Section 24 is interesting too, about how the expedited discovery is key because ISPs might purge logs before they get a chance to respond. Why is that an issue? I'm no lawyer, but I would assume that destroying documents that are the subject of a discovery motion would be... uh... frowned upon by judges. But what if the logs were deleted on a regular basis after a set period of time? In that case, if the discovery motion was given to the ISP after said period of time, there are no logs remaining. When they were destroyed they were not yet being requested, so there is no crime (unless that deletion itself was against some other, such as one requiring records to be kept for X time).
As much as I am loathe to admit it, they do have a point on this one... however, the expedited discovery motion needs to be balanced against privacy and other legal concerns. (NYCL or another lawyer can probably shed more light on the details and applicable laws here - IANAL.)
the official conclusion was that the crime under investigation (ie, "outing" an undercover agent) never even really happened. I take it that by "official conclusion" you mean "Bush/Rush/Hannity/O'Rielly said".
a crime may or may not have actually been committed (no one was ever charged) It's pretty clear a crime was indeed committed. The reason no one was charged is because the cover-up made it impossible to do so. Now, even the conviction for the cover-up has been rendered toothless, which means that for Bush's cronies there isn't even any risk to perjury or obstruction of justice.
There wasn't even a crime committed. There were multiple crimes committed. Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice just caused the other crimes to be unprovable (or, more precisely, unable to find out who committed those crimes).
Many people in the investigation changed their stories or had contradictory testimonies. Was this before or after Bush wiretapped their phones to get blackmail material and/or threatened to declare them an unlawful combatants and ship them to Gitmo/Syria/wherever? (No, I don't really think this happened. But then again, if it had, I'd hardly be surprised.)
Check out the business cronies Clinton pardoned on his way out, you'll find a much greater conflict of interest. Covering up shady business deals = worse than covering up treason?
Besides, Clinton's dirty dealings are a separate issue; one politician's crimes do not justify another politician's crimes. Two wrongs do not make a right (although three lefts do).
The next logical question you ask yourself may be, 'how can we prevent further decay of our beloved country'. Arrest, trial, and imprisonment or execution of just about every member of the Bush Administration. That might get the attention of the rest of the politicians and make them shape up.
...of course, that would require those same politicians to bring the charges in the first place, so...
Almost every warranty says it applies only for the original owner. So, unless you want your "store" to provide the warranty in place of the manufacturer, your product is not "as good as new".
Of course I like this in oakleys, because largely as a result of this security oakleys have very good customer service. Oakley's customer service has nothing to do with the prices retails sell their sunglasses for. What matters is what Oakley sells them to the retails for - if the retailer makes $0.01 or $10,000.00 profit makes no difference - Oakley gets the same amount of money per unit either way.
All this type of price fixing does is make it difficult/impossible to find a deal on them.
Afghanistan was fairly well done and the right decision. The right decision, yes. But fairly well done? Well, I don't know what the GP poster meant, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt an assumed that by "war" he meant the invasion of the country, and removal of it's government from power (i.e. the first few days). That action was very well planned and executed - of course, that was actually Clinton's plan, created with input from competent generals, and executed by competent generals.
The real problem came afterwards, when Bush and the administration set their sites on Iraq. Bin Laden had not been caught, and every story about Afghanistan reminded the American public of that fact, so of course Bush did everything he could to get it out of the news -- which for him effectively meant ignoring it completely and hoping it would go away. Mix that with Bush's insane hard-on for Sadam, and we suddenly have a media frenzy pointed elsewhere. Meanwhile, the unfortunate US troops, and unfortunate Afghani population, had to make do as best they could in one of the most war-torn countries in the world with no real support. The fact that the entire country hasn't turned into pile of smoking rubble tells me that the people there really wanted this to work; if we had sent in the necessary troops to keep peace (a fraction of what we've sent to Iraq), and used the US's considerable power to build the country back up, we would probably have a working democracy there now, and it could be a near-first-world country.
Al Franken is not a credible source for content. He is generally quite credible - you can easily find the documentation behind most/all of his claims. If you claimed he were a biased source you would be right, but that alone is not enough to discard his claims off-hand. The only way you could claim he is not credible is if you mistake his jokes for claimed facts.
You wouldn't accept a quote from Rush Limbaugh. Nor would I accept quotes from O'Rielly, Coulter, or Hannity, unless they were backed up with good documentation. They have been shown repeatedly to lie, alter facts, like, make shit up, and lie. Bring me a credible right wing pundit (they do exist - they just aren't the big names) and I'll be much more likely to accept what they have to say.
The 911 Commission's Report is a better source and it was critical of both administrations. ...and I have a copy of the book sitting just a few feet away from me. However, a rather boring 567 page book isn't as interesting to link to as a excerpt from a professional comedian/political commentator. As for being critical of both administrations: Good. But we're not talking about Clinton's failings here, we're talking about GWB's.
[Side note: To further address your obvious claims to my bias, consider the following: I hated Clinton. I think he was one of the worst presidents we've had. In fact, in the last 25 years, only George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were worse.]
as long as he... well, does nothing, really. You may disagree with a lot that Bush has done in office, but to say he has done nothing is wrong. Why? The only actions he did right were the ones anyone with an IQ high enough to tie their shoes would have done in his place - i.e. go after the ones who did this horrible thing, tell the country to stay strong, and reassure the populous that everything will be all right... oh, wait, scratch that last one. No real decision he has made has been the right one - his entire presidency has been one of either doing the obvious, or fucking up. That is worse than nothing in my opinion.
Besides, I was talking about what he did to be considered heroic. People were saying he was being a great, heroic president standing in the face of opposition just days after 9/11. What had he done so far? Press conferences and photo ops. That is what I was talking about - he was being called a hero simply because he was President when a tragedy occurred.
but the war in Afghanistan was fairly well done and the right decision. Yeah, too bad Bush decided to pull most of the troops out before the clean-up was done, and more-or-less abandoned the survivors to the whims of rival warlords. Good job!
The reality is that radical Islam has been at war with the US at least since the first Trade Center bombing. And radical Christians have been "at war" with the US for much longer than that (since about 1492, if memory serves me right). Hell, radical Zoroastrians have probably been at war with the US as well. Radical {insert religious group here} has always hated the idea of not controlling every government in the world.
The US government is finally dealing with it. No, the US government is using it as a scapegoat -- unless by "dealing with it" you mean "making it 100× worse than before".
I cannot support impeachment. The phrase "President Cheney" scares me too much. That's why you impeach every single one of the bastards -- If you throw the whole administration in jail, you don't have that problem.
Not that I normally want to defend anonymous cowards, but when the next terrorist attack occurs the American public will blame the administration for not doing enough. Only if it's a democrat in the White House.
They may be running from a 1st degree murder rap, $50000 in back child support, or th $50 bond loitering warrant they never took care of... ...or that cop who beat the crap out of them last week for using a video camera at a crime scene.
Frankly, it's all the number crunching and the min-maxing. Back when I started with 2nd Edition, that kind of thing was considered anathema-- "munchkin" to borrow the term that was used. If anything, 2e was worse for min-maxing than 3e. In 3e you can make a fairly unoptimized character build and still be useful in play. In 2e, you had better find just the right race/class/kit combination if you expect to be useful at all past level 7 or 8 (and don't even bring up multi- and dual-classing). In most 2e games I've played, with 6 to 8 players you'd usually end up with 2-3 characters who were the primary badass characters, and the rest were just sorta there during the combats - if you weren't one of the heavy-hitters, you pretty much just sat back and watched during combat, your few attacks or spells being largely ineffectual.
You're willing to believe anything anyone tells you provided it jives with your own opinions. Truth be damned! This from someone who offhandedly decrees that if it's from Penn & Teller it's not really evidence, and should be ignored. Even if there's other evidence backing it up, and these reports have been around for many, many years before P&T:B!, it has to be wrong since you don't like those two.
I wonder if you're so free with your criticism when it comes to other groups who actually do real harm to people. Definitely. For example, I generally support PETA's goals. However, they're a bunch of idiots when you look at how they go about things, and notice the hypocracy of their organization. In general, they cause more harm than good to society, and I would be happy to see them go. In fact, over half the organizations I would like to support have some major problem with them that makes me not support them.
She has this funeral procession in Calcutta with tens of thousands of mourners. But you're trying to tell me the people she supposedly abused felt compelled to mourn her anyway. Arafat had a lot of mourners, so I assume that elevates him to sainthood in your opinion? I believe even Stalin had thousands of mourners, and I think we can pretty damn well agree that the populous was abused by him.
The key term here is "cult of personality" - i.e., what the person actually does is not as important was what they claim to do. How people perceive the person is more important than who the person actually is. This is the danger of the cult of personality, and Mother Teresa is a prime example of it in action.
How many telephone wires owned by different companies do you have running to your house? To your street? Is such overbuilding typical in the United States? I have the typical lines that come into the average modern house. Law requires the company that owns the lines to offer reasonable access rates to competing phone companies. Each line can be switched to any of the local carriers. No overbuilding, just good switching design and anti-trust laws.
Strange... For years I have had the option of choosing from a few different local phone companies (non-VoIP), and many different long distance companies.
Nobody expects home DSL connections to have more than 90% uptime or the transfer bandwidth set in stone. Well, I sure as fuck do.
The contract I signed said that I got a service, not that I got a service when it was convenient for them. 90% uptime is 9.99% less than I expect from any service that advertises itself as "always on".
Also, the transfer bandwidth is set in stone as far as I'm concerned; the bandwidth is what I'm paying for, and I expect to get it. The whole "maximum speed may not be achieved" thing is only supposed to come into play when there is either (1) slowdowns/downtime due to repairs or maintenance, (2) an unexpected spike in usage that saturates the network's connection, or (3) beyond my ISP's control (i.e. problems outside their network). Purposefully dropping my speed for other than one of those reasons is not acceptable.
I remember lawsuits against several ISPs a few years back due to them advertising a particular speed, but not having anywhere near the bandwidth needed to deliver that to the number of customers signed up for their service. The whole "maximum bandwidth cannot be guaranteed" clause was not considered to cover "because we don't even try to deliver".
There would not have been a Mother Teresa. That could only have been a good thing, considering that she and her order often blackmailed starving children ("convert to Catholicism and abandon your heathen ways or we will give you no food"). Also, she is known to have taken millions of dollars donated to her order and used almost none of it to help the poor; she instead used it to build a whole bunch of nunneries bearing her name and various other religious buildings.
I am all for real charities and people who actually want to help others, but Mother Teresa purposely expanded suffering and poverty while at the same time hoarding money in order to spend it in ways that glorified herself and her organization. I really wish people would try to find a real altruist to glorify rather than that frightening bitch of a woman.
Umm...Notepad, anyone? That one won't cost you a dime Yup, it won't cost you a dime. I'll cost you $150+. You do get a free copy of Vista with that purchase, though.
Of course, you can look for older versions on eBay to get it a bit cheaper, and it also comes free with most new computers.
I tried Scribus about a year ago, and it was nowhere near as good as InDesign or QuarkXpress. It included only the most basic features, and even lacked some of those. Also, it was far from a professional-level interface - I had a hard time finding the functions I needed, and the interface was far from intuitive. I would put it maybe on par with MS Publisher, but it was nowhere near being in the same class as InDesign and QuarkXpress.
Using ANY hardware RAID setup will require you to use the EXACT same card no matter what to recover data. Even the firmware will have to stay stable or else your data can be kissed goodbye.
Not true. I don't know about other manufacturers, but from personal experience I do know that 3ware's arrays are very portable.
I use 3ware controllers, and have actually moved entire arrays to different cards with no problems. In fact, due to an issue with the firmware on their 5000 series, I have purposely used newer cards to initially build the arrays, then moved them over to the older 5000 series cards.
If you're willing to use IDE (PATA) drives instead of SATA, you can pick up their older series cards off eBay for fairly low prices (RAID 5 will need the 6000 series or newer cards).
Actually, there's both view on both sides of the political spectrum. Some conservatives want big government (as the current administration does), while other conservatives want small government (libertarians). Effectively, big government = federal rule, and small government = states rights.
Liberals are the same way - there are those who want the federal government to stay out of their lives and primarily be involved in regulating businesses, dealing with other countries, etc. Then there are the liberals who want the "mommy society", as a previous poster put it - i.e. the federal government regulating everything that could conceivably be considered harmful in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
So in other words, they're only evil in Britain. In the good ole' USA they're AOK!
As much as I am loathe to admit it, they do have a point on this one
Also, what was done by one of Clinton's pardonees that was worse than covering up treason?
Besides, Clinton's dirty dealings are a separate issue; one politician's crimes do not justify another politician's crimes. Two wrongs do not make a right (although three lefts do).
Not forgotten. Exploited. They want the public to lose their freedom and safety; Bush & Co. are the ones who stand to gain.
...of course, that would require those same politicians to bring the charges in the first place, so...
Almost every warranty says it applies only for the original owner. So, unless you want your "store" to provide the warranty in place of the manufacturer, your product is not "as good as new".
All this type of price fixing does is make it difficult/impossible to find a deal on them.
The real problem came afterwards, when Bush and the administration set their sites on Iraq. Bin Laden had not been caught, and every story about Afghanistan reminded the American public of that fact, so of course Bush did everything he could to get it out of the news -- which for him effectively meant ignoring it completely and hoping it would go away. Mix that with Bush's insane hard-on for Sadam, and we suddenly have a media frenzy pointed elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the unfortunate US troops, and unfortunate Afghani population, had to make do as best they could in one of the most war-torn countries in the world with no real support. The fact that the entire country hasn't turned into pile of smoking rubble tells me that the people there really wanted this to work; if we had sent in the necessary troops to keep peace (a fraction of what we've sent to Iraq), and used the US's considerable power to build the country back up, we would probably have a working democracy there now, and it could be a near-first-world country.
As for being critical of both administrations: Good. But we're not talking about Clinton's failings here, we're talking about GWB's.
[Side note: To further address your obvious claims to my bias, consider the following: I hated Clinton. I think he was one of the worst presidents we've had. In fact, in the last 25 years, only George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were worse.] as long as he
No real decision he has made has been the right one - his entire presidency has been one of either doing the obvious, or fucking up. That is worse than nothing in my opinion.
Besides, I was talking about what he did to be considered heroic. People were saying he was being a great, heroic president standing in the face of opposition just days after 9/11. What had he done so far? Press conferences and photo ops. That is what I was talking about - he was being called a hero simply because he was President when a tragedy occurred. but the war in Afghanistan was fairly well done and the right decision. Yeah, too bad Bush decided to pull most of the troops out before the clean-up was done, and more-or-less abandoned the survivors to the whims of rival warlords. Good job! The reality is that radical Islam has been at war with the US at least since the first Trade Center bombing. And radical Christians have been "at war" with the US for much longer than that (since about 1492, if memory serves me right). Hell, radical Zoroastrians have probably been at war with the US as well. Radical {insert religious group here} has always hated the idea of not controlling every government in the world. The US government is finally dealing with it. No, the US government is using it as a scapegoat -- unless by "dealing with it" you mean "making it 100× worse than before".
If it's a Republican president, he can purposely ignore all threats and cancel current anti-terror operations beforehand, and when the attack starts, he can ignore that it's happening in order to continue a PR event, and people will still consider him a great heroic leader as long as he ... well, does nothing, really.
The key term here is "cult of personality" - i.e., what the person actually does is not as important was what they claim to do. How people perceive the person is more important than who the person actually is. This is the danger of the cult of personality, and Mother Teresa is a prime example of it in action.
Strange... For years I have had the option of choosing from a few different local phone companies (non-VoIP), and many different long distance companies.
The contract I signed said that I got a service, not that I got a service when it was convenient for them. 90% uptime is 9.99% less than I expect from any service that advertises itself as "always on".
Also, the transfer bandwidth is set in stone as far as I'm concerned; the bandwidth is what I'm paying for, and I expect to get it. The whole "maximum speed may not be achieved" thing is only supposed to come into play when there is either (1) slowdowns/downtime due to repairs or maintenance, (2) an unexpected spike in usage that saturates the network's connection, or (3) beyond my ISP's control (i.e. problems outside their network). Purposefully dropping my speed for other than one of those reasons is not acceptable.
I remember lawsuits against several ISPs a few years back due to them advertising a particular speed, but not having anywhere near the bandwidth needed to deliver that to the number of customers signed up for their service. The whole "maximum bandwidth cannot be guaranteed" clause was not considered to cover "because we don't even try to deliver".
I am all for real charities and people who actually want to help others, but Mother Teresa purposely expanded suffering and poverty while at the same time hoarding money in order to spend it in ways that glorified herself and her organization. I really wish people would try to find a real altruist to glorify rather than that frightening bitch of a woman.
Of course, you can look for older versions on eBay to get it a bit cheaper, and it also comes free with most new computers.
I tried Scribus about a year ago, and it was nowhere near as good as InDesign or QuarkXpress. It included only the most basic features, and even lacked some of those. Also, it was far from a professional-level interface - I had a hard time finding the functions I needed, and the interface was far from intuitive. I would put it maybe on par with MS Publisher, but it was nowhere near being in the same class as InDesign and QuarkXpress.
I use 3ware controllers, and have actually moved entire arrays to different cards with no problems. In fact, due to an issue with the firmware on their 5000 series, I have purposely used newer cards to initially build the arrays, then moved them over to the older 5000 series cards.
If you're willing to use IDE (PATA) drives instead of SATA, you can pick up their older series cards off eBay for fairly low prices (RAID 5 will need the 6000 series or newer cards).
Actually, there's both view on both sides of the political spectrum. Some conservatives want big government (as the current administration does), while other conservatives want small government (libertarians). Effectively, big government = federal rule, and small government = states rights.
Liberals are the same way - there are those who want the federal government to stay out of their lives and primarily be involved in regulating businesses, dealing with other countries, etc. Then there are the liberals who want the "mommy society", as a previous poster put it - i.e. the federal government regulating everything that could conceivably be considered harmful in any way.