Ted Turner's OpEd in the Washington Post:

Some news organizations have tried to marginalize opponents of the war in Iraq, dismissing them as a fringe element. Pope John Paul II also opposed the war in Iraq. How narrow-minded have we made our public discussion if the opinion of the pope is considered outside the bounds of legitimate debate?

Another happy bugzilla user.

[...]

Also, for airplane geeks there was this note on CNN about the Osprey. It mentioned VRS which I hadn't heard of before so I googled it up. It made for very interesting reading. VRS sounds like something you can compensate for, as long as you're careful and you're, you know, not too close to the ground. I wonder if they teach you about that when you learn to fly helicopters.

Asa was right. Most of the features listed in LindowsOS 4.0 are Mozilla and Gaim. If you look closely at one of the screenshots you can see the word "Mozilla" included in the titlebar.

There's a part of me that's kind of bothered by this. At least at Red Hat we understand that we're a distribution that's made up of a bunch of different parts. On the box we usually include things like "Includes Mozilla 1.0" and "Includes XFree86 4.3.0" but the way that Lindows is described to customers doesn't give a lot of credit to the people out there doing the work. Of course at the same time, that's part of open source and frankly anything that gets our code into more hands is fine by me. It's just hard for my Ego not to feel just a tiny bit slighted.

Oh, and Michael, you're welcome.

Warren Buffett on divident tax cuts.

Bruce Perens taslk about the SCO lawsuit. This is probably one of the best descriptions of how bogus this lawsuit probably is.

Oh. I soloed yesterday. Yay, me!

I Like Monkeys.

...

Wil Wheaton has an interesting post about how the press tends to mold facts to fit a story instead of the other way around. I've dealt with the press in the past and they tend to build stories starting with a hypothesis and then use the facts to fit the model that they have already built. Because of the subjective nature of stories, it's really easy to take things that people say out of context to come up with something in the end that has very little to do with reality. Is this because of the way that stories have to be sold to editors before they can be written? It's hard to say.

Take for example some of Mr. Festa's latest articles. In one case the entire story is built on a weblog posting and our roadmap and, as near as I can tell, speculation. The other is also based upon incorrect information. Note that in both cases, he never actually talked to anyone on mozilla.org staff and talked to people on the outside of the project in order to figure out how things look in the inside.

This is because he usually drops an email to someone saying that he's got a deadline in an hour and do we have a comment? By the time that I read that email, he's already gone. One hour? Is it already written? How long does something like that take to write? I mean, I'm just curious because it would seem to me that something that is well researched and objective might take more than an hour to write. Otherwise, it's just pure conjecture. And this has happened more than once. It's pretty sad.

The folks on mozilla.org staff aren't closed, either. Unless it deals with confidential information, we're almost always willing to comment. We have nothing to hide, we just take time to respond from time to time.

Where did this start? Oh, yeah. Wil, I feel your pain.

The White House is delaying the Republican nominating convention, scheduled for New York City, until the first week in September 2004—the latest in the party’s history. That would allow Bush’s acceptance speech, now slated for Sept. 2, to meld seamlessly into 9-11 commemoration events due to take place in the city the next week.

I think the word I'm looking for is "disgusted."

...

"I'm eating all this pie so I'll get fat and be forced to diet."

...

Is nothing sacred?