Hillary is too smart to run in 2004. Her target date is 2008. Unless the economy tanks completely, or there is another 9/11, GWB pretty much has the 2004 election in the bag. Anyone going up against him is just going to be a foot note in history.

Chris Losinger wrote: maybe we should try the opposite of isolation: flood them with cash, set up falafel stands on every corner, drop textbooks on them, do something to get the people up to speed with the rest of the world. maybe it would take, the way it did in Japan and its island neighbors. ha... i sound like a liberal. i guess "bomb the dirty f***ers" is the generic neo-con stance these days. Would it do any good to point out the obvious cultural imperalism involved with doing that, and also that Japan came around only after we had thoroughly bombed them? For the most part, however, I agree with you absolutely - the US should stop trying to find allies. We should waltz in where ever we like, do our business and leave without asking permission or for help from anyone. Actually, I'm Reverend Stan.

I think the key term here is "diversity". If enough people have enough different religious beliefs, the odds of at least a few of us being correct increases. Therefore, the odds of some of us getting into some kind of heaven increases proportionantly. If enough of us get into "heaven" the odds also increase that we could actually stage a rebellion and take over heaven. Once we have overthrown God, we could liberate the remainder of our kind from hell, thus gaining control not merely of the physical universe but the meta-physical universe also. Hmmmm... sounds like a plan...

The EU is nothing but an attempt on the part of Europe to achieve economically what it was never able to achieve militarily. The Euro-Elites have always wanted a unified political/Economic system which they could control. The only difference now is that the evolution of economic systems has provided them with a strategy the never had in the past. The Brits would be insane to join. They would be much better served becoming part of a North American economic coalition. North America has much closer cultural affinity with Britain than does Europe.

I was recently given an assignment which I thought would be very easy, but which is turning out not to be. Our application has a huge, MFC based, activeX control which runs in the browser. We want to use .NET to capture the bulk of this control's behavior on the server side. However, part of the ActiveX control's behavior involves dragging and dropping icons on to images. We want to do this on the client side. (i.e., capture mousemove events for draging and dropping on the client side browser so that we are not making too many round trips to the server) In other words, we want the UI of the ActiveX control to work exactly as it does now in the browser, only with .NET tools. Is this possible? I can get the behavior I want by using .NET Windows forms controls. But Windows forms controls cannot be used in a browser. (At least I can't get them to). I can get some of the behavior useing .NET Web forms controls, but again, the interactivity with a web form control is limited because of the round trip nature of interacting between client and server. I have come down to the opinion that the answer is to use a light weight ATL ActiveX control containing a web service proxy to communicate with the server. However, my supervisor insists that this is doable with a pure .NET solution. I can't find one. Any ideas?