Slashdot Mirror

My understanding is that Reagan ran up a big bill by asking for the "600 ship Navy". Reagan also spent a lot on the Star Wars Missile Defense, which was entirely government fraud, because it could not work with present technology.

My understanding is that Reagan did this to embezzle money for his friends in the weapons industry. Both of these programs were entirely government corruption.

Note that the last few presidents have come from alcohol-influenced families: Reagan was an ACOA. George H.W. Bush is an ACOA. Clinton is an ACOA. (Adult Child of Alcoholics) George W. Bush is an alcoholic.

It amazes me how little people know about the activities of their government. Here are facts that are important now:

Table of U.S. Parties and Economics

Government data shows Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

Government data shows Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

Google search: voter fraud.

--
Government data shows Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

One of my complaints about conservatives is that they are hypocritical.

One of my complaints about "conservatives" is that they are not only not honest, they are not conservative. Look at Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

Here's my answer: You probably don't say "Internets."

--
Government data shows Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

The quality of the programming we get from India is the same as the quality of technical support.

--
Government data shows Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

Here's my answer: You probably don't say "Internets."

--
Government data shows Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

Responding to your sig: The worst Democrat is better at jobs and growth than the best Republican.

Here's another possible sig: Government data shows Republicans are corrupt.

I've done some research and provided links to reviews of 3 movies and 35 books saying that the Bush administration is corrupt: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

On Monday on the Charlie Rose show, author Graydon Carter was talking about his book, What We've Lost. He said something like, "I thought I knew a tenth of extent of the corruption of the Bush administration, but I found that I knew a thousandth." That's my experience, too. I believe that I have a reasonable overview of the corruption, and I discover a new pocket of detail that shows that it is much worse than I thought.

The most shocking thing I've learned in trying to tell people about my research is that perhaps one U.S. citizen in twenty has any idea of the extent of the corruption.

The same story, direct from Reuters: Crackdown on Internet Journalists. More detail: New arrest of a journalist contributing to reformist websites. More about Iranian "religious" extremism: Iran cancels music concerts under hard-line pressure. There is political turmoil inside Iran: Iranian vice president quits. More about the social breakdown in Iran: Rights Group: Human Rights Violations on the Rise in Iran.

Don't expect leadership from the U.S. government. Members of the Bush administration can't even say Iran. It's not I-ran. It's I-rahn. During the vice-presidential debate, Cheney said I-ran, showing how little he knows about the topic. President Bush said "Moo-lah", instead of mullah, the Farsi name for religious leader. Don't underestimate their lack of interest in things that don't make money.

More Bush administration mis-pronunciation from Cheney: "Tolleybon", intead of Taliban, and "Internets".

More about U.S. government corruption: The Bush administration borrows money to give to its friends, you pay it back. Government data shows Republicans are corrupt.

"And it was supposed to debut on the Tonight Show."

It DID debut on the Tonight Show, last night, 2004-10-08. The Tonight Show paid for it to be made.

Anyone smart enough and knowledgeable enough about current events to be a comedian is smart enough to understand a few of the facts about George W. Bush's lack of analytical ability. Both David Letterman and Jay Leno joke about that, perhaps 3 times a week.

Inside the U.S., it is possible to get fired from advertising-supported media for being too obvious about thinking negatively about George W. Bush. Outside the U.S., even government leaders call George W. Bush "moron", "idiot", and other words that are not so positive. The foreign leaders are wrong, of course. He is not a moron. George W. Bush's failings are entirely consistent with the characteristics of dry alcoholics: Angry, secretive, dishonest, insensitive to the feelings of others, and, at times, extremely likable.

Most people in the U.S. have very, very little understanding of the activities of their government. But there are people who are beginning to see the hints of corruption. The Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD sold 2 million copies the first day.

--
15 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. Many don't like the U.S. Gov. influence on their country.

I agree that Michael Moore sometimes has an objectionable way of presenting material. But, as you are doing, many people talk about Michael Moore instead of talking about the huge amount of corruption he tries to document.

There is a huge, huge amount of material. Here are reviews of 35 books that say the same thing as Michael Moore. You can have the same message presented in a learned way, or a funny way, or a typically Republican way, or a journalistic way: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

Here is just a little hint of the corruption: Bush borrows money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

Here's another hint: George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 talking about his prostitutes and using government influence to make money. Family values?

Here's another hint: The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2: The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

Here's another hint: Did you see the network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with a Saudi man the Bush family knows as "Bandar Bush"? Since it was Saudis who attacked on 9/11, why did Bush invade Iraq. Was it partly a smokescreen to get attention away from the Saudis?

I agree that Michael Moore sometimes has an objectionable way of presenting material. But, as you are doing, many people talk about Michael Moore instead of talking about the huge amount of corruption he tries to document.

There is a huge, huge amount of material. Here are reviews of 35 books that say the same thing as Michael Moore. You can have the same message presented in a learned way, or a funny way, or a typically Republican way, or a journalistic way: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

Here is just a little hint of the corruption: Bush borrows money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

Here's another hint: George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 talking about his prostitutes and using government influence to make money. Family values?

Here's another hint: The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2: The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

Here's another hint: Did you see the network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with a Saudi man the Bush family knows as "Bandar Bush"? Since it was Saudis who attacked on 9/11, why did Bush invade Iraq. Was it partly a smokescreen to get attention away from the Saudis?

I agree that Michael Moore sometimes has an objectionable way of presenting material. But, as you are doing, many people talk about Michael Moore instead of talking about the huge amount of corruption he tries to document.

There is a huge, huge amount of material. Here are reviews of 35 books that say the same thing as Michael Moore. You can have the same message presented in a learned way, or a funny way, or a typically Republican way, or a journalistic way: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

Here is just a little hint of the corruption: Bush borrows money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

Here's another hint: George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 talking about his prostitutes and using government influence to make money. Family values?

Here's another hint: The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2: The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

Here's another hint: Did you see the network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with a Saudi man the Bush family knows as "Bandar Bush"? Since it was Saudis who attacked on 9/11, why did Bush invade Iraq. Was it partly a smokescreen to get attention away from the Saudis?

When I was a teenager I worked in a restaurant for a short time. There were alcoholic chefs that had both 1 and 2.

What about behavior that is of more direct concern to others? Here are traits that many people think are characteristic of George W. Bush. Do you see these traits:

Likability, anger, lying, absence of deep or analytical thinking, polarized thinking, rigid thinking, obsessive repetition, inability to perceive the needs of others and inability to understand someone different from oneself, grandiosity, believing that one's own ideas are all-important, impatience, incoherence, illogic, and mood swings.

The first needs a little explanation. Often alcoholics can be very socially engaging for short periods.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good. You must pay it back.

By some measures, the U.S. government is the most violent government in the history of the world. The U.S. government has directly killed an estimated 3,000,000 people since the end of the Second World War in 24 military actions.

The system of violence works by creating fear in citizens so rich people can profit. Purchases of oil for war making and purchases of weapons are areas that are secret enough that those who want corruption can make huge profits.

This is only a small part of weapons research, and you only heard about it because of an accidental leak.

It's 1:20 PM. Do you know what your government is doing? No, you don't.

--
Bush: When Saudis attack, invade Iraq.

By some measures, the U.S. government is the most violent government in the history of the world. The U.S. government has directly killed an estimated 3,000,000 people since the end of the Second World War in 24 military actions.

The system of violence works by creating fear in citizens so rich people can profit. Purchases of oil for war making and purchases of weapons are areas that are secret enough that those who want corruption can make huge profits.

This is only a small part of weapons research, and you only heard about it because of an accidental leak.

It's 1:20 PM. Do you know what your government is doing? No, you don't.

--
Bush: When Saudis attack, invade Iraq.

By some measures, the U.S. government is the most violent government in the history of the world. The U.S. government has directly killed an estimated 3,000,000 people since the end of the Second World War in 24 military actions.

The system of violence works by creating fear in citizens so rich people can profit. Purchases of oil for war making and purchases of weapons are areas that are secret enough that those who want corruption can make huge profits.

This is only a small part of weapons research, and you only heard about it because of an accidental leak.

It's 1:20 PM. Do you know what your government is doing? No, you don't.

--
Bush: When Saudis attack, invade Iraq.

Jafac, you are obviously very knowledgeable about this issue. However, you have made your comments in such a brief manner that most people will not understand.

Here is some background: Senator Biden says the Saudi government cannot continue in power without U.S. government support.

The U.S. government has, in effect, declared war on Arabs so that U.S. politicians can get the Jewish vote: New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war. This works, of course, only if the average U.S. citizen is not aware it is happening. The average U.S. citizen seems to understand very little about what the U.S. government does.

The fact is, U.S. citizens are not allowed to know why the U.S. bases are being built in Iraq. United States citizens are only expected to pay, and trust that what their government does is in their interest.

Jafac, you are obviously very knowledgeable about this issue. However, you have made your comments in such a brief manner that most people will not understand.

Here is some background: Senator Biden says the Saudi government cannot continue in power without U.S. government support.

The U.S. government has, in effect, declared war on Arabs so that U.S. politicians can get the Jewish vote: New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war. This works, of course, only if the average U.S. citizen is not aware it is happening. The average U.S. citizen seems to understand very little about what the U.S. government does.

The fact is, U.S. citizens are not allowed to know why the U.S. bases are being built in Iraq. United States citizens are only expected to pay, and trust that what their government does is in their interest.

Did Cheney get money from Halliburton after he became vice-president? Did Halliburton get oil-related contracts?

Everyone who reports on this says yes. However, I wasn't there.

The record seems to show that George W. Bush became a cheerleader because he wanted to be close to the campus leaders, who were, at the time, athletes. Since he did not excel at athletics, being a cheerleader was the only way he could be one of the student leaders. The captain of the cheerleaders was part of the social group that included the captains of the teams.

George W. Bush was an obnoxious alcoholic then. The culture of alcoholics is very different from the male gay culture. There is no hint George W. Bush was gay. He was interested in partying, and being close to the student leaders was a way to be involved in the parties. Two of his arrests came from stunts that seem like something a drunk person would do. The third arrest was for drunk driving.

I can cite numerous authorities for this. For example, see George W. Bush: Living the Bush Legacy.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

The record seems to show that George W. Bush became a cheerleader because he wanted to be close to the campus leaders, who were, at the time, athletes. Since he did not excel at athletics, being a cheerleader was the only way he could be one of the student leaders. The captain of the cheerleaders was part of the social group that included the captains of the teams.

George W. Bush was an obnoxious alcoholic then. The culture of alcoholics is very different from the male gay culture. There is no hint George W. Bush was gay. He was interested in partying, and being close to the student leaders was a way to be involved in the parties. Two of his arrests came from stunts that seem like something a drunk person would do. The third arrest was for drunk driving.

I can cite numerous authorities for this. For example, see George W. Bush: Living the Bush Legacy.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

The record seems to show that George W. Bush became a cheerleader because he wanted to be close to the campus leaders, who were, at the time, athletes. Since he did not excel at athletics, being a cheerleader was the only way he could be one of the student leaders. The captain of the cheerleaders was part of the social group that included the captains of the teams.

George W. Bush was an obnoxious alcoholic then. The culture of alcoholics is very different from the male gay culture. There is no hint George W. Bush was gay. He was interested in partying, and being close to the student leaders was a way to be involved in the parties. Two of his arrests came from stunts that seem like something a drunk person would do. The third arrest was for drunk driving.

I can cite numerous authorities for this. For example, see George W. Bush: Living the Bush Legacy.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

In the parent comment, I forgot the link to reviews of the 3 movies and 35 other books that say the same things as the Kelley book linked above: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

In the parent comment, I forgot the link to reviews of the 3 movies and 35 other books that say the same things as the Kelley book linked above: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

In the parent comment, I forgot the link to reviews of the 3 movies and 35 other books that say the same things as the Kelley book linked above: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Chemically, Plutonium is a heavy metal and perhaps toxic like other heavy metals.

The problem with Plutonium is its radioactivity. A tiny, tiny amount can still kill slowly because Plutonium emits very energetic particles, for which the human immune system is not full prepared, and which can cause cancer.

I know the Wikipedia says that the toxicity of Plutonium has been exaggerated in the past. However, there are hundreds of millions of compounds, and if there are 1,000 or 10,000 equally as poisonous as Plutonium, it is still "one of the most poisonous substances on earth".

All of the organic compounds which the Wikipedia article on Plutonium says are very toxic break down chemically. Plutonium, however, loses 1/2 of its strength in 24,300 years. It can be difficult or impossible to remove from the environment. The toxicity of Plutonium includes the toxicity it has today, plus the toxicity it will have for a thousand generations to come.

I saw this article referenced by Wikipedia: The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity. Remember, the toxicity of Plutonium is not a "myth". What is a "myth" is that Plutonium is uniquely toxic when dispersed by other means than exploding as a bomb.

The author, Bernard L. Cohen, offers to eat Plutonium, although he must be aware that he will never be asked to do so because giving it to him to eat would be illegal.

Probably the biggest area of confusion between what the news media say about Plutonium and what Bernard L. Cohen says is that they are talking about different expected means of dispersal. The news media often discusses the possibility of someone exploding a bomb made of Plutonium in a populated area, or an explosion in a Plutonium manufacturing plant or storage facility. The toxicity of the explosion would include all the products of the explosion, of course, many of which are quicker killers than Plutonium itself. The news media are using the shorthand of saying that the people killed in a Plutonium explosion are killed by Plutonium. That is true in the sense that people understand it. People would not say the cause of death was building collapse when an explosion of a Plutonium bomb destroyed a building. They would correctly say that the risk came from the availability of Plutonium.

It is legitimate to say that the burning of coal kills more people than the use of Plutonium, but that's because billions of tons of coal pollutants enter the atmosphere. A small amount of Plutonium is safer than a huge amount of coal, except when Plutonium is used in a bomb.

It's really difficult to cover all the issues about most subjects in a Slashdot comment or even a news article. It's easy to find fault with something in most articles.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Chemically, Plutonium is a heavy metal and perhaps toxic like other heavy metals.

The problem with Plutonium is its radioactivity. A tiny, tiny amount can still kill slowly because Plutonium emits very energetic particles, for which the human immune system is not full prepared, and which can cause cancer.

I know the Wikipedia says that the toxicity of Plutonium has been exaggerated in the past. However, there are hundreds of millions of compounds, and if there are 1,000 or 10,000 equally as poisonous as Plutonium, it is still "one of the most poisonous substances on earth".

All of the organic compounds which the Wikipedia article on Plutonium says are very toxic break down chemically. Plutonium, however, loses 1/2 of its strength in 24,300 years. It can be difficult or impossible to remove from the environment. The toxicity of Plutonium includes the toxicity it has today, plus the toxicity it will have for a thousand generations to come.

I saw this article referenced by Wikipedia: The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity. Remember, the toxicity of Plutonium is not a "myth". What is a "myth" is that Plutonium is uniquely toxic when dispersed by other means than exploding as a bomb.

The author, Bernard L. Cohen, offers to eat Plutonium, although he must be aware that he will never be asked to do so because giving it to him to eat would be illegal.

Probably the biggest area of confusion between what the news media say about Plutonium and what Bernard L. Cohen says is that they are talking about different expected means of dispersal. The news media often discusses the possibility of someone exploding a bomb made of Plutonium in a populated area, or an explosion in a Plutonium manufacturing plant or storage facility. The toxicity of the explosion would include all the products of the explosion, of course, many of which are quicker killers than Plutonium itself. The news media are using the shorthand of saying that the people killed in a Plutonium explosion are killed by Plutonium. That is true in the sense that people understand it. People would not say the cause of death was building collapse when an explosion of a Plutonium bomb destroyed a building. They would correctly say that the risk came from the availability of Plutonium.

It is legitimate to say that the burning of coal kills more people than the use of Plutonium, but that's because billions of tons of coal pollutants enter the atmosphere. A small amount of Plutonium is safer than a huge amount of coal, except when Plutonium is used in a bomb.

It's really difficult to cover all the issues about most subjects in a Slashdot comment or even a news article. It's easy to find fault with something in most articles.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Chemically, Plutonium is a heavy metal and perhaps toxic like other heavy metals.

The problem with Plutonium is its radioactivity. A tiny, tiny amount can still kill slowly because Plutonium emits very energetic particles, for which the human immune system is not full prepared, and which can cause cancer.

I know the Wikipedia says that the toxicity of Plutonium has been exaggerated in the past. However, there are hundreds of millions of compounds, and if there are 1,000 or 10,000 equally as poisonous as Plutonium, it is still "one of the most poisonous substances on earth".

All of the organic compounds which the Wikipedia article on Plutonium says are very toxic break down chemically. Plutonium, however, loses 1/2 of its strength in 24,300 years. It can be difficult or impossible to remove from the environment. The toxicity of Plutonium includes the toxicity it has today, plus the toxicity it will have for a thousand generations to come.

I saw this article referenced by Wikipedia: The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity. Remember, the toxicity of Plutonium is not a "myth". What is a "myth" is that Plutonium is uniquely toxic when dispersed by other means than exploding as a bomb.

The author, Bernard L. Cohen, offers to eat Plutonium, although he must be aware that he will never be asked to do so because giving it to him to eat would be illegal.

Probably the biggest area of confusion between what the news media say about Plutonium and what Bernard L. Cohen says is that they are talking about different expected means of dispersal. The news media often discusses the possibility of someone exploding a bomb made of Plutonium in a populated area, or an explosion in a Plutonium manufacturing plant or storage facility. The toxicity of the explosion would include all the products of the explosion, of course, many of which are quicker killers than Plutonium itself. The news media are using the shorthand of saying that the people killed in a Plutonium explosion are killed by Plutonium. That is true in the sense that people understand it. People would not say the cause of death was building collapse when an explosion of a Plutonium bomb destroyed a building. They would correctly say that the risk came from the availability of Plutonium.

It is legitimate to say that the burning of coal kills more people than the use of Plutonium, but that's because billions of tons of coal pollutants enter the atmosphere. A small amount of Plutonium is safer than a huge amount of coal, except when Plutonium is used in a bomb.

It's really difficult to cover all the issues about most subjects in a Slashdot comment or even a news article. It's easy to find fault with something in most articles.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

"Now we are bringing freedom and terrorists are bringing instability."

First, saying we is incorrect. The U.S. government would kill you if you got in its way. You are not part of any group that includes those U.S. government leaders who want violence.

Second, when Bush invaded an oil-rich Arab country on a pretext, particularly one not connected with al Qaeda, it was a very strong advertisement that brought more "terrorists", not less. ("Terrorists" are those who engage in war, but don't own airplanes.)

In fact, in the 24 times the U.S. government has bombed other countries since the Second World War, all have resulted in more instability and killing, not less.

Violence does not bring democracy. It brings more violence. I did a survey of the literature, and found that some people say the U.S. government was responsible for the deaths of perhaps 2,000,000 in Cambodia. The information given was credible to me. The U.S. government's bombing killed about 150,000 people directly. The destabilization caused the deaths of the rest. The 2,000,000 Cambodians died, but it is not possible to assign blame with accuracy.

The government leaders who say that they will bring democracy to the Middle East with violence are lying; they definitely know that is not historically likely. They are only taking advantage of the ignorance of U.S. citizens, and they know it.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Is this, then, official U.S. government policy, and the law of the land? Can anyone who doesn't like his neighbor and thinks his neighbor may become a threat in the future solve his problem by killing the neighbor?

Or, is this just the typical thinking of dry drunks?

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Is this, then, official U.S. government policy, and the law of the land? Can anyone who doesn't like his neighbor and thinks his neighbor may become a threat in the future solve his problem by killing the neighbor?

Or, is this just the typical thinking of dry drunks?

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Is this, then, official U.S. government policy, and the law of the land? Can anyone who doesn't like his neighbor and thinks his neighbor may become a threat in the future solve his problem by killing the neighbor?

Or, is this just the typical thinking of dry drunks?

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

Most people in the U.S. know little of the activities of their government. The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating fear in U.S. citizens so rich people can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government cannot be not democratic. How can you know what you are voting for, if you are not allowed to know what the government did?

The problem is with secret actions, not with secret information gathering.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

Most people in the U.S. know little of the activities of their government. The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating fear in U.S. citizens so rich people can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government cannot be not democratic. How can you know what you are voting for, if you are not allowed to know what the government did?

The problem is with secret actions, not with secret information gathering.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

Most people in the U.S. know little of the activities of their government. The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating fear in U.S. citizens so rich people can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government cannot be not democratic. How can you know what you are voting for, if you are not allowed to know what the government did?

The problem is with secret actions, not with secret information gathering.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Product Lifecycle Dates says, "Windows XP Professional Mainstream Support Retired: 31-Dec-2006". [2 years and 2 months from today]

What does that mean, "Mainstream Support Retired"? Here's what it means for Windows XP Professional:

Microsoft's Support Lifecycle Support Policy FAQ: Non-security hotfix support -- Requires extended hotfix agreement, purchased within 90 days of mainstream support ending.

This means that you must pay more money, and if for some reason you don't jump through the right hoop at exactly the right time, you cannot have the support at any price.

What does declared product death mean for Windows XP Home? No support of any kind. Microsoft has declared the death of a product most home users will not want to "upgrade" in only two years two months. That's why I say Mr. Bill Gates is the world's most well-known mortician.

XP Pro has been VERY buggy for us. It has not been as bad as Windows ME, but it has been very expensive because it needs updating every month, usually, and because Microsoft has not been willing to fix bugs, even though they have been reported to Microsoft Technical Support CPR (Critical Path Response). For example, Windows XP problems: Port Re-direction.

So, even if you accept the idea that the hundreds of fixes in Service Pack 2, some of them not documented, bring Windows XP to an acceptably buggy state, then we will get only 2 years and 2 months of full support, after being dragged over the coals because of Microsoft's incredible lack of caring and incredible sloppiness in programming.

I find this disgusting, and we are already planning to move our products to Linux.

People in the U.S. seem to fall into two broad groups: Those who know when they are being abused, and those who give excuses for abuse no matter how extreme it is. This has consequences far more extreme than allowing Microsoft's abusive behavior. For example, for half of U.S. citizens see nothing wrong with these examples of U.S. government corruption:

24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Bush's education improvements were partly fraud

Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Product Lifecycle Dates says, "Windows XP Professional Mainstream Support Retired: 31-Dec-2006". [2 years and 2 months from today]

What does that mean, "Mainstream Support Retired"? Here's what it means for Windows XP Professional:

Microsoft's Support Lifecycle Support Policy FAQ: Non-security hotfix support -- Requires extended hotfix agreement, purchased within 90 days of mainstream support ending.

This means that you must pay more money, and if for some reason you don't jump through the right hoop at exactly the right time, you cannot have the support at any price.

What does declared product death mean for Windows XP Home? No support of any kind. Microsoft has declared the death of a product most home users will not want to "upgrade" in only two years two months. That's why I say Mr. Bill Gates is the world's most well-known mortician.

XP Pro has been VERY buggy for us. It has not been as bad as Windows ME, but it has been very expensive because it needs updating every month, usually, and because Microsoft has not been willing to fix bugs, even though they have been reported to Microsoft Technical Support CPR (Critical Path Response). For example, Windows XP problems: Port Re-direction.

So, even if you accept the idea that the hundreds of fixes in Service Pack 2, some of them not documented, bring Windows XP to an acceptably buggy state, then we will get only 2 years and 2 months of full support, after being dragged over the coals because of Microsoft's incredible lack of caring and incredible sloppiness in programming.

I find this disgusting, and we are already planning to move our products to Linux.

People in the U.S. seem to fall into two broad groups: Those who know when they are being abused, and those who give excuses for abuse no matter how extreme it is. This has consequences far more extreme than allowing Microsoft's abusive behavior. For example, for half of U.S. citizens see nothing wrong with these examples of U.S. government corruption:

24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Bush's education improvements were partly fraud

Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Product Lifecycle Dates says, "Windows XP Professional Mainstream Support Retired: 31-Dec-2006". [2 years and 2 months from today]

What does that mean, "Mainstream Support Retired"? Here's what it means for Windows XP Professional:

Microsoft's Support Lifecycle Support Policy FAQ: Non-security hotfix support -- Requires extended hotfix agreement, purchased within 90 days of mainstream support ending.

This means that you must pay more money, and if for some reason you don't jump through the right hoop at exactly the right time, you cannot have the support at any price.

What does declared product death mean for Windows XP Home? No support of any kind. Microsoft has declared the death of a product most home users will not want to "upgrade" in only two years two months. That's why I say Mr. Bill Gates is the world's most well-known mortician.

XP Pro has been VERY buggy for us. It has not been as bad as Windows ME, but it has been very expensive because it needs updating every month, usually, and because Microsoft has not been willing to fix bugs, even though they have been reported to Microsoft Technical Support CPR (Critical Path Response). For example, Windows XP problems: Port Re-direction.

So, even if you accept the idea that the hundreds of fixes in Service Pack 2, some of them not documented, bring Windows XP to an acceptably buggy state, then we will get only 2 years and 2 months of full support, after being dragged over the coals because of Microsoft's incredible lack of caring and incredible sloppiness in programming.

I find this disgusting, and we are already planning to move our products to Linux.

People in the U.S. seem to fall into two broad groups: Those who know when they are being abused, and those who give excuses for abuse no matter how extreme it is. This has consequences far more extreme than allowing Microsoft's abusive behavior. For example, for half of U.S. citizens see nothing wrong with these examples of U.S. government corruption:

24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Bush's education improvements were partly fraud

Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

I find that disgusting. They are still patching Windows XP like mad. By the time Win XP is stable (maybe when SP3 is released) there will be only a year or so until Microsoft declares it dead. Mr. Bill Gates is the world's leading software mortician.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

I find that disgusting. They are still patching Windows XP like mad. By the time Win XP is stable (maybe when SP3 is released) there will be only a year or so until Microsoft declares it dead. Mr. Bill Gates is the world's leading software mortician.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

I find that disgusting. They are still patching Windows XP like mad. By the time Win XP is stable (maybe when SP3 is released) there will be only a year or so until Microsoft declares it dead. Mr. Bill Gates is the world's leading software mortician.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

"The most ridiculous part is that EVERYBODY WILL ... FALL FOR IT AGAIN."

Exactly right: The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating fear in U.S. citizens so rich people can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government is not democratic.

This is the 55th serious vulnerability in IE found in two years. I've often wondered: Are Microsoft programmers that sloppy, or were the bugs put there to help with U.S. government surveillance? Why did the U.S. Department of Justice let Microsoft off so easily for its anti-trust violations?

"The most ridiculous part is that EVERYBODY WILL ... FALL FOR IT AGAIN."

Exactly right: The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating fear in U.S. citizens so rich people can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government is not democratic.

This is the 55th serious vulnerability in IE found in two years. I've often wondered: Are Microsoft programmers that sloppy, or were the bugs put there to help with U.S. government surveillance? Why did the U.S. Department of Justice let Microsoft off so easily for its anti-trust violations?

"The most ridiculous part is that EVERYBODY WILL ... FALL FOR IT AGAIN."

Exactly right: The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since World War 2. The system of violence works by creating fear in U.S. citizens so rich people can profit. The problem happens largely because the U.S. government has a break-the-law department called the CIA. Secret government is not democratic.

This is the 55th serious vulnerability in IE found in two years. I've often wondered: Are Microsoft programmers that sloppy, or were the bugs put there to help with U.S. government surveillance? Why did the U.S. Department of Justice let Microsoft off so easily for its anti-trust violations?

I think there is a need for another data point in this research. What about doing testing in a more viscous fluid? I'm sure that there are a considerable number of Slashdot readers that would like to do research on the very important question of whether Natalie Portman could swim faster in hot grits.

How can a moderator say the parent comment is off topic when so many Slashdotters would like to be on this topic? More philosophically, how can Natalie Portman be off topic? If she is off topic, that is evidence the topic needs changing, right?

Of course, this would all be for the advancement of science. No really.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

I think there is a need for another data point in this research. What about doing testing in a more viscous fluid? I'm sure that there are a considerable number of Slashdot readers that would like to do research on the very important question of whether Natalie Portman could swim faster in hot grits.

How can a moderator say the parent comment is off topic when so many Slashdotters would like to be on this topic? More philosophically, how can Natalie Portman be off topic? If she is off topic, that is evidence the topic needs changing, right?

Of course, this would all be for the advancement of science. No really.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

I think there is a need for another data point in this research. What about doing testing in a more viscous fluid? I'm sure that there are a considerable number of Slashdot readers that would like to do research on the very important question of whether Natalie Portman could swim faster in hot grits.

How can a moderator say the parent comment is off topic when so many Slashdotters would like to be on this topic? More philosophically, how can Natalie Portman be off topic? If she is off topic, that is evidence the topic needs changing, right?

Of course, this would all be for the advancement of science. No really.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Your sig: "America: fast becoming a militant fascist theocracy"

Maybe this is a better understanding:

The U.S. government's militant behavior has not been fast. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since World War II.

The violent behavior has nothing to do with religion. Bush only discusses religion so that he can get votes. The U.S. government has been an equal opportunity killer: 3,000,000 people killed since World War II, most of them in Vietnam. The people killed were from many religions.

The U.S. government violence is not really fascist. It is profitist. I don't think those who want profit care about politics, they only engage in manipulating government because that brings easy profit. On the other hand, caring only about money eventually causes the rigid behavior that might be called fascism, but is really a kind of mental illness.

The system works by creating fear so that citizens will allow rich people to engage in secret and not-so-secret violence for profit. Cheney is doing some of the not secret part now, by implying that a vote for Kerry is a vote for a terrorist attack.

Alcoholics are often very likable on the surface; they are anything but likable in reality. They have such inner conflict that they are not easily able to be analytical. Their thoughts are so disorganized that they cannot express complicated ideas easily.

Bush acts exactly like recovered alcoholics usually act: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration.. See points 1 through 13.

Most of what Bush says was written by someone else.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to make himself look good.

Your sig: "America: fast becoming a militant fascist theocracy"

Maybe this is a better understanding:

The U.S. government's militant behavior has not been fast. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since World War II.

The violent behavior has nothing to do with religion. Bush only discusses religion so that he can get votes. The U.S. government has been an equal opportunity killer: 3,000,000 people killed since World War II, most of them in Vietnam. The people killed were from many religions.

The U.S. government violence is not really fascist. It is profitist. I don't think those who want profit care about politics, they only engage in manipulating government because that brings easy profit. On the other hand, caring only about money eventually causes the rigid behavior that might be called fascism, but is really a kind of mental illness.

The system works by creating fear so that citizens will allow rich people to engage in secret and not-so-secret violence for profit. Cheney is doing some of the not secret part now, by implying that a vote for Kerry is a vote for a terrorist attack.

Alcoholics are often very likable on the surface; they are anything but likable in reality. They have such inner conflict that they are not easily able to be analytical. Their thoughts are so disorganized that they cannot express complicated ideas easily.

Bush acts exactly like recovered alcoholics usually act: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration.. See points 1 through 13.

Most of what Bush says was written by someone else.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to make himself look good.