I've recently finished reading a book of Golda Meir's speeches. Then, even more recently, I've been reading the news about the ceasefire being negotiated in the Middle East. Here's hoping this ceasefire is somewhat more effective than the similarly negotiated ceasefires after the wars in 1948, 1956, and 1967. Said hope is slim, however, while some of the parties to the agreement continue to have the destruction of Israel as their only stated goal (cf. the history of Israeli relations with Egypt and Sadat's actions in 1977, which paved the way to finally making peace between Egypt and Israel).
Unlike Egypt, which had an existence outside its fighting with Israel, groups like Hamas were formed solely to work towards the destruction of Israel, making it harder for them to be parties to any sort of peace process.... Luckily, Hamas has ended up branching out from its primary mission somewhat, putting part of its efforts into the Palestinian community itself (education and so forth). This gives me hope that they could, if they chose to (a big "if") redefine themselves as something other than a group devoted to eliminating the existence of Israel.
Dave Hyatt writes about the need for browser makers to cooperate with the CSS Working Group to develop comprehensive test suites so that web designers won't have to. Unfortunately, all the test suites I've seen for CSS focus very much on whether the browser handles valid CSS correctly. Just as important is whether the browser handles invalid css correctly. I've seen people complain that it's much harder to test invalid CSS handling since there are so many ways to be invalid. Yes. That's true. Which is all the more reason to do it—testing valid CSS is easy enough that groups other than the W3C can do it if need be; testing invalid CSS is too hard for anyone else to even contemplate bothering.