IT Director for a non-profit in Washington, DC. Man About Internet.
Middle-aged Long Island lady thumbing through magazine: Look, there's Stephen Colbert.
Husband: Who's that?
Middle-aged Long Island lady: He's a terrific Republican reporter on TV. You should watch him. He's really great. Puts the liberals in their place.
--JFK
Overheard by: djeremy
(Via Reddit.)
On Wednesday night, President Bush is expected to announce plans to escalate the war in Iraq by sending more U.S. troops. On June 28, 2005 — just 18 months ago — Bush said that sending more troops to Iraq would “undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead” and “suggest that we intend to stay forever.” Watch it:
Bush prefaced his comments by saying that, “If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them.” Last month, Gen. Abizaid revealed that he asked all the commanders on the ground and none of them wanted more troops. Shortly thereafter, Abizaid was replaced.
Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.
(Via Think Progress.)
It lives in your closet, is completely remotely managed, backs up your stuff, stores your videos, music, photos and makes your data available to you everywhere. Plug in additional hard drives into it, it redistributes the data onto the other drives. Bye, bye, Terastation, ReadyNAS, etc.
(Via digg.)
Someone I know who works in shipping said they received a huge number of products that are all being sent to Apple Stores Monday Night. It is 5 times the normal amount he indicates. They weren't able to open them though because they were in all sealed boxes. The link to the story has the actual convo that took place.
(Via digg.)
6:33 - Eight minutes later: "Ladies and gentlemen, the keynote will begin in two minutes." See, even Microsoft's keynotes can't launch on time... We kid, we kid!
6:36 - Lights are dimming, looks like we're about to get going. It's starting. A visual history of CES is playing on the giant monitors next to the stage.
Continue reading Live from the Bill Gates keynote
(Via Engadget.)
This morning on CBS’s Face the Nation, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced that Congress may refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of U.S. forces to Iraq if President Bush cannot justify the strategy.
Pelosi stated clearly that Congress will fully support all U.S. forces currently in Iraq. “But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it,” Pelosi said. “This is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions, and we have gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected.”
Watch it:
A recent Center for American Progress memo explains how Congress could — and should — prevent Bush from sending more troops into a civil war in Iraq without a clear mission. An excerpt:
Although the new Congress should not refuse to provide the funds that the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan need, it can place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.
Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-PA) told Arianna Huffington last week that he wants to “fence the funding,” denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq “as soon as we can.”
UPDATE: Taylor Marsh has video of the rest of Pelosi’s interview.
SCHIEFFER: So, you’ve told him what you don’t want to do, and that is to expand the size of the force in Iraq even on a short-term basis. But what if he decides to do that? What will be your action then?
PELOSI: If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now. The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them.
But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions. And we’ve gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected.
SCHIEFFER: Now, let me ask you, and make sure I understand exactly what you are saying because, up until now, Democrats have not been enthusiastic about using the ultimate weapon, and that is to cut off funding.
PELOSI: We won’t do that.
SCHIEFFER: But you will not vote any more money to expand the size of the force there?
Is that what you’re telling us?
PELOSI: I’m saying two things. We will always support the troops who are there. If the president wants to expand the mission, that’s a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States.
But that’s not a carte blanche, a blank check to him to do whatever he wishes there.
And I want to make a distinction here. Democrats do support increasing the size of the Army by 30,000, the Marines by 10,000 to make sure we’re able to protect the American people.
SCHIEFFER: Enlarging the services overall?
PELOSI: Overall, in order to protect the American people against any threats to our interests, wherever they may occur. That’s different, though, from adding troops to Iraq.
The president wants to escalate a war where his generals are telling him that the additional troops will not be effective, that they’re easily digestible, to have this number of troops go into Baghdad, and then again, ignoring the strong message of the American people.
SCHIEFFER: So at this point, the Democrats in Congress are not prepared to pay for or to fund an additional number of troops in Iraq?
PELOSI: We have to see what the president has to say. It’s not an open-ended commitment anymore. But we will always be there to protect our troops and to support our troops.
(Via Think Progress.)
Cory Doctorow:
John McCain gets a bit of a free ride from lefties -- if he can show up on The Daily Show and pitch jokes at Jon Stewart, he can't be all bad, right? Wrong. Check out McCain's record of changing his position to whatever whacko Rapture Republican belief will get him closer to the White House. He's a lying opportunist who'll say or do anything to sell himself to the GOP apparat.
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
(via Making Light)
(Via Boing Boing.)
Cory Doctorow:
PC World Senior Editor Tom Spring signed up for 32 online accounts and then tried to cancel them, documenting the incredible hassle, false billing charges, and crazy runaround he got from vendor after vendor. After reading this there's no way I'll ever sign up for NetZero, AOL, True.com, Classmates.com, BlueMountain, Rhapsody (ick), Napster (double-ick), ESPN, or MSN Intenret.
Here's where I went wrong: When I went to True.com's Customer Care page to unsubscribe, I selected 'Cancel' and the programmed instructions prompted me to type a cancellation request into a text field. After doing as instructed, I clicked 'Continue'; the next screen then asked, 'Are you sure you want to cancel?' In response I clicked yet another link labeled 'Click here to cancel your membership'.
On the next screen, instead asking me again if I wanted to cancel my membership, the routine asked me if I wanted to "suspend" my subscription. At the bottom of the window was a big 'Continue' button, and below that--in gray (not black) type in the smallest font on the page--was a link labeled 'Cancel my subscription'. I clicked the 'Continue' button, not realizing that by doing so I had merely suspended my account for seven days.
When I called True.com to ask why I had been charged, a customer service representative named Jeff noted that there is a difference between suspend and cancel. I complained about the cancellation process and pushed for a refund. Jeff agreed to reduce the outstanding charges by $50.
I might have faced additional hassles if I had disputed the charge with my credit card company. When I belatedly examined True.com's terms-of-service agreement, I found a section stipulating that if I were to "fraudulent[ly] report an authorized charge by True.com" as "unauthorized," I could be held liable for $1000 per incident in damages. I call that tough love.
(via /.)
(Via Boing Boing.)