to be a lot more than just a single take-down. Whether it ends up having a major impact on the insurgency is another question, but it sure sounds like some kind of progress.

That's an absolutely valid point as well.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

Like it or not, she has a valid point. When she talks about the specific 9/11 widows who have taken an outspoken political stance, those people are fair game, and that particular interpretation, while nasty, is a valid one. And if they were men the subject wouldn't even come up. Of course her methods are not those which I would employ, nor can I endorse them. As I've said many times here, I am opposed to demogoguery, and I believe in using reasoned, respectful discourse to solve problems. She also loses me when she fails to make a distinction between those specific widows and others who have, perhaps, made only a slight comment in answer to a direct question, and haven't really gotten involved in a formal way. But in MOST of the interviews I've heard, including the one posted here with Matt Lauer, she does make the key distinction. I did, however, hear another one in which she did NOT make the distinction, but the setting was such that it was quite possible that she missed the subtle shift in premise by the questioner. By the way, I can't wait to see people on this board who thought it was okay for senators to call each other "bigots" in legislative debate will now tell us that it's NOT okay for Ann Coulter to treat 9/11 widows disrespectfully. That should be interesting.

I'm actually planning to steer most people away from Vista for at least six months after release, if not longer. The sweeping interface changes and vastly increased system requirements for smooth performance, not to mention software installer compatibility issues and user rights issues, are going to be major support headaches for some time to time. Even if Vista improves dramatically prior to release, it looks like I'll be recommending a "wait a while" approach. In contrast, I was boring people to tears with the merits of Windows XP and my "immediate buy" recommendation six months before release.

Note that you'll need a product key, if memory services, so I think you still have to register. I've messed around with various builds and it looks pretty good, but I have had to warn a lot of folks that getting SATA drivers set up properly is a little different in Vista. You don't do the "Hit F6" thing anymore. Just watch the on-screen instructions carefully and it should be pretty clear. Also many of the XP SATA mobo drivers don't work with Vista. Users of nForce4 SLI boards for Intel processors had trouble in 5308, for example (but I think that's mostly been resolved).