Where's Roger Moore's bra?

Eddie, this particular "feature" is driving me nuts. Is there anyway it can be disabled without doing something systemic like disabling javascript altogether?

I think he's ultimately trying to get the Wrigley Gum Co (market cap ~ $15-20 billion) to pay for the advertising and goodwill they get from their name still adorning those walls. Right now, they get it for free. At the time it was named for Wrigley, how many other fields had corporate sponsors? Why should the Cubs in this day and age not be allowed the same latitude to naming rights other teams have? I'm all for tradition, and I love baseball (see my old Bl*gster blog), but that field has a corporate name on it already. I don't see how changing it from a corporate freeloader to a paying customer, whether it's Wrigley or anyone else, changes anything.

Bill is an okay guy. I'm sure he'll accept your apology.

"Frustrated" is a word I've *always* associated with her.

Awww.

I prefer to delete Windows partitions and install BSD or Linux. Anyway, why mount read-only? I can understand that on errors=remount-ro, but why "/dev/sda6 /media/fat vfat ro,defaults,umask=0000 0 0"? I grant rw to $USER, so mine would be:
/dev/sda6 /media/fat auto noauto,defaults,user exec 0 0
------------ ------------- ------ -------------------------- ------ -----
Breaking up into the six parts underlined...
the first two set the mount point for the device node,
the third detects the filesystem for the device automatically (I prefer that because sometimes you think something is fat16 but it's fat32 or you think it's ntfs but it really isn't; this prevents fs/block errors if the fs isn't exactly right),
the fourth tells it to skip mounting on boot, use the system defaults, and assign the device to the user who mounts it (mitigating the need for su to mount/umount and carry out fs tasks like cp, mv, rm, etc.),
the fifth allows executables to be run from it (wine?), and
and the last turns off dumps (I don't need system dumps for Windows partitions) and fs checks (which I would do from Windows anyway).

The senator and lobbyist deny any such allegations, which are nearly ten years old. Even if it were true -- or even recent -- thank goodness the Left defended the personal lives of politicians even when it involved a president committing perjury in a sexual harassment case. Maybe someday the Left will come to grips with their hypocrisy. Or maybe not!

Maybe you're right. I mean, how many Republicans oppose ANWR drilling compared to Democrats? And what about the respective party platforms in 2004 (and before) with the Democrats having a plank called "We cannot drill our way to energy independence" while the GOP platform called for more domestic production and easing regulations to increase refining capacity to meet demands? Or how about Democrat platforms across the board that oppose drilling and exploration, e.g., the platform of the North Carolina Democrat party:
OFFSHORE DRILLING: We recognize that our coast is an outstanding natural resource that must be protected for future generations of North Carolinians. We oppose any offshore exploration for oil or natural gas adjacent to this State.
http://www.ncdp.org/platform

I venture to guess there were throngs of right-wingers opposed to expanding refineries but they just don't get the same press, even if it would be more newsworthy to see someone from a conservative think-tank opposing increased refining capacity. Maybe it's just coincidental that Rahm Emmanuel and Dick Durbin are leftists and led the charge against expanding that BP refinery in Detroit last year:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec07/oil_09-19.html

Oh yeah, and I suppose you're correct that opposition to nuclear power has historically been bipartisan -- notwithstanding leftwing/Democrat opposition to nuclear storage facilities in Nevada and west Texas (though they had vast GOP support) and blanket opposition to new plant construction that's led to no new nuclear power plant construction in the US in, what, 20 years. Never underestimate the clout of the GOP no-nukes crowd, eh?

I guess in the whole scheme of things it doesn't matter that the "left" gave President Bush authority to go to Iraq, just that he actually did it and followed through on the stated official policy of the Clinton Administration of changing the regime in Iraq. Tut tut. Shame on him for erring on the side of caution.

FWIW, the price of oil would be about what it is irrespective of any Iraq regime change. The same period has seen maturing of (free market) economies in eastern Europe, India, and China. The global demand for oil has never been greater and it isn't going to decrease.

You don't want an honest left-right discussion of the issue? Fine. But while you "progressives" are trying to massively subsidize one unprofitable industry ("renewable energy") at the expense of a profitable industry ("big oil"), the rest of the real world continues to need petroleum. Your policies ARE increasing prices at the pump. The Democrats are driving up the cost of energy by unwise, unenlightened policies that #####-slap those offering what we need *now*. They did this again yesterday with the new oil company taxes that will be passed along to consumers; and the leadership admitted we'll be the ones paying the higher costs at the pumps. You go ahead and give them a pass. I can't and won't.

Cool. I haven't tried with my phone because I usually have my laptop with me.