We might not have been able to say for certain... The real issue is did we do any real checking, or even try to know more about the British source.
I again, would say that we knew in our soul it was a crock, but we wanted to be "deceived" and thus never questioned the British about it.
We'd done a lot of research ourselves about the Niger claims - as the IAEA said, it would take about ten minutes with google to tell the documents were forged.
From the NewYorker... http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?0 30331fa_fact1
...the story fell apart. On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. "The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic," ElBaradei said.
One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, "These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking."
The I.A.E.A. had first sought the documents last fall, shortly after the British government released its dossier. After months of pleading by the I.A.E.A., the United States turned them over to Jacques Baute, who is the director of the agency's Iraq Nuclear Verification Office.
It took Baute's team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Coöperation, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that "they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet."
The large quantity of uranium involved should have been another warning sign. Niger's "yellow cake" comes from two uranium mines controlled by a French company, with its entire output presold to nuclear power companies in France, Japan, and Spain. "Five hundred tons can't be siphoned off without anyone noticing," another I.A.E.A. official told me.
This official told me that the I.A.E.A. has not been able to determine who actually prepared the documents. "It could be someone who intercepted faxes in Israel, or someone at the headquarters of the Niger Foreign Ministry, in Niamey. We just don't know," the official said. "Somebody got old letterheads and signatures, and cut and pasted." Some I.A.E.A. investigators suspected that the inspiration for the documents was a trip that the Iraqi Ambassador to Italy took to several African countries, including Niger, in February, 1999. They also speculated that MI6--the branch of British intelligence responsible for foreign operations--had become involved, perhaps through contacts in Italy, after the Ambassador's return to Rome.
Baute, according to the I.A.E.A. official, "confronted the United States with the forgery: 'What do you have to say?' They had nothing to say."
ElBaradei's disclosure has not been disputed by any government or intelligence official in Washington or London. Colin Powell, asked about the forgery during a television interview two days after ElBaradei's report, dismissed the subject by saying, "If that issue is resolved, that issue is resolved." A few days later, at a House hearing, he denied that anyone in the United States government had anything to do with the forgery. "It came from other sources," Powell testified. "It was provided in good faith t
Oh, and if they had decided to put up a banner saying "Welcome home Barney" the Whitehouse wouldn't have objected?
Sheesh.
Not to mention that the Whitehouse actually got the banner for them.
Plausable deniability. Veneer thin, but plausable - to a dolt.
Just like - The *British* have learned that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium from Niger. (Sure we knew it was a crock, but the Brit's told us, so we can't be held responsible...)
So, the fact that someone pays compensation for torts is evidence of extortion?
extortion Audio pronunciation of "extortion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-stôrshn) n.
1. The act or an instance of extorting.
2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
4. Something extorted
No, I don't think it's extortion and your "evidence" is simply bogus.
If MS has a huge risk of loss in the EU affair, it can only mean that there is likely a large substance to Novell's complaint and that facts and reason are going to sink MS. (This doesn't mean that MS does face huge risk, but it begs the question, why settle for half a billion if they don't?)
MS is a *convicted* thug. When you see a thug paying off someone - it doesn't make much sense to finaggle ways to believe the thug is innocent. The likelyhood is greatest that the thug is guilty of some misdeed, and is trying to cover it up.
Sure, the thug might be innocent, but given the past record, it make much more sense to assume the thug is consistant with their past record - not some new "white-as-a-lilly" one.
Finally, your argument displays a clear bias against MS without examining any side of the argument other than your own. It is much more likely in this case that Novell, knowing of MS's legal trouble with the EU, decided to file a complaintant for the sole purpose of using it against MS in financial settlement negotiations. This is a tactic which has been used since literally the dawn of commerce. A similiar version is used in divorce cases aka "He beats our daughter.. but if he ups his alimony payments 50% then I will withdraw my legal complaint".
You give no evidence of your case - man is that ever persuasive.
If there isn't any evidence of MS misbehavior, then they should be able to win in front of the EU just fine.
I don't condone any "extortion" but you haven't gone to any effor to prove any. So, I guess I'll say this...If Novell is playing the game you say they are, and you provide no evidence to back up such a claim, I feel that's unethical on Novell's part. However, if MS isn't guilty then can fight it. If they are, it's hard to find sympathy for them either.
It's kind of like a drug dealer complaining he was robbed. Well, you prey on others, you comitt illegal acts, and then want the full protection of the law? Right... (It doesn't make the robbery right, but it sure makes it hard to have sympathy for the drug dealer too. Often it just seems like "what comes around goes around.")
I highly doubt there was any real sane cost-benefit analysis.
That the website could cost an extra $100K for a week is unthinkable. Again, the costs are beyond trivial. It requires more thought to breathe than these costs would require in thought.
Don't know the rational, but in any case, it is breath-takingly dumb.
Either you haven't thought about it, or you're deranged or you're on the best crack I've ever seen.
SAVE MONEY?
These are the folks who with two weeks to go had something in excess of 50 MILLION dollars in the bank? The hosting costs are so trivial, they equate to the cost of a sandwitch bag for the average person. Not a cost one would even think about.
Even if the hosting cost added up to an additional 100K for 10 days, which I can't even imagine, I'll bet GWB could pay that out of his own pocket without any undue hardship.
=== The 2004 Republican National Convention cost almost $154 million dollars to stage, according to a detailed report filed with the Federal Election Commission. Most of the $58 million spent by the city on police and other services will be reimbursed by the federal government. Expenses included $301,460 in limousine services, $207,000 on the balloon drop finale, and $7, 000 on coffee and donuts for host committee staff and police officers. The bulk of the cost has been covered by private donations with the largest single contributor emerging as New York City's own Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, donating $5 million in cash and $2 million in legal and accounting fees. Other contributors include Goldman Sachs ($1.2 million) and Merrill Lynch ($1.1 million). The mayor stated, "The numbers will basically show that it's good news for the city. We raised all the money privately." ===
So, they can spend $207,000 on the balloon drop, but hosting the website for the whole world would cost too much.
"It can't be retroactively moot. I mean to say, it all hinges on co-operation. If Hussein had none (which he didnt) then the burden is on him to prove it, since, before this all started he was known to have them and pursue them. Before the war was started Hussein denied having them - to a degree - yet would not/could 100% to prove it."
1441 is based on a flawed pretense. 687 required that Saddam relinquish his WMD et al.
It's pretty clear from the Duelfer report that all WMD programs and most anything else forbidden in 687 was gone in 1995 at latest.
So, since 1441 is predicated that Saddam hadn't complied with 687, and was deceiving us, than the whole basis for 1441 is wrong and moot.
It's a catch-22. Saddam says he destroyed it all. Inspectors were trying to ascertain that.
Scott Ritter basically claimed that all the old WMD materials were almost 100% accounted for with 100% certainty - the other 5% was still almost 100% certain to have been destroyed too...
So, now we claim Saddam still had WMD's and was being deceptive. Perhaps he was, but 687 doesn't say anything about proving to 100% certainty that no WMD's exist. It simply says "disarm."
Well, that was accomplished.
The premise behind 1441 was that he hadn't disarmed.
There are lots of "technically" correct answers. Starting wars over those "technical" answers is something only a moron would do.
I disagree with your conclusions over the cease fire, as in practice these things are never so tenuous. I'm not sure, even technically, that these things are authorizations to restart the war. (Shooting at an aircraft.)
Iraq didn't give up it soverign status. I suspect many of the items we'd see as provocation would be just as vigorously defended by the past Iraqi administration as simply protecting its soverign status.
As far as UN status. If you're going to rely on the fact that Iraq was ignoring a *UN* resolution, then further action would be required at the UN. There is no action specified in 687 should Iraq fail to meet its obligation - i.e. one can restart the war without UN input and vote.
The US move to war was all about UN resolutions and how Iraq was violating them. Point was, they weren't really - not 687, and 1441 was moot if no WMD's existed. And further, even if they were, a vote on the UN resolutions and the responses etc would be required to restart a war.
Both resolutions 687 and 1441 are based on Hussein's continuing no-compliance with inspectors.
You obviously don't comprehend the resolutions then.
687 was immed. after the Gulf War I. No inspectors were present prior. 687 doesn't have *JACK* to do with non-compliance with an inspection regeime.
I'm sorry, but with statements such as you've made above, I have a hard time seeing that you comprehend or understand the nature of 687.
If the UNSCR 687 is in breach, which I tend to dispute, then the action would be to go BACK to the UN and get a ruling that they were in breach of 687 and authorization to recind the cease-fire.
If one is going to use a material breach of the *UNSCR* 687 as a pretext for war, then a UNSCR to recind the cease-fire only makes sense.
Finally, how about naming some things that they were in breach of in UNSCR 687?
If there is/was anything it was terribly minor - and it wasn't named in any of the rationals leading up the the war by the present administration.
You may come up with rationals outside of those presented by the current administration, but these don't have much weight with me. It's clear that the die was set and now you and everyone else is casting about looking for legal loop-holes to help sustain the legality of the invasion.
The real story is, that he who wins the war is legal. Always is. Doesn't make it reality, but the winner is essence makes reality.
The main point was a dismantling of the WMD programs and weapons. This was, if not completely done, very nearly so.
UNSCR 1441 was based on the premise that 687 had been circumvented, and that Saddam was a liar.
The real facts, as evidenced by the most recent report, is that Iraq had had it's WMD's and programs largely, at a minimum, removed. Thus, in large part, the premise behind 1441 was faulty.
I'm not going to waste a bunch of breath on arguing. Read for yourself.
Go to www.un.org Find the Security Counsel resolutions and read 687 and 1441.
687 only required that he disarm. That he did, though not exactly willingly.
From that front, it really does seem to me, that technically, 1441 was a sham, and that the US action was very probably illegal.
When anti-abortion groups post this information on doctors who perform abortions, it is considered a threat. Why is this any different?
Just a note...
Posting personal info wasn't the problem in the anti-abortion sites - it was that the posting was clearly, at least to the judge, an open threat and invitation to kill or otherwise threaten the lives and health of the posted individual.
Your home address is probably a public record somewhere anyway - the DMV in your state probably will give it out to any commercial entity who asks and has enough cash.
In short, from what I know, this case isn't at all similar to the anti-abortion cases.
I've posted this elsewhere, but I think this is a great example.
I strongly suspect that you only *think* you've fixed the problem, not really fixed the problem.
But, don't trust me, go read the MS KB article. It's pretty clear to me that the "work-around" is likely to only be a partial fix. They reference "help," not fix numerous times.
When such a huge bug exists in the underlying system, a simple work around isn't likely to plug much more than the obvious holes.
IMHO, provided I'm right, this is worse than no solution at all. The admin's think "All is well - I patched that." and tune out all the warnings. But the reality is that you patched 5% of the problem, and now have a complete false sense of security.
However, I'm not reassured by MS's explaination. I quote: ... Microsoft ASP.NET developers can add more checks to help reduce canonicalization issues for a Web application by adding an Application_BeginRequest event handler in their Global.asax file that is stored in the root directory of the Web application. This event handler executes for each Web request and is a convenient location to insert code to help safeguard against canonicalization issues.... The following samples demonstrate how to add an Application_BeginRequest event handler to a Global.asax file. The event handler helps protect against invalid characters and malformed URLs by performing path verifications to help protect against common canonicalization issues. ---
Help is not the same as fix. If these was the only item needed to fix the issue, I'd highly expect different language in giving a work around.
Given MS's past track record, I suspect we'll find this fixes the most obvious part of the problem while still leaving the user vulnerable, but feeling warm and fuzzy in the assurance that the problem is fixed.
The bullshit is that IE and all the other GDI library crap *WAS NOT* free.
IE was rolled into the cost of the OS.
The dev tools with the libraries were not free either.
If I designed a flawed version of AutoCAD and you used it to design a building, and just as part of the design threw in a balcony that ended up collapsing and killing a dozen people, would you claim that I didn't bear any responsibility? (Perhaps because the people impacted by the collapse didn't pay me directly for AutoCAD?)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, those damn perv. seat sniffers - I hate them!
Conservatives: Kill murderers, save children.
Liberals: Kill children, save murderers.
I thought it was largely the "law and order" conservatives that feel executions for minors is OK?
Further, how does killing Murders save children? Surely you don't postulate that all murders are of children do you?
And how do liberals kill children, and even if they did, how does that save murders?
Your sig is pretty goofed up.
Cheers,
Greg
I again, would say that we knew in our soul it was a crock, but we wanted to be "deceived" and thus never questioned the British about it.
We'd done a lot of research ourselves about the Niger claims - as the IAEA said, it would take about ten minutes with google to tell the documents were forged.
From the NewYorker...
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?0 30331fa_fact1
Oh, and if they had decided to put up a banner saying "Welcome home Barney" the Whitehouse wouldn't have objected?
Sheesh.
Not to mention that the Whitehouse actually got the banner for them.
Plausable deniability. Veneer thin, but plausable - to a dolt.
Just like - The *British* have learned that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium from Niger. (Sure we knew it was a crock, but the Brit's told us, so we can't be held responsible...)
Cheers,
Greg
That would be a movie appropriately named "Nighmare on First Street"
So, the fact that someone pays compensation for torts is evidence of extortion?
No, I don't think it's extortion and your "evidence" is simply bogus.
If MS has a huge risk of loss in the EU affair, it can only mean that there is likely a large substance to Novell's complaint and that facts and reason are going to sink MS. (This doesn't mean that MS does face huge risk, but it begs the question, why settle for half a billion if they don't?)
MS is a *convicted* thug. When you see a thug paying off someone - it doesn't make much sense to finaggle ways to believe the thug is innocent. The likelyhood is greatest that the thug is guilty of some misdeed, and is trying to cover it up.
Sure, the thug might be innocent, but given the past record, it make much more sense to assume the thug is consistant with their past record - not some new "white-as-a-lilly" one.
Cheers,
Greg
Finally, your argument displays a clear bias against MS without examining any side of the argument other than your own. It is much more likely in this case that Novell, knowing of MS's legal trouble with the EU, decided to file a complaintant for the sole purpose of using it against MS in financial settlement negotiations. This is a tactic which has been used since literally the dawn of commerce. A similiar version is used in divorce cases aka "He beats our daughter.. but if he ups his alimony payments 50% then I will withdraw my legal complaint".
You give no evidence of your case - man is that ever persuasive.
If there isn't any evidence of MS misbehavior, then they should be able to win in front of the EU just fine.
I don't condone any "extortion" but you haven't gone to any effor to prove any. So, I guess I'll say this...If Novell is playing the game you say they are, and you provide no evidence to back up such a claim, I feel that's unethical on Novell's part. However, if MS isn't guilty then can fight it. If they are, it's hard to find sympathy for them either.
It's kind of like a drug dealer complaining he was robbed. Well, you prey on others, you comitt illegal acts, and then want the full protection of the law? Right... (It doesn't make the robbery right, but it sure makes it hard to have sympathy for the drug dealer too. Often it just seems like "what comes around goes around.")
Cheers,
Greg
I think that would be the *perfect* and noble solution from Microsoft.
It will leave a much more pleasant marketplace.
Cheers,
Greg
The inevitable result of mixing religeon and spiritual views with a political system is injustice and delusional visions.
Georege Bush, Ayatollah Khomeini, Usama Bin Laden... different levels of fundamentalist whackery, but the root cause is all the same.
Religeon and politics. The two do not mix - each is a powerful corrosive on the other.
Cheers,
Greg
I highly doubt there was any real sane cost-benefit analysis.
That the website could cost an extra $100K for a week is unthinkable. Again, the costs are beyond trivial. It requires more thought to breathe than these costs would require in thought.
Don't know the rational, but in any case, it is breath-takingly dumb.
Cheers,
Greg
Save money!?
Either you haven't thought about it, or you're deranged or you're on the best crack I've ever seen.
SAVE MONEY?
These are the folks who with two weeks to go had something in excess of 50 MILLION dollars in the bank? The hosting costs are so trivial, they equate to the cost of a sandwitch bag for the average person. Not a cost one would even think about.
Even if the hosting cost added up to an additional 100K for 10 days, which I can't even imagine, I'll bet GWB could pay that out of his own pocket without any undue hardship.
===
The 2004 Republican National Convention cost almost $154 million dollars to stage, according to a detailed report filed with the Federal Election Commission. Most of the $58 million spent by the city on police and other services will be reimbursed by the federal government. Expenses included $301,460 in limousine services, $207,000 on the balloon drop finale, and $7, 000 on coffee and donuts for host committee staff and police officers. The bulk of the cost has been covered by private donations with the largest single contributor emerging as New York City's own Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, donating $5 million in cash and $2 million in legal and accounting fees. Other contributors include Goldman Sachs ($1.2 million) and Merrill Lynch ($1.1 million). The mayor stated, "The numbers will basically show that it's good news for the city. We raised all the money privately."
===
So, they can spend $207,000 on the balloon drop, but hosting the website for the whole world would cost too much.
Uh, right...
Sheesh,
Greg
"It can't be retroactively moot. I mean to say, it all hinges on co-operation. If Hussein had none (which he didnt) then the burden is on him to prove it, since, before this all started he was known to have them and pursue them. Before the war was started Hussein denied having them - to a degree - yet would not/could 100% to prove it."
1441 is based on a flawed pretense.
687 required that Saddam relinquish his WMD et al.
It's pretty clear from the Duelfer report that all WMD programs and most anything else forbidden in 687 was gone in 1995 at latest.
So, since 1441 is predicated that Saddam hadn't complied with 687, and was deceiving us, than the whole basis for 1441 is wrong and moot.
It's a catch-22. Saddam says he destroyed it all. Inspectors were trying to ascertain that.
Scott Ritter basically claimed that all the old WMD materials were almost 100% accounted for with 100% certainty - the other 5% was still almost 100% certain to have been destroyed too...
So, now we claim Saddam still had WMD's and was being deceptive. Perhaps he was, but 687 doesn't say anything about proving to 100% certainty that no WMD's exist. It simply says "disarm."
Well, that was accomplished.
The premise behind 1441 was that he hadn't disarmed.
Ala' Circular reference - system overload.
Cheers,
Greg
There are lots of "technically" correct answers. Starting wars over those "technical" answers is something only a moron would do.
I disagree with your conclusions over the cease fire, as in practice these things are never so tenuous. I'm not sure, even technically, that these things are authorizations to restart the war. (Shooting at an aircraft.)
Iraq didn't give up it soverign status. I suspect many of the items we'd see as provocation would be just as vigorously defended by the past Iraqi administration as simply protecting its soverign status.
As far as UN status. If you're going to rely on the fact that Iraq was ignoring a *UN* resolution, then further action would be required at the UN. There is no action specified in 687 should Iraq fail to meet its obligation - i.e. one can restart the war without UN input and vote.
The US move to war was all about UN resolutions and how Iraq was violating them. Point was, they weren't really - not 687, and 1441 was moot if no WMD's existed. And further, even if they were, a vote on the UN resolutions and the responses etc would be required to restart a war.
Cheers,
Greg
Both resolutions 687 and 1441 are based on Hussein's continuing no-compliance with inspectors.
You obviously don't comprehend the resolutions then.
687 was immed. after the Gulf War I. No inspectors were present prior. 687 doesn't have *JACK* to do with non-compliance with an inspection regeime.
I'm sorry, but with statements such as you've made above, I have a hard time seeing that you comprehend or understand the nature of 687.
If the UNSCR 687 is in breach, which I tend to dispute, then the action would be to go BACK to the UN and get a ruling that they were in breach of 687 and authorization to recind the cease-fire.
If one is going to use a material breach of the *UNSCR* 687 as a pretext for war, then a UNSCR to recind the cease-fire only makes sense.
Finally, how about naming some things that they were in breach of in UNSCR 687?
If there is/was anything it was terribly minor - and it wasn't named in any of the rationals leading up the the war by the present administration.
You may come up with rationals outside of those presented by the current administration, but these don't have much weight with me. It's clear that the die was set and now you and everyone else is casting about looking for legal loop-holes to help sustain the legality of the invasion.
The real story is, that he who wins the war is legal. Always is. Doesn't make it reality, but the winner is essence makes reality.
Cheers,
Greg
Go read UNSCR 687.
The main point was a dismantling of the WMD programs and weapons. This was, if not completely done, very nearly so.
UNSCR 1441 was based on the premise that 687 had been circumvented, and that Saddam was a liar.
The real facts, as evidenced by the most recent report, is that Iraq had had it's WMD's and programs largely, at a minimum, removed. Thus, in large part, the premise behind 1441 was faulty.
I'm not going to waste a bunch of breath on arguing. Read for yourself.
Go to www.un.org
Find the Security Counsel resolutions and read 687 and 1441.
687 only required that he disarm. That he did, though not exactly willingly.
From that front, it really does seem to me, that technically, 1441 was a sham, and that the US action was very probably illegal.
Cheers,
Greg
BTW, here's a mirror of the site in question:l
http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/nuremberg/aborts.htm
I'm this case, the threat to providers listed seems pretty clear. It's far from being a simple recitation of their personal info.
Cheers,
Greg
When anti-abortion groups post this information on doctors who perform abortions, it is considered a threat. Why is this any different?
Just a note...
Posting personal info wasn't the problem in the anti-abortion sites - it was that the posting was clearly, at least to the judge, an open threat and invitation to kill or otherwise threaten the lives and health of the posted individual.
Your home address is probably a public record somewhere anyway - the DMV in your state probably will give it out to any commercial entity who asks and has enough cash.
In short, from what I know, this case isn't at all similar to the anti-abortion cases.
Cheers,
Greg
I've posted this elsewhere, but I think this is a great example.
I strongly suspect that you only *think* you've fixed the problem, not really fixed the problem.
But, don't trust me, go read the MS KB article. It's pretty clear to me that the "work-around" is likely to only be a partial fix. They reference "help," not fix numerous times.
When such a huge bug exists in the underlying system, a simple work around isn't likely to plug much more than the obvious holes.
IMHO, provided I'm right, this is worse than no solution at all. The admin's think "All is well - I patched that." and tune out all the warnings. But the reality is that you patched 5% of the problem, and now have a complete false sense of security.
I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect not.
Cheers,
Greg
Perhaps this will fix things.
... ...
However, I'm not reassured by MS's explaination.
I quote:
Microsoft ASP.NET developers can add more checks to help reduce canonicalization issues for a Web application by adding an Application_BeginRequest event handler in their Global.asax file that is stored in the root directory of the Web application. This event handler executes for each Web request and is a convenient location to insert code to help safeguard against canonicalization issues.
The following samples demonstrate how to add an Application_BeginRequest event handler to a Global.asax file. The event handler helps protect against invalid characters and malformed URLs by performing path verifications to help protect against common canonicalization issues.
---
Help is not the same as fix. If these was the only item needed to fix the issue, I'd highly expect different language in giving a work around.
Given MS's past track record, I suspect we'll find this fixes the most obvious part of the problem while still leaving the user vulnerable, but feeling warm and fuzzy in the assurance that the problem is fixed.
Cheers,
Greg
You're completely nutters - or so it appears.
You'll claim that the act of showing JJ's breast was even marginally worse than the act that preceeded it?
I mean come on.
I guess you're complaining that by walking on the very edge of the cliff (in moral terms) that a itsy-bitsy puff of wind blew you over the cliff?
The superbowl is a moral morass. Beer commercials with half dressed bimbo's (not that I mind particularly) and completely suggestive material.
I mean hey, if you're going to pontificate about moral purity, then how about not having a super-bowl party at your church?
To claim JJ's breast pushed you over the edge of moral purity, then you're smoking crack.
So, soft porn petting and griding is fine - just as long as their clothes stay on, but hard core penetration is totally evil?
Come on.
Cheers,
Greg
You misspelled John Denver... LOL
The bullshit is that IE and all the other GDI library crap *WAS NOT* free.
IE was rolled into the cost of the OS.
The dev tools with the libraries were not free either.
If I designed a flawed version of AutoCAD and you used it to design a building, and just as part of the design threw in a balcony that ended up collapsing and killing a dozen people, would you claim that I didn't bear any responsibility? (Perhaps because the people impacted by the collapse didn't pay me directly for AutoCAD?)
Sheesh,
Greg
Sheesh...
I can't tell you how often my clients have Office SB and can't find the disks. I know they're licensed, but they can't find the CD.
I often end up having to find some way to hack around the problem.
Rule 1: Never expect the user to be able to place their hands on any of the materials that came with their computer.
Cheers,
Greg
Exactly. Though I mess with their heads. The "E" now says, Mozilla Firefox.
Really, I just want them to know they're not actually running IE. It looks like it and habit will have them click on the E, but they'll get FF.
Cheers,
Greg
A sneek peek shows...
This suggests that a single brawny server running spamd can comfortably handle 5 messages a second and may peak up to 30 messages per second.
At 5 per second:
That's about 430,000 messages a day if queued evenly throughout the day. 215,000 if all were delivered during a 12 hour period.
Even if performance is 1/5th of that for a wimpy server, we're talking more than 40,000 messages a day.
Cheers,
Greg