Here, instead of "Liberal", use the phrase "right handed".
So it does have an impact, in my view, but not on whether or not there is liberal bias, but in how that claim is argued.
And after you substitute "right/left handed", you'll see how that is wrong.
Which is why the phrase "Liberal media" still bandied about. Listen to Rush Limbaugh some time. And before you say otherwise, he does reflect mainstream Republican views. You're in Washington, so you can listen to KVI. Count how many times a day you hear "Liberal media" and its variations.
But most major newspapers (NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, Boston Globe are the ones I am most familiar with) are pretty far left, and the other major news networks are at best slightly leftward (I personally put CBS and ABC on the left, CNN and NBC slightly closer to center).
"pretty far left"? Then it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with a dozen articles supporting some "far left" cause such as drug de-criminalization or 100% removal of handguns from our civilian population.
What you see as "far left" is merely "less far Right". For real Left views, take a look at Europe's newspapers.
[What's tragically comic here is that the left uses the same stupid arguments the right used in the 90s: trying to prove their case by using (often weak, as in the person who compared Cameron's unintentional publication on foxnews.com which was immediately retracted to Mapes' intentional fake story that she still stands by) anecdotal evidence, and ignoring the counterevidence and reasonable explanations. It's similar to how the Bush-haters of today have the same insane myopia that the Clinton-haters had in the 90s: everything Clinton/Bush says or does is bad, because he is evil, and I stands for all that is wrong with this country. It's extreme foolishness, and it saddens me that the left didn't learn from the mistakes of the right. But I digress.]
Look at Bush's past speeches and see how many times he had refered to either "finding" or being "close to finding" WMD's in Iraq.
Politics today is not about informing the people on your team, but about giving them easily believed lies which will motivate them to keep your party in power.
It is stupid to ignore the fact that most journalists are liberals. But that doesn't mean there is a significant or pervasive liberal bias in the media.
If it is "stupid" to ignore it (in this context) then it must have some impact.
If it does not have an impact (translation: the politics of the individual journalists does not result in a "liberal media") then it is not "stupid" to ignore it.
It wasn't AWOL so much as his immediate superiors not caring if he did things that were technically against the rules.
AWOL is a violation of the UCMJ.
So your statement reads "It wasn't a violation of the UCMJ so much as his immediate superiors not caring if he did something that was a violation of the UCMJ."
Whether his "immediate superiors" cared or not, a violation is a violation.
UCMJ == UNIFORM Code of Military Justice.
It applies to everyone in the military and it applies the same.
AWOL implies a situation that wasn't present here, he didn't desert.
No, AWOL does not imply anything. It is very clearly spelled out. Check the link above.
It seems like his immediate superiors said "sure, go" but his paperwork was denied and no one on either base really cared because they already told him to go.
His "immediate superiors" did not have the authority to authorize that.
Rather, it reads more like a rich kid got into a safe squadron during a war and got tired of it so he wanted to move to another place to work on a civilian project and just left (Absent Without Leave).
Once this was discovered, his politically positioned family and friends worked to get him an official discharge and forgiveness for any time remaining.
If it is an easy fix and it doesn't affect other systems, then I can't see why it wouldn't be fixed.
From the LWN article, those look like pretty simple fixes, which only leaves the impact on other parts of the systems.
Yep, there might be lots of easier ways to take out a Linux box, but when someone else has already done the difficult work for you (finding and clearly identifying the issues), why not make a patch and test it?
If you're running a server, then you should rip out everything you don't need.
If you aren't running it, you don't need to patch it.
Which only leaves the security/bug fixes for what you do run. Do I worry about a "reboot test" after I upgrade perl? No. Why should I?
On my Debian systems, the only patch that requires a reboot is a kernel upgrade.
A "reboot test" might still be a good idea, in the 0.0001% of non-kernel situations where it would show a software problem... but why bother if there wasn't a problem on the test box?
I'd rather not reboot my boxes because that seems to be when the hardware fails. Much as most light bulbs that blow seem to blow when you turn them on.
A long-held myth of the bumblebee was that, in terms of theoretical aerodynamics, it did not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beat per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. This myth became popular after an aerodynamicist in the 1930's stated that a bumblebee was not capable of flight. The statment was based upon an assumption that the bee's wing could be treated as a static aerofoil. However, in reality the bumblebee's flight is characterized by an occilating wing that shares more characteristics with a helicopter than an aeroplane.
Why ? Our job isnt to build hardware. Its to make email flow reliably, keep end users data available whenever management is willing to pay for it, hopefully you get the drift.
Focus on that.
Our job is to keep the services serving.
So we get equipment that is designed for that purpose, with overnight delivery of replacement parts and 24 hour tech support.
I prefer leasing servers for 3 years because that's usually how long the various fans, power supplies and disks will last.
Losing a server in the middle of the day is just about one of the worst things that can happen for a consultant.
Your client loses all their work/data since their last backup.
So, you take every precaution you can to ensure that that will not happen. And leasing the machines means a small monthly payment and brand new machines in 3 years (which you will be paid to install/migrate to).
I just downloaded it and ran it and it did the same thing to me. Just about everything was re-enabled after I specifically un-checked it during the install.
It also made my PC run slower than before.
It found VNC as "spyware", but it set the "remove/ignore" option to "ignore" so that wasn't so bad.
Other than that, it didn't find anything. But I run FireFox with adblock and both spybot and ad-aware so I wasn't expecting anything to show up.
I've uninstalled Microsoft's anti-spyware and it left the directory and log files on my PC without giving me any uninstall warnings.
All that this needs is to be combined with a vulnerability that grants remote access to a machine and you have a serious problem (provided that the remote access allows them to exploit this).
All flaws need to be fixed. Even ones you don't think are very important because they could be exploited together.
It doesn't matter how many holes Windows has compared to Linux. The exploits are usually scripted and tied to a port scanner. If you're vulnerable, you will be cracked.
That's why multiple levels of security are a Good Thing (tm). Defense in depth is the only way to go.
I find it troubling that you and many others are giving Stewart and the Daily Show undue journalistic credit. It's very funny, I give you that. And it is informative, but IT IS NOT JOURNALISM. IT IS COMEDY.
Why do you believe that the two cannot exist together?
It is very easy to present a news story and mock the individuals at the same time.
I'm not suggesting that Crossfire was journalism, either. I stand by my statement that it was mostly a gossip show. But Stewart's own words point out that the Daily Show is a FAKE NEWS show. The whole thing is a joke. and I think many people are taking it way too seriously.
Hardly. The Daily Show also covered actual statements from actual politicians and actual events.
It just mocked the players and events.
And you can attribute the Daily Show's "accuracy" which you find so amusing to the hundreds of real journalists who write and report the news for AP, UPI, etc.. The Daily Show uses their reports as fodder for thier humor. Nobody at the Daily Show is a credentialed journalist.
Why the focus on "credentialed"? Bill Gates didn't earn a college degree nor an MBA, yet he runs a huge company and it turns a huge profit.
Any journalistic credit issued the Daily Show is testament to the disgustingly sad state of the United States media.
Which was Jon Stewart's whole point during that interview.
The Daily Show does a better job at communicating the news that they do cover than the 24 hour news network does.
It isn't because The Daily Show is so much better, it is because the other shows have deteriorated to a point where they just spew partisan rhetoric.
So the minimal amount of research done so that The Daily Show can make a joke out of some politician's statement is still more research than would have been found on Crossfire.
Jon Stewart may not have the diploma, but he does take the statements apart with research and analysis that any "journalist" would do.
Politics is not really news. It's gossip. And this is what Crossfire was tasked with covering, leaving the real news to Wolf Blitzer.
Of course Politics is news.
Crossfire only treated it as gossip because that is the material that best suited the format they had devolved to.
I would hope you would be able to see what I think is blatently obvious in that the Daily Show is NOT a news show. No person on that show is a journalist. It's sole purpose is entertainment. In my opinion, if Stewart wants to become a media critic he is more than welcome to. But he can't be a comedian by day, and media watchdog by night. Like the boy who cried wolf, a comedian should not expect to be laughed at one second and taken seriously the next.
Why not? The funniest comedy comes from the most accurate portrayals.
Jon Stewart is funny because he is accurate.
Because he is accurate, he is able to show the flaws in "real" news shows like Crossfire.
He may not be a "journalist" in your opinion, but his viewers are better informed than those that watch the "journalists" on CNN or Fox News.
In the US the press needs to keep the political parties happy with them.
I'd be happy with one that tore both parties apart on equal terms. I'd watch that.
If not they might lose their Air Force One press pass and get over looked during press event question periods.
Seeing as how most of the White House "press meetings" are 100% scripted with all questions submitted before asking, I'm not sure this would be a big loss.
Again, I'd watch it IF they stuck to their ethics and stated that they were NOT participating in any scripted play.
The question is whether enough other people feel the same way I do.
They could even do a "Left vs Right" debate format without it becoming a "Pro-current regime vs Con-current regime".
Who really cares whether one station has the scripted responses to the scripted questions 30 minutes earlier than other stations?
I don't think John Stewart's show is hurt at all by not being on Air Force One.
In fact, having such a news show would nicely compliment John's show.
I'd even recommend running foreign news shows in a regular slot (dubbed, of course) on a rotating basis. Monday - German, Tuesday - French, Wednesday - Venezuelan, Thursday - Japan, Friday - Russian.
"Left" is not "less Right than the extreme Right".
on
CNN Cancels Crossfire
·
· Score: 1
Name some regular "Left" issues and show how CNN supports them.
Actual "Left" issues, not just "Right" issues taken to a less extreme point.
So it came as a shock to us when millions of people began demonstrating across the world against America's build-up to the invasion of our country. We supposed the protests were by people who had no idea about the terrible atrocities that the regime had inflicted upon us for decades. We assumed that once they learned what had happened in Iraq, they would change their minds, or modify their opposition to the war.
It isn't good to make assumptions.
I had befriended a French reporter who had begun to realize that the situation in Iraq was not how the international media or the so-called "peace camp" described it.
Really? How did they describe it? How was the actual situation different? Where were their errors?
She then went on to accuse me of not knowing what the true facts were in Iraq--and that she could see the situation better than me!
That isn't as impossible as it might seem. Look at how many of your fellow Iraqis are willing to become suicide bombers now to strike back at the US or US-friendly police/politicians/etc.
One of the group's members declared that the Iraqi Governing Council (then in power at the time) were "traitors." I was shocked. Most of the Council were people whom we Iraqis knew had suffered and sacrificed in a long struggle against the regime. Some represented opposition parties who had lost ten of thousand of members in that struggle. Others came from families who had lost up to 30 loved ones to the Baathists.
You are confusing the word "traitor" with the concept of "victim".
It is possible to be both.
A "traitor" can sell out his own people for personal advantage, yet still have lost family to the previous regime.
After those, and many other, experiences, we finally comprehended how little we had in common with these "peace activists" who constantly decried American crimes, and hated to listen to us talk about the terrible long nightmare that ended with the collapse of the regime.
Welcome to the paradise that is the occupation.
We came to understand how these "humanitarians" experienced a sort of pleasure when terrorists or former remnants of the regime created destruction in Iraq--just so they could feel that they were right, and the Americans wrong!
Hold it. There is destruction in Iraq???
WHY?!?
HOW CAN THAT BE?!?
Worse, we realized it was hopeless to make them grasp our feelings.
Hardly. You were oppressed by the previous regime, so with the removal of that regime, you have a chance at increasing your position and security.
That's easy to understand.
Lots of groups feel that way in Iraq right now. And some of those groups see chaos and destruction as a means of advancing their group.
We understand you. You don't understand us.
We were pushing for a smoother change. One that came from the Iraqis themselves. One that would not result in a civil war or years of suicide bombers.
We believed--and still believe--that America's removal of the regime opened a new way for democracy.
And it did. Again, when the old regime is removed, a new regime will take its place. You hope that the new regime will offer more security for you than the old one did.
At the same time, we have no illusions that the U.S. came to Iraq on a white horse to save our people. We understand this war is all about national interests, and that America's interests are mainly about defeating terrorism.
But Iraq wasn't the terrorist haven/training ground. That was Afghanistan.
Why did we invade Iraq to stop terrorism?
At this moment, though, U.S. interests are doing more to bring about democracy and free
If that were so, every Afgani warlord and African dictator would have one. The fact remains that only reasonably well-to-do nations dedicated to decades long programs have succeeded in doing so.... Lets face it, a nuke is a pipe-dream for Al-Queida for foreseeable future but a bonanza for various US "anti-terrorism" industries and politicians.
"foreseeable future". But we still need to address that potentiallity today.
The problem is that Bush wants to push for even MORE nuclear weapons. Including easily transportable "battlefield nukes". Look at how terrorists have hit us inside the "green zone" in Iraq. If we have nukes on a battlefield, we risk losing them to the terrorists.
The only way to prevent that is to end nuclear proliferation NOW.
IF terrorists ever detonate a nuke in one of our cities, they will have gotten it because of our current policies/practices.
THAT is the problem.
No he wasnt, in fact he was a particularly crappy middle-eastern dictator. But that in no way, shape or form justifies the actions US took.
He was a 3rd world, tin-pot dictator who couldn't even travel across his own country and had to maintain multiple doubles because of assassination fears.
The only reason he was a "threat" to anyone is because of the US's past actions.
The US supported Saddam and even funded his chemical/biological weapons program via "agricultural grants" during the Iraq/Iran war because the US would rather see a secular Saddam slaughter Kurds than see Iraq become an Islamic theocracy like Iran.
Look up the Shah of Iran and the US's involvement and the hostages and President Carter to get an idea of the actual situation. The US LOVED Saddam then. And he was doing the exact same things he was doing that the US used to "justify" his removal.
Many of us argued against the idiotic sanction regime which killed something like 500,000 people and advocated attempts at introducing a revolt from within Baath party, while being weary even that was an extremely dangerous proposition. In short, nothing could be done unless Iraqis themselves wished so. Just like the USSR, there was simply no rational, feasible way to bring Saddam down from outside without the cure ending up being worse then the desease. I guess some people never learn.
After Gulf War I, Bush the Elder "supported" an uprising in Iraq, but then didn't supply any funding, weapons, troops or anything else.
Bush the Elder did this because the uprising was tied to Islamic clerics who had left Iraq and were living in Iran.
Bush the Elder felt that a secular Saddam was better than another Iranian-style theocracy.
It isn't about getting Iraqi support for a new government....
It's about getting Iraqi support for a new pro-American secular government.
A clash between Gung-ho, shoot first ask questions later, damn the torpedoes bunch of yahoos and people who can appreciate complexity of the task and understand that it sometimes, sadly, takes decades to achieve a result.
Welcome to US politics.:(
Sadly, the typical US citizen doesn't even remember what happened in Iraq/Iran 20 years ago nor do they have an interest in being educated.
It is much easier to just unload ordinance on the problem and then blame those ungrateful wretches if they don't immediately become US-style consumers.
Look at all the hatred spewed at Germany and France. Look at all the hatred still being spewed at Germany and France.
That hatred results in a demand for better weapons to make sure we can defend ourselves.
If terrorists get nukes in the future, it will be because of our current policies/practices. Only we will be to blame and only we can prevent it.
The situation has changed, but you have not.
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense.
That would be true before the fall of the Berlin Wall and Russia's change. Now, the threat has changed.
But our military hasn't.
It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella.
If you want to look at it that way. Again, those countries don't face the same threat in the 21st century that they faced in the 20th century.
But our military planning hasn't changed. Our force deployment hasn't changed.
Having 10,000 tanks in Germany would have been a good idea in 1975. In 2005, it's just a waste of money.
The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Meanwhile, the US government is running how large of a deficit?
The government has LIMITED income and must decide where to spend that money.
All governments are like that.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military.
No, we don't pay for their ``social safety net''. THEY pay for it.
All WE do is maintain troops and equipment and bases there. Are those needed to defend those countries in 2005?
It doesn't look like it.
Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while?
And how is Russia a threat to Germany today? Hmmmmm?
The threat TODAY is from terrorism. And Germany has been dealing with terrorist attacks in their country for years. We could learn from their approach.
1. "New" doesn't mean "superior". Your boss may buy something because he thinks those two words are synonymous, but they aren't.
True. But in most cases, "superior" is also "new". Faster proc's are usually the newer ones.
2. Techies who argue "Windows is unusable" -- a palpable untruth --often do so simply to assert their own elitism. They just want us to know that they've defined themselves as too smart to use Windows. Conveniently, then, anyone who does use Windows is stupid. It's just a peacock display.
Pretty much. But those people do form a market of their own that a good marketing exec can exploit. #1 & #2 are just different sides of the same coin. For something to be "superior", something else must be "inferior". For something to be "unusable", something else is "usable".
3. Techies who whine that businesses put profit before technology forget that profit spreads technology. If someone doesn't make and sell the stuff for a profit, how is it going to exist? Are all those good little techies going to devote their lives to making and giving away "stuff"?
That's what is happening with the Open Source market. It all comes down to the individual's requirements / values. Linus gave his work away. He focuses on the technology instead of the profit. But code is a very special market because no matter how often you give it away, you always have it.
4. People aren't mindless lab rats at the mercy of marketeers. Just because someone's ads try convince me I need something, why should I pay attention?
No one is saying that you should.
But people do pay attention. Advertising works. Advertising is what gets people to pay $500 for a pair of sneakers.
Yet if you ask a person who just paid that why he paid that, he won't ever say that it was because of the advertising. He will say it's about style or that they are the best sneakers or some other rationalisation. But the reality is that it is because of the marketing campaign.
The owner of the company that I work at buys whatever the latest and coolest toys are.
He doesn't know how to work them or even why a cell phone that works in Europe won't always work in the US.... but he buys them. He buys them because they are cool and newer than what other people have so he can impress them. He is the type who will buy something because it is "superior".
Techies like to say things like "Windows is unusable" (when most of the world uses it) or "corporations put profit above technology" (gee, do you think?). Just shows why a lot of them get along better with hardware than with people.
I think the techies are pretty much like other people in that regard.
They have their point of view based upon their requirements / values and have trouble recognizing that other people have different requirements / values which result in different points of view.
People buy "stuff" that that we can use to do whatever it is that we want to, preferably without breaking a sweat or needing to read a book first.
But part of "Marketing" is making the consumer believe they have a "need" that they weren't aware of before, that can only be supplied by your product.
That "need" can be as esoteric as "I am a rebel against authority" to as mundane as "fast food you like".
Marketing high tech is different from most other markets because newer stuff is constantly being released. The perception of obsolescence is a key factor both in pushing the new stuff (don't be a loser, everyone else is faster) and in resistance to purchasing (why buy now when tomorrow it will be faster and cheaper).
I haven't read the book so I don't know if he covers that in depth.
You implied it by mentioning it in response to a discussion about Washington, and Republicans in Washington. Diebold electronic voting systems have nothing at all to do with anything I have been talking about. You decided to change the subject of voting in Washington state to some larger pet peeve about something marginally related.
No. You were complaining about how the Democrats were acting and I pointed out that the Republicans are not any better.
You want to restrict this to a sub-group in one state in one election. Not going to happen.
The Republicans have done nothing to improve the voting process. In FACT, the Republicans have happily endoresed the Diebold machines that don't even have a paper audit trail.
So, you can get all bent out of shape about the Democrats in Washington state, but all that shows is that it is all about partisan politics with you.
You are unhappy because your team lost.
NOT because of irregularities in the voting process, but just because your team lost.
NOT because the Democrats are behaving a certain way, but just because your team lost.
NOT because of anything other than your team losing.
You are behaving the same way that the Democrats did when it looked like they were losing. Because it is all about your team losing. Nothing else. No matter how you want to try and spin it.
Have fun in your victimhood.
You're lying. You gave a clear example of one person saying that Reed was blocking attempts to fix an alleged problem.
Yep. Typical Republican response. Just what I'd expect from you.
So you deny that Reed tried to get Diebold's own paperwork ruled inadmissable?
Well, that looks like you are the one lying because he did.
Companies have official statements made on its behalf by its officers. Those are said to be statements made by the company. That is what is meant when one says a company says something, as you did. This was not one of those statements, as it was not said on behalf of the company.
Now you're trying semantic games to get out of it.
So, in your world, it is only the "company" speaking when the owners/executives say something that they say is actual company policy...
But when the owners/executives say something, but don't say it is actual company policy, then it isn't the "company" saying it.
The company is the owners/executives. Adding on the phrase "official company statement" does not change anything, except in your mind.
Further, the initial statement was that Republicans do not trying to fix voting problems. Even if it were true that Reed was blocking attempts to fix voting problems in one case, that does not show that he is not trying to fix other voting problems.
Since you have been completely unable to provide a single substantiated instance where he did push to fix such problems, then the current count stands at:
Reed push to fix 0 Reed push to block 1
So you have one example that does not show what you say, and cannot prove what you hope. Yay for you.
It does show what I said. And it is the only example given so far about Reed's activities.
Because you do not want to believe the FACTS does not make them false (as you keep claiming with your "liar" comments).
All it does is show your partisan blindness and petty party loyalty.
You're mad because your team lost when they looked like they would win and the other team has, officially, been awarded the prize.
Instead of dealing with the problem of the voting system, you're going to whine about losing and call anyone who presents a fact you don't like, a "liar". Great. I hope that works for you.
For my part, I don't have time to deal with some fool who can't even present a single substantiation for his fantasies that he's swallowed, hook, line and sinker from his Republican demagogues.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why the phrase "Liberal media" still bandied about. Listen to Rush Limbaugh some time. And before you say otherwise, he does reflect mainstream Republican views. You're in Washington, so you can listen to KVI. Count how many times a day you hear "Liberal media" and its variations."pretty far left"? Then it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with a dozen articles supporting some "far left" cause such as drug de-criminalization or 100% removal of handguns from our civilian population.
What you see as "far left" is merely "less far Right". For real Left views, take a look at Europe's newspapers.Look at Bush's past speeches and see how many times he had refered to either "finding" or being "close to finding" WMD's in Iraq.
Politics today is not about informing the people on your team, but about giving them easily believed lies which will motivate them to keep your party in power.
If it does not have an impact (translation: the politics of the individual journalists does not result in a "liberal media") then it is not "stupid" to ignore it.
AWOL is a violation of the UCMJ.
So your statement reads "It wasn't a violation of the UCMJ so much as his immediate superiors not caring if he did something that was a violation of the UCMJ."
Whether his "immediate superiors" cared or not, a violation is a violation.
UCMJ == UNIFORM Code of Military Justice.
It applies to everyone in the military and it applies the same.No, AWOL does not imply anything. It is very clearly spelled out. Check the link above.His "immediate superiors" did not have the authority to authorize that.
Rather, it reads more like a rich kid got into a safe squadron during a war and got tired of it so he wanted to move to another place to work on a civilian project and just left (Absent Without Leave).
Once this was discovered, his politically positioned family and friends worked to get him an official discharge and forgiveness for any time remaining.
I just find it very interesting how certain individual's "objective" standards always seem to follow their partisan efforts.
http://zoeflower.1up.com/
Cute.
If it is an easy fix and it doesn't affect other systems, then I can't see why it wouldn't be fixed.
From the LWN article, those look like pretty simple fixes, which only leaves the impact on other parts of the systems.
Yep, there might be lots of easier ways to take out a Linux box, but when someone else has already done the difficult work for you (finding and clearly identifying the issues), why not make a patch and test it?
If you're running a server, then you should rip out everything you don't need.
... but why bother if there wasn't a problem on the test box?
If you aren't running it, you don't need to patch it.
Which only leaves the security/bug fixes for what you do run. Do I worry about a "reboot test" after I upgrade perl? No. Why should I?
On my Debian systems, the only patch that requires a reboot is a kernel upgrade.
A "reboot test" might still be a good idea, in the 0.0001% of non-kernel situations where it would show a software problem
I'd rather not reboot my boxes because that seems to be when the hardware fails. Much as most light bulbs that blow seem to blow when you turn them on.
That is all.
Well, it's also useful for playing games with pages that you don't agree with until they get locked.
Our job is to keep the services serving.
So we get equipment that is designed for that purpose, with overnight delivery of replacement parts and 24 hour tech support.
I prefer leasing servers for 3 years because that's usually how long the various fans, power supplies and disks will last.
Losing a server in the middle of the day is just about one of the worst things that can happen for a consultant.
Your client loses all their work/data since their last backup.
So, you take every precaution you can to ensure that that will not happen. And leasing the machines means a small monthly payment and brand new machines in 3 years (which you will be paid to install/migrate to).
Don't ever risk your client's work or data.
I just downloaded it and ran it and it did the same thing to me. Just about everything was re-enabled after I specifically un-checked it during the install.
It also made my PC run slower than before.
It found VNC as "spyware", but it set the "remove/ignore" option to "ignore" so that wasn't so bad.
Other than that, it didn't find anything. But I run FireFox with adblock and both spybot and ad-aware so I wasn't expecting anything to show up.
I've uninstalled Microsoft's anti-spyware and it left the directory and log files on my PC without giving me any uninstall warnings.
All that this needs is to be combined with a vulnerability that grants remote access to a machine and you have a serious problem (provided that the remote access allows them to exploit this).
All flaws need to be fixed. Even ones you don't think are very important because they could be exploited together.
It doesn't matter how many holes Windows has compared to Linux. The exploits are usually scripted and tied to a port scanner. If you're vulnerable, you will be cracked.
That's why multiple levels of security are a Good Thing (tm). Defense in depth is the only way to go.
Why do you believe that the two cannot exist together?
It is very easy to present a news story and mock the individuals at the same time.Hardly. The Daily Show also covered actual statements from actual politicians and actual events.
It just mocked the players and events.Why the focus on "credentialed"? Bill Gates didn't earn a college degree nor an MBA, yet he runs a huge company and it turns a huge profit. Which was Jon Stewart's whole point during that interview.
The Daily Show does a better job at communicating the news that they do cover than the 24 hour news network does.
It isn't because The Daily Show is so much better, it is because the other shows have deteriorated to a point where they just spew partisan rhetoric.
So the minimal amount of research done so that The Daily Show can make a joke out of some politician's statement is still more research than would have been found on Crossfire.
Jon Stewart may not have the diploma, but he does take the statements apart with research and analysis that any "journalist" would do.
Crossfire only treated it as gossip because that is the material that best suited the format they had devolved to.Why not? The funniest comedy comes from the most accurate portrayals.
Jon Stewart is funny because he is accurate.
Because he is accurate, he is able to show the flaws in "real" news shows like Crossfire.
He may not be a "journalist" in your opinion, but his viewers are better informed than those that watch the "journalists" on CNN or Fox News.
Again, I'd watch it IF they stuck to their ethics and stated that they were NOT participating in any scripted play.
The question is whether enough other people feel the same way I do.
They could even do a "Left vs Right" debate format without it becoming a "Pro-current regime vs Con-current regime".
Who really cares whether one station has the scripted responses to the scripted questions 30 minutes earlier than other stations?
I don't think John Stewart's show is hurt at all by not being on Air Force One.
In fact, having such a news show would nicely compliment John's show.
I'd even recommend running foreign news shows in a regular slot (dubbed, of course) on a rotating basis. Monday - German, Tuesday - French, Wednesday - Venezuelan, Thursday - Japan, Friday - Russian.
Name some regular "Left" issues and show how CNN supports them.
Actual "Left" issues, not just "Right" issues taken to a less extreme point.
That's it. Exploring and building get old quickly.
It isn't good to make assumptions.
Really? How did they describe it? How was the actual situation different? Where were their errors?
That isn't as impossible as it might seem. Look at how many of your fellow Iraqis are willing to become suicide bombers now to strike back at the US or US-friendly police/politicians/etc.
You are confusing the word "traitor" with the concept of "victim".
It is possible to be both.
A "traitor" can sell out his own people for personal advantage, yet still have lost family to the previous regime.
Welcome to the paradise that is the occupation.
Hold it. There is destruction in Iraq???
WHY?!?
HOW CAN THAT BE?!?
Hardly. You were oppressed by the previous regime, so with the removal of that regime, you have a chance at increasing your position and security.
That's easy to understand.
Lots of groups feel that way in Iraq right now. And some of those groups see chaos and destruction as a means of advancing their group.
We understand you. You don't understand us.
We were pushing for a smoother change. One that came from the Iraqis themselves. One that would not result in a civil war or years of suicide bombers.
And it did. Again, when the old regime is removed, a new regime will take its place. You hope that the new regime will offer more security for you than the old one did.
But Iraq wasn't the terrorist haven/training ground. That was Afghanistan.
Why did we invade Iraq to stop terrorism?
The problem is that Bush wants to push for even MORE nuclear weapons. Including easily transportable "battlefield nukes". Look at how terrorists have hit us inside the "green zone" in Iraq. If we have nukes on a battlefield, we risk losing them to the terrorists.
The only way to prevent that is to end nuclear proliferation NOW.
IF terrorists ever detonate a nuke in one of our cities, they will have gotten it because of our current policies/practices.
THAT is the problem.He was a 3rd world, tin-pot dictator who couldn't even travel across his own country and had to maintain multiple doubles because of assassination fears.
The only reason he was a "threat" to anyone is because of the US's past actions.
The US supported Saddam and even funded his chemical/biological weapons program via "agricultural grants" during the Iraq/Iran war because the US would rather see a secular Saddam slaughter Kurds than see Iraq become an Islamic theocracy like Iran.
Look up the Shah of Iran and the US's involvement and the hostages and President Carter to get an idea of the actual situation. The US LOVED Saddam then. And he was doing the exact same things he was doing that the US used to "justify" his removal.After Gulf War I, Bush the Elder "supported" an uprising in Iraq, but then didn't supply any funding, weapons, troops or anything else.
Bush the Elder did this because the uprising was tied to Islamic clerics who had left Iraq and were living in Iran.
Bush the Elder felt that a secular Saddam was better than another Iranian-style theocracy.
It isn't about getting Iraqi support for a new government....
It's about getting Iraqi support for a new pro-American secular government.Welcome to US politics.
Sadly, the typical US citizen doesn't even remember what happened in Iraq/Iran 20 years ago nor do they have an interest in being educated.
It is much easier to just unload ordinance on the problem and then blame those ungrateful wretches if they don't immediately become US-style consumers.
Look at all the hatred spewed at Germany and France. Look at all the hatred still being spewed at Germany and France.
That hatred results in a demand for better weapons to make sure we can defend ourselves.
If terrorists get nukes in the future, it will be because of our current policies/practices. Only we will be to blame and only we can prevent it.
But our military hasn't.If you want to look at it that way. Again, those countries don't face the same threat in the 21st century that they faced in the 20th century.
But our military planning hasn't changed. Our force deployment hasn't changed.
Having 10,000 tanks in Germany would have been a good idea in 1975. In 2005, it's just a waste of money.Meanwhile, the US government is running how large of a deficit?
The government has LIMITED income and must decide where to spend that money.
All governments are like that.No, we don't pay for their ``social safety net''. THEY pay for it.
All WE do is maintain troops and equipment and bases there. Are those needed to defend those countries in 2005?
It doesn't look like it.And how is Russia a threat to Germany today? Hmmmmm?
The threat TODAY is from terrorism. And Germany has been dealing with terrorist attacks in their country for years. We could learn from their approach.
There aren't many people who say that the climate is not changing.
The difference is whether they say that man-made pollution is the primary cause or whether this is part of a natural cycle.
If it is part of a natural cycle, then there is no "proof" that changing our pollution will do anything.
But people do pay attention. Advertising works. Advertising is what gets people to pay $500 for a pair of sneakers.
Yet if you ask a person who just paid that why he paid that, he won't ever say that it was because of the advertising. He will say it's about style or that they are the best sneakers or some other rationalisation. But the reality is that it is because of the marketing campaign.
He doesn't know how to work them or even why a cell phone that works in Europe won't always work in the US
They have their point of view based upon their requirements / values and have trouble recognizing that other people have different requirements / values which result in different points of view.But part of "Marketing" is making the consumer believe they have a "need" that they weren't aware of before, that can only be supplied by your product.
That "need" can be as esoteric as "I am a rebel against authority" to as mundane as "fast food you like".
Marketing high tech is different from most other markets because newer stuff is constantly being released. The perception of obsolescence is a key factor both in pushing the new stuff (don't be a loser, everyone else is faster) and in resistance to purchasing (why buy now when tomorrow it will be faster and cheaper).
I haven't read the book so I don't know if he covers that in depth.
The problem is that neither party wants 100% verifiable results.
If there is always a measure of uncertainty, the losing party can always claim that the other party cheated.
And nothing stirs up the partisans like an allegation that the other side "stole" the election.
Remove the uncertainty and you remove a partisan tactic.Yep. And both sides want that option (and the option to claim the other side is cheating).
Has anyone ever wondered why there isn't a Federal department that tests and certifies voting machines?
You want to restrict this to a sub-group in one state in one election. Not going to happen.
The Republicans have done nothing to improve the voting process. In FACT, the Republicans have happily endoresed the Diebold machines that don't even have a paper audit trail.
So, you can get all bent out of shape about the Democrats in Washington state, but all that shows is that it is all about partisan politics with you.
You are unhappy because your team lost.
NOT because of irregularities in the voting process, but just because your team lost.
NOT because the Democrats are behaving a certain way, but just because your team lost.
NOT because of anything other than your team losing.
You are behaving the same way that the Democrats did when it looked like they were losing. Because it is all about your team losing. Nothing else. No matter how you want to try and spin it.
Have fun in your victimhood.Yep. Typical Republican response. Just what I'd expect from you.
So you deny that Reed tried to get Diebold's own paperwork ruled inadmissable?
Well, that looks like you are the one lying because he did.Now you're trying semantic games to get out of it.
So, in your world, it is only the "company" speaking when the owners/executives say something that they say is actual company policy...
But when the owners/executives say something, but don't say it is actual company policy, then it isn't the "company" saying it.
The company is the owners/executives. Adding on the phrase "official company statement" does not change anything, except in your mind.Since you have been completely unable to provide a single substantiated instance where he did push to fix such problems, then the current count stands at:
Reed push to fix 0
Reed push to block 1It does show what I said. And it is the only example given so far about Reed's activities.
Because you do not want to believe the FACTS does not make them false (as you keep claiming with your "liar" comments).
All it does is show your partisan blindness and petty party loyalty.
You're mad because your team lost when they looked like they would win and the other team has, officially, been awarded the prize.
Instead of dealing with the problem of the voting system, you're going to whine about losing and call anyone who presents a fact you don't like, a "liar". Great. I hope that works for you.
For my part, I don't have time to deal with some fool who can't even present a single substantiation for his fantasies that he's swallowed, hook, line and sinker from his Republican demagogues.