Yes, but does that mean anything? I mean, unless it also documents online sites that sell vodka, are the russians honestly going to do anything with it?
Because in my opinion, most of the people who buy computers with windows preloaded are exactly the type of people that would choose it anyway, because face it. Most technically literate people, at least that I have met, have either bought standard high end machines, or have built their own, and installed whatever OS they please. And in regard to the belief that windows is not user friendly, and relatively easy to learn, it was my experience screwing around with Win. 98 that got me into computers, which did more for me than Mac did(which also played with, but for some reason Win. was more appealing to me. So basically, Windows is considered "standard" because people technically literate enough to pick and choose what OS they want are not generally the people who will buy a "standard" pc in the first place.
Oh god, I am seriously fearing the flood that is to come. This will set a precedent(if only a small one), that could change the way computers are sold, as well as if windows will be considered "standard" software for much longer.
If by false pretext, you mean that we didn't find and WMD's, I will agree with you. However, something you don't hear about to often is the fact that we did find weapons (warheads and delivery missle systems) that violated International AND U.N. law. Second, Iran is probably a large part of why we did invade. You think that this wasn't a good excuse to put troops in a position where they can do good in case Iran decides to start any shit. Third, there may be more civilians dying(although I will not make any calls until I see statistics), but at least they have more freedom, and women can walk down the street without fearing that a high ranking official, or even a member of the ruling party will chose her, rape her in front of cameras, and, if she's lucky, send her home to disowner, or down the river with a slit throat if she's not. Thirdly, no, Saddam wasn't the worst dictator. However, as I've already pointed out, this also gave us a reason to have numbers of troops and equipment in the middle east, near Iran for one. And Finally, who says we were in a quagmire when we started? I'll concede that we are in somewhat of one now, but exactly how many days did it take to take baghdad? How many troops did we lose in open out war with loyalist forces? The current situation merely proves what military historians have been saying for years. There is only one war to fight a war against guerillas(other than becoming guerillas yourselves) and that is through larger numbers of boots on the ground, which, I notice, also has the media complaining.
As opposed to desert storm, when Hussein could well have taken over 1/2 of the entire middle east without our intervention.
Besides which, what exactly has good will in the world ever gotten us? I'm not saying that it is worthless, but america will always be viewed, depending on the person, as what can happen if a nation strives for greatness, or viewed with hate because they never will be able to achieve our level of accomplishments.
Please. The Liberals in the media merely went along with it because they knew that if they protested too soon after 9/11, they would correctly be branded as the subtle traitors they are to the entire nation. Wasn't it merely 5 days in iraq that they were already saying we were in a quagmire.
And even if saddam didn't have wmds, and the trucks seen fleeing his factories were carrying cases of candy for orphans, what was the worst thing we did? Take out a sociopathic dictator who murdered thousands of his own people and who allowed his sons to operate rape rooms for years? Yea. That decision to remove him from office was just morally irresponsible.
I'm pretty sure that there's more than one D.A.R.E role model out there taking offense at that, myself being one of them. No, we don't have to elect a saint. But are you telling me that every intelligent person out there that could even have a chance of running the country responsibly had to have experimented with drugs in his youth to be a well-rounded individual? Because personally, I believe that that is just weakness of character.
However, I bet that even if someone approached obama and asked him to donate some of the money he raised to McCain's fund, he would refuse. Until he's ready to spread the wealth himself, he does not deserve to be president in my book.
However, doesn't the CIA often hand over tasks such as monitoring chatrooms and other such sites(for people discussing or planning terrorist activities) to the air force? I was under the impression that they did. Anyone know? If they did, they would have to have a connection to the regular internet.
Also, i'm not the most tech savvy guy around, but how hard would it be to create a separate network, with a program that asks you when you start up which network you would like to connect to?
Slashdot Mirror
And to think that people used to be worried about personal information being gleaned about them through their IP address when they were surfing porn.
Yes, but does that mean anything? I mean, unless it also documents online sites that sell vodka, are the russians honestly going to do anything with it?
Because in my opinion, most of the people who buy computers with windows preloaded are exactly the type of people that would choose it anyway, because face it. Most technically literate people, at least that I have met, have either bought standard high end machines, or have built their own, and installed whatever OS they please. And in regard to the belief that windows is not user friendly, and relatively easy to learn, it was my experience screwing around with Win. 98 that got me into computers, which did more for me than Mac did(which also played with, but for some reason Win. was more appealing to me. So basically, Windows is considered "standard" because people technically literate enough to pick and choose what OS they want are not generally the people who will buy a "standard" pc in the first place.
Oh god, I am seriously fearing the flood that is to come. This will set a precedent(if only a small one), that could change the way computers are sold, as well as if windows will be considered "standard" software for much longer.
If by false pretext, you mean that we didn't find and WMD's, I will agree with you. However, something you don't hear about to often is the fact that we did find weapons (warheads and delivery missle systems) that violated International AND U.N. law. Second, Iran is probably a large part of why we did invade. You think that this wasn't a good excuse to put troops in a position where they can do good in case Iran decides to start any shit. Third, there may be more civilians dying(although I will not make any calls until I see statistics), but at least they have more freedom, and women can walk down the street without fearing that a high ranking official, or even a member of the ruling party will chose her, rape her in front of cameras, and, if she's lucky, send her home to disowner, or down the river with a slit throat if she's not. Thirdly, no, Saddam wasn't the worst dictator. However, as I've already pointed out, this also gave us a reason to have numbers of troops and equipment in the middle east, near Iran for one. And Finally, who says we were in a quagmire when we started? I'll concede that we are in somewhat of one now, but exactly how many days did it take to take baghdad? How many troops did we lose in open out war with loyalist forces? The current situation merely proves what military historians have been saying for years. There is only one war to fight a war against guerillas(other than becoming guerillas yourselves) and that is through larger numbers of boots on the ground, which, I notice, also has the media complaining.
As opposed to desert storm, when Hussein could well have taken over 1/2 of the entire middle east without our intervention. Besides which, what exactly has good will in the world ever gotten us? I'm not saying that it is worthless, but america will always be viewed, depending on the person, as what can happen if a nation strives for greatness, or viewed with hate because they never will be able to achieve our level of accomplishments.
Please. The Liberals in the media merely went along with it because they knew that if they protested too soon after 9/11, they would correctly be branded as the subtle traitors they are to the entire nation. Wasn't it merely 5 days in iraq that they were already saying we were in a quagmire. And even if saddam didn't have wmds, and the trucks seen fleeing his factories were carrying cases of candy for orphans, what was the worst thing we did? Take out a sociopathic dictator who murdered thousands of his own people and who allowed his sons to operate rape rooms for years? Yea. That decision to remove him from office was just morally irresponsible.
I'm pretty sure that there's more than one D.A.R.E role model out there taking offense at that, myself being one of them. No, we don't have to elect a saint. But are you telling me that every intelligent person out there that could even have a chance of running the country responsibly had to have experimented with drugs in his youth to be a well-rounded individual? Because personally, I believe that that is just weakness of character.
However, I bet that even if someone approached obama and asked him to donate some of the money he raised to McCain's fund, he would refuse. Until he's ready to spread the wealth himself, he does not deserve to be president in my book.
However, doesn't the CIA often hand over tasks such as monitoring chatrooms and other such sites(for people discussing or planning terrorist activities) to the air force? I was under the impression that they did. Anyone know? If they did, they would have to have a connection to the regular internet. Also, i'm not the most tech savvy guy around, but how hard would it be to create a separate network, with a program that asks you when you start up which network you would like to connect to?