Slashdot Mirror
The Definite Desktop Environment Comparison
Gentu writes "OSNews posted a very long and interesting comparison between the most popular desktop environments today: Windows XP Luna, Mac OS X Aqua, BeOS/Zeta and Unix's KDE and Gnome. Some of the points in the article can be thought to be 'subjective', but overall many good points are made and it seems that there is room for improvement for all DEs."
Sometimes I'm too much self for my own man.
Luna gets the first post!
The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
Am I the only one with a hard-on right now?
It's definitive, not definite.
Good god.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
I mean really. Does it at all matter that less than an hour ago, the President of the United States all but declared war.
Are we really that self-absorbed?
Hey, but you can make this cool animated background on an Aqua desktop where the current Iraqi body count is displayed via a CNN web search...
yeesh
Dizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything.
Jean Rasczak: Really. I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that. You.
Carmen: They wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed.
Jean Rasczak: Correct. Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is mearly wishful thinking at its worst!
yes I'm a shemale..you just had to ask. I got tired of pounding the cushion for a pushing cuz the cushion got way over inflated and to much meat to grind. No I ain't black...just call me whitey.
There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein's youngest son] personally supervise these murders.
Forty seven hours left until this crap stops - despite the machinations of the corrupt Frog who first sold Saddam a nuclear reactor - that he knew would be used to make nuclear weapons - back in the 1970s...
Bill Clinton officially signed into law that it is US policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power back in 1998.
Since Saddam agreed to totally disarm in 1991 in order to stay in power, the UN Security Council has passed a total of 17 resolutions demanding that Iraq disarm.
God fucking damn it! Eugenia Loli-Queru is a WOMAN!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Some shit on Iraq.
The original intelligence reports that sent the ships overseas to begin with have been proven false.
For the most part Hussian has complied (in spirit) of the US and UN resolutions.
This war is a fiction and the gov is proving it's willing to use misinformation coupled with goverment actions to commit murder (heh... at least in a more identifyable form)
And lastly, there is such a thing as mainland Europe.
I'm still kind of young and this kind of stuff depresses the hell out of me.
I write in my journal
What most US citizens don't consider is that the UN isn't all for keeping Hussein in power. They do, however, want to give peace a chance.
Think this way: If Bush had said 72 hours instead of 48 hours there would be hundreds of thousands of people that could live another 24 hours. To us 24 hours isn't much, but to them it is 50% of the rest of their life.
I dunno, its just my opinion. I've been to many protests and the US Administration took the ultimate "not giving a shit" stance. He better hope and pray this war goes quick and painlessly or he's out of a job.
You realize that the majority of americans are for a war with Iraq? You are the minority and he will remain in office as long as he doesn't do anything stupid.
... because then you have something pretty to look at while you wait - again - for the beachball to disappear. Which usually takes a while. Which was also pointed out.
Whoa! You've just made me feel a whole lot better. Now I KNOW he won't remain in office. He's done sooo many stupid things I lost count a long time ago.
2004 - Anybody But Bush
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Yeah, like openly defying international law so he can pick a fight with an annoying little dictator whose main crime at the moment seems to be that he's weaker than North Korea. As long as he doesn't do anything stupid like that he'll be fine.
George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC
Dear Governor Bush:
So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:
Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). And just like with Afgh
The Resignation Speech of Robin Cook (British Member of Parliament)
17 March 2003 9.44 pm
Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston): This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the Back Benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here. None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr. Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview. On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime. I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the Prime Minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
France has been at the receiving end of bucketloads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner-not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies. It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis. Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for thi