Ah, you must be a young'un. Geoshitties was famous for having a tiny bandwidth cap, something on the order of 10MB per day (or week?) per account. I'm sure the good folks at archive.org didn't want to be constantly DoSing peoples' webpages, so they didn't bother backing up that site.
My ATM card can also be run as a credit card -- so gas stations don't need my PIN, and never ask for it. Retailers will usually run it as an ATM card & require a PIN (saves them a small percent per transaction), while restaurants always do it as a credit card.
IE6 was/not/ the best browser available upon its release. I believe that honor went to Opera 5.x, though its popularity was hamstrung at the time by being for-pay.
At this point IE6's other competitors were Netscape 4.x (execrably bad) and Mozilla (still in the early Milestones, feature-incomplete, and unstable).
No soap. The Paultards were marginalized and ignored (unfairly, I thought) by the media, including Faux News, official organ of the GOP.
The teabaggers are endorsed by Limbaugh and Fox talking heads now that the GOP is out of office and their boys can't be directly hurt by it. I'm sure there are sincere Paultards in the movement, but by and large it's populated by butt-hurt Republicans and manipulated by the same powers they're supposedly railing against.
I'm afraid you are being used. You're not the first - the Christian right was being used by the GOP since at least Reagan's time; probably the party leadership at the time thought they could keep a lid on the fundies while using them for reliable votes, but that backfired and now the social conservatives run the party, which is why the fiscal conservatives/libertarians are being screwed from both sides.
Me, I'm fairly libertarian, especially on social issues. I've had ignorant people tell me that I should vote GOP because of my stance on civil liberties. During the Bush Jr. administration, yet; the same useful idiots no doubt believed their propaganda about being for smaller government as well. I'll vote Dem before I do a damned thing for the GOP after the Bush disaster and their constant enablement of him, and have. I don't see that changing for the foreseeable future, because the GOP is still run by the same people, with the same goals. Also the Dems are at least *honest* about wanting to grow the government, and they're probably more willing to do the responsible thing and raise taxes to pay for it.
The Repubs's downfall was driving away the independents - the conservative base (the 30% or so who said Bush was a good prez up until the end of his term) was going to vote for them come hell or high water.
No, it's not obvious, and you're conveniently ignoring that the GOP had a monopoly on power from '01 to '06, and that for that entire period they had no intention of shrinking the government, aside from their scheme to reduce taxes while dramatically increasing spending - maybe they were trying to shrink it by killing it.
The Republicans had stopped "acting like Republicans" (whatever that means) long before '06; really, the change was sometime during Clinton's second term. Power corrupts, and the base was too blinded by partisan antics to notice.
I mean, really. How do you blind fools square fiscal & small-government conservatism against tons of military spending (outside the normal budgeting process, yet), and the government giving away money to churches with Bush's faith-based initiatives,/and/ attempts to legislate morality? The man/said/ he was going to do the faith-based thing in the '00 campaign. Then there's how much the GOP expanded the government from '01 to '06 between the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, the TSA's security theater, warrantless wiretapping, and their reflexive secrecy and valuing personal loyalties above competence (which ties back into how the wars were prosecuted).
I'm not saying the Dems were completely blameless - they went along with too many of those things - but the Republicans are so organized, they basically always vote in a solid bloc if that's what the leadership wants, while the Dems are lucky if they can organize a fucking bake sale.
But the GOP lost any sort of touch with "small government principles" the moment they got a monopoly on federal power, and the teabaggers had years to notice this.
How do you square your assertion with the fact that the teabaggers suddenly appeared from nothing as soon as Obama got elected?
It might have been believable if teabag protests had started in '06 when the Republicans lost control of Congress, but it's pretty goddamn suspicious that they waited until Bush was out of power.
That might have been the least bit believable if you folks hadn't given Bush and the Republicans a free pass on his profligate spending habits. Funny that you came out of the woodwork as soon as the Democrats entered power, is what I'm saying.
My understanding is that it emulates what passed for syscalls in DOS. Parent is probably thinking of something like VM program + complete copy of MS-DOS 6.22, which might have been better in some ways, but also slower, especially on the machines that were common back in late '01 when XP was released.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a cop-out. Who votes the crazies on the Hill into office?
Ah, you must be a young'un. Geoshitties was famous for having a tiny bandwidth cap, something on the order of 10MB per day (or week?) per account. I'm sure the good folks at archive.org didn't want to be constantly DoSing peoples' webpages, so they didn't bother backing up that site.
My ATM card can also be run as a credit card -- so gas stations don't need my PIN, and never ask for it. Retailers will usually run it as an ATM card & require a PIN (saves them a small percent per transaction), while restaurants always do it as a credit card.
IE6 was /not/ the best browser available upon its release. I believe that honor went to Opera 5.x, though its popularity was hamstrung at the time by being for-pay.
At this point IE6's other competitors were Netscape 4.x (execrably bad) and Mozilla (still in the early Milestones, feature-incomplete, and unstable).
What does that even mean?
Leave Britney alone!
No soap. The Paultards were marginalized and ignored (unfairly, I thought) by the media, including Faux News, official organ of the GOP.
The teabaggers are endorsed by Limbaugh and Fox talking heads now that the GOP is out of office and their boys can't be directly hurt by it. I'm sure there are sincere Paultards in the movement, but by and large it's populated by butt-hurt Republicans and manipulated by the same powers they're supposedly railing against.
I'm afraid you are being used. You're not the first - the Christian right was being used by the GOP since at least Reagan's time; probably the party leadership at the time thought they could keep a lid on the fundies while using them for reliable votes, but that backfired and now the social conservatives run the party, which is why the fiscal conservatives/libertarians are being screwed from both sides.
Me, I'm fairly libertarian, especially on social issues. I've had ignorant people tell me that I should vote GOP because of my stance on civil liberties. During the Bush Jr. administration, yet; the same useful idiots no doubt believed their propaganda about being for smaller government as well. I'll vote Dem before I do a damned thing for the GOP after the Bush disaster and their constant enablement of him, and have. I don't see that changing for the foreseeable future, because the GOP is still run by the same people, with the same goals. Also the Dems are at least *honest* about wanting to grow the government, and they're probably more willing to do the responsible thing and raise taxes to pay for it.
Indeed. Talking to you is like talking to Barney Frank's table.
A monopoly on power, dear fool, through several election cycles.
The Repubs's downfall was driving away the independents - the conservative base (the 30% or so who said Bush was a good prez up until the end of his term) was going to vote for them come hell or high water.
Also: no leadership? ROR. You're deluded.
No, it's not obvious, and you're conveniently ignoring that the GOP had a monopoly on power from '01 to '06, and that for that entire period they had no intention of shrinking the government, aside from their scheme to reduce taxes while dramatically increasing spending - maybe they were trying to shrink it by killing it.
You're lying to yourself.
The Republicans had stopped "acting like Republicans" (whatever that means) long before '06; really, the change was sometime during Clinton's second term. Power corrupts, and the base was too blinded by partisan antics to notice.
I mean, really. How do you blind fools square fiscal & small-government conservatism against tons of military spending (outside the normal budgeting process, yet), and the government giving away money to churches with Bush's faith-based initiatives, /and/ attempts to legislate morality? The man /said/ he was going to do the faith-based thing in the '00 campaign. Then there's how much the GOP expanded the government from '01 to '06 between the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, the TSA's security theater, warrantless wiretapping, and their reflexive secrecy and valuing personal loyalties above competence (which ties back into how the wars were prosecuted).
I'm not saying the Dems were completely blameless - they went along with too many of those things - but the Republicans are so organized, they basically always vote in a solid bloc if that's what the leadership wants, while the Dems are lucky if they can organize a fucking bake sale.
But the GOP lost any sort of touch with "small government principles" the moment they got a monopoly on federal power, and the teabaggers had years to notice this.
How do you square your assertion with the fact that the teabaggers suddenly appeared from nothing as soon as Obama got elected?
It might have been believable if teabag protests had started in '06 when the Republicans lost control of Congress, but it's pretty goddamn suspicious that they waited until Bush was out of power.
That might have been the least bit believable if you folks hadn't given Bush and the Republicans a free pass on his profligate spending habits. Funny that you came out of the woodwork as soon as the Democrats entered power, is what I'm saying.
Your naivete is cute.
You'll be skipping the service packs, then.
Given that it's South Carolina, there'll be a fnorded-out phrase in the law that says it only applies to darkies.
Parent was displaying what's known as "dry humor".
My small (8500 people) hometown in southwestern Missouri was going to have something like that as well - I believe it was called an Acorn televillage.
The developer only built one house before it went bust, and the house was never occupied.
She should upgrade anyway - Tiger's no longer getting security updates, and Snow Leopard will only set her back $30.
It was reported to MS in the middle of last year, and the bug's discoverer made it public last month after Microsoft still hadn't fixed it.
My understanding is that it emulates what passed for syscalls in DOS. Parent is probably thinking of something like VM program + complete copy of MS-DOS 6.22, which might have been better in some ways, but also slower, especially on the machines that were common back in late '01 when XP was released.
Mid-December '93, to be precise, and ISTR that the full version started shipping in Jan '94.
I will never un-see that.
I personally blame the Internet and rule 34.