Because a serious enemy, Iran is getting more powerful every day.
Without some deterrent, the influence of Iran could be a serious problem.
Finally, the western mindset doesn't much understand the "loss of face" issues that much of the eastern world must deal with.
I suspect for Saddam, death would be preferrable to loss of face. (How he was caught alive, one doesn't know, though it's clear he wasn't in a decent state of mind and probably was mostly unaware of what was going on. Drugs or serious fatigue come to mind...)
There are lots of explainations for why he was so stubborn. Having WMD isn't the most likely IMHO.
First, it's a big country. They could've buried the stuff anywhere. Second, they could've also moved the stuff to a number of neighboring countries. Third and finally, we know he had the weapons before. There are no records of their destruction so where are they now?
I doubt you're right. *Every* expert says - "they must not have had anything." Even David Kay who said we'd "find a smoking arsenal" concluded that Iraq didn't have any significant quantities of WMD and even it's programs/plans were pretty limited.
Lets even suppose that they hid everything. Given the presentation to the UN and the State of the Union, one would have thought we could pinpoint *exactly* where those weapons were huh? So, are we just that stupid about what we really don't know, or was the whole presentation a sham - that we really were not nearly as certain as we implied. In either case, we have a huge error that *someone* needs to stand up and say "the buck stops here, I screwed up, I'll take the blame." Has that happened - no, I hasn't.
This is simply crap. It doesn't matter how much good we do for the world, the terrorists would hate us anyway. They'd find some reason to hate the USA, however lame it might be. Hell, even if we got out of everyones business, they'd probably hate us for doing that instead of helping out a bit. Someone would hate us anyway, whether it be terrorists or others. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Go read some history.
The Iranians hate(d) us for our actions that oppressed their people. (This can't excuse it, but it can certainly explain it.)
Iraq isn't much different.
Afganistan: Well, we armed despots with guns to fight the Soviets, and when they left, we simply left the country to decend into hell. The Taliban were a welcome relief that offered stability if not a free society. The result was a haven for Bin Laden et al.
House of Saud, Saudi?
Pakistan?
Pinochet?
Noriega?
Guatamala?
Need I continue? We support(ed) all theses despots when they were convienient for us.
Perhaps you're right and they would hate us anyway. But before I assume the rest of the world are total scum and figure we ought to kill as many of them as I can, I think the honerable thing to do would be to quit the despot actions we regularly take on the rest of the world.
Once our hands are clean, I'll be a lot more supportive about "cleaning house" when needed.
Frankly the grief we get is pretty well deserved. Granted, it's not those exact people (e.g. the people in the planes in the WTC horror) who caused the evil inflicted on the poor masses of the world, but it *is* our government who did it, and our taxes that paid for it.
re: Sarin... The US never lost a mutition? Come on.
Here's the laundry list given before the war... -Chemical weapons, ("500 tons" of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, and "29,984" munitions capable of delivering chemical agents) -Biological weapons ("25,000 liters" of anthrax, "38,000 liters" of botulinum toxin)
So, out of just 500 *tons* we were able to find *ONE* artillary shell.
Doesn't that seem just a bit odd. We were *SO* certain about what we'd find. We ridiculed the inspectors on being so incompetant they couldn't find jack. And low and behold, we couldn't either. Well, the sarin we found came from a road-side bomb. (One could argue it was a surrendered mutition! LOL - sick joke I know.)
I think everyone was pretty much lame with Saddam. Clinton and Bush I were mostly interested in containment. That seemed to work pretty well. When Saddam got too frisky, we spanked him back into line. What more could one do?
Now we're stuck in a very dangerous situation. Sure, we've got the Cobra by the tail, but somehow one has to either let go, or get it under control. Either choice has the very real possibility of getting us bitten badly. The saddest part is that the American public and the millitary have to pay the price for the stupid decision to pick up the Cobra in the first place where there were other alternatives.
Sadder still, will be the price the Iraqi's will pay and have already paid.
My prediction is that Iraq will be a tribal factional Afgainistan type country soon, or under the imperial rule of the US.
Rather than regime change, we ought to focus on doing the world right, and being honest brokers. The world would hate us a lot less and we'd have fewer excuses to revoke personal liberties to "save" us from the terrorists.
If an individual pleaded guilty to a *felony* stealing/fraud/etc then they would most likely get a significant prison sentence.
Not only that, but the individual would give up their right to vote and thus their influence over gvmt. Not so the corp.
IMHO, CEO's and executive officers ought to be responsible, *personally* for the acts of their companies - both civil and criminal. Unless the Executive can show that it would have been completely unreasonable for them to have known about the malfeasence.
We overthrew an deomcratically elected gvmt in Iran in 1953 and supported the subsequest Iranian governments in large style.
When the Shah oppressed his people without consience for more than 20 years, and was finally thrown out, the Iranian revolution occured in 1979.
Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and had little time to reverse the course set by Eisenhower and the following administrations.
To blame Carter for the disaster that Eisenhower created in Iran is simply a foolish and ignorant thing to do.
And it's no wonder after US sponsered oppression that the Iranians hated us.
(And thus follows Iraq. We hate Iran. Saddam hates Iran. Lets arm that despot to attack Iran. Oops - that wasn't such a great plan... And thus follows our ignorant, evil, and "to-hell-with-the-rest-of-the-world-as-long-as-we- get-ours " policy of dealing with the rest of the world. The USA has some very good people, but we have often had government who have done massive evil in the name of "freedom" and "democracy." It's a shame.)
And accordingly, one does *everything* one can to prevent having to amputate.
I don't see you in the office for the third time about your ingrown toenail and say "hey lets amputate." You've had time to recover, this is just a problem. We need to *DO* something!
We did mostly nothing for 10 years to Iraq. Bush lays down the ultimatum and we "amputate" in like six months - for a wound that we can't find now.
Anyway - war is the last, *last*, **LAST** resort. We didn't approach it that way at all.
Or, the police plant or contrive evidence to show you did commit a crime and you go to prison.
No, at least here, some police are more worried about finding *someone* to pin the crime on, rather than finding the actual criminal.
In that vein, before you do anything, speak to my lawyer first. *PERIOD*
If it appears as though you mean no harm, then I'll think about co-operating. More likely, you'll get exactly what the constitution allows and absolutly nothing more.
There are many who are in prison innocently who had their crime pinned on them by police who simply wanted a conviction rather than a conviction of the *right* person. Refusing the be questioned without an attorney, refusing searches and siezures without a properly executed warrant etc are the first steps to protecting yourself against these problems.
Sure, you're right, it's probably not the most polite and best approach, but when my freedom and reputation are at stake and I'm not sure of the character of those on the other side, that is just the way it must be to afford me the protection I require.
I don't know exactly how much you looked at the examples in the article.
It was cutting off the left-most parts of the paragraphs in the white frame.
Thus you couldn't really read the articles as it was like reading a printed page with the left few words cut off. Every line required guessing which words were missing.
On a NT/2000/2003 box, PDC/AD-PDC etc, I can get complete root access in less than 10 minutes, provided I can boot from CD/floppy. (If the file system is encrypted, then no go, but I suspect that is very rare.)
Sure NT/2000 can be a pain to *fix* if the filesystem trashes a bunch of things. But we're talking about a system that is functioning properly.
And with the shatter exploits, priviledged escalation is trivial on a Win box.
Frankly, for most boxes, local access is game over, but for Win boxes, it's pretty dang easy. Just do a google search for "NT reset password" - the first link is a free-ware utility that will do it easily for you. Ironically, it uses Linux and Linux drivers to do it for you...
My point is the major *cause* of the UN doing nothing about Rwanda was the *US*! Gasp!
Oh, but I forgot. Humanitarian tragidies that occur in poor African nations don't count... My point is the major *cause* of the UN doing nothing about Rwanda was the *US*! Gasp!
Oh, but I forgot. Humanitarian tragedies that occur in poor African nations don't count...
Sure, the UN has it's problems, but IMHO more often than not, the UN is bullied around by the US. Many failings of the UN can be traced to the greater and greater use of bullying by the US.
So, rather than blame the UN for it's inaction, one ought to often blame the US. Further, that Kerry is going back to the UN should actually give some hope that a US leader is interested in re-vitalizing the UN into a more proactive and relevant institution.
GWB on the other hand, seems more likely to nuke the French for actually having an opinion.
The face of the UN is largely shaped by it's largest and most powerful member(s). The US is by far the largest and most powerful member.
At least we'd have a few more bodies on the other side of the canoe.
Right now, I'm quite afraid of taking a swim. (Have you ever listened to Scalia? Ashcroft? Rumsfield? Not a what-job out there that's got a leg up on them!) And with Congress repubs too pussy whipped to stand up, we're in a very bad way.
Well, when I recall how we we're going to let all those killjoys, you know, old Europa - the chocolate makers, join in on the "spoils" of the war...
Well, when I recall that, I just wonder what Don Rumsfeld was smoking? Super crack? (I'm not sure any druggie was/is that far removed from reality...)
The UN is a great way (ok, not great, but the best possibility we've got right now) to help share of of those spoils - you know, the dead soldiers and around 5 billion ($5,000,000,000) a month. (That's only about $115,000 a minute or $1900 a second.)
I dunno, we're losing about 1-2 soldiers a day or so. And that's just for now. This doesn't even count the terribly injured. (We don't have too many die, just a very large number who come home without legs and other horrible permanant injuries.)
So, finding someone who might be willing to help us out of the horrible jam we've gotten ourselves into would actually be a pretty nice thing...
Rwanda? Perhaps you'd like to explain what the UN had to do with Rwanda? It was primarily the US who stalled and didn't get the UN to do anything about the terrible massacre that occured. By the time the US got the balls together to overcome it's fear of another Somalia it was too late.
So, perhaps you might enlighten us about the UN and Rawanda.
GW Bush is the biggest threat to the freedoms of those here in the US. He's more than willing to sell us all down the road for more power.
Problem is, about half the software around simply doesn't run right when run as non-admin.
Sure, non-admin privs sounds like a great thing until you try to use it. For many of my clients, it's simply not a workable thing.
That's not MS's fault, per se' but given the lack of a care about security in the past, everyone who develops apps for windows has grown accustomed to no security and apps simply don't work as they should.
In short, the buck IMHO still comes back to rest at MS's door-step. They are still doing far too little to fix the problem.
The IBM that took over OS/2 from....wait for it... Microsoft(!) is a way different IBM today than it was back then.
IBM wasn't very committed to OS/2 really.
It appears as though IBM is much more greatly committed to Linux and OSS now than it was to OS/2 back then.
IBM had just come off of one of it's biggest revenue losses ever. It had just gotten Gerstner on board to fix things. IBM simply didn't have time to focus on OS/2 - it had to focus on survival and turning the firm around.
It has done that.
And where is Microsoft? In grand strategy terms, I think it's in the deep decline that IBM was in back in the early and mid 90's.
We will see if the roles are reversed. The recovery IBM made was nothing short of astounding. Personally, I'd hate to have my company in the cross-hairs as a competitor to IBM. They have the resources to do it right and support the customer that no-one else does. (Check out the large iron business over the last 20 years and count who is left.)
Forbid that you actually talk to the person in a polite and reasonable way. Ask what's up. Ask if he has a psychological problem. Ask about friends and family.
Ten minutes of this might have saved two or three hours of wasted paperwork, and lots of added expense.
I'm sure I don't understand all the trials and tribulations of being a cop. But I do my best to do my job right, regardless of how irritating the client is. If you don't want to do it right, find another job, IMHO.
In general, it seems a whole lot of cops have power complexes and attitude problems. They're often more interesting in throwing that around than solving problems.
The point being, that Gitmo is completely under US control.
I don't care if it's a rowboat in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. If it's controlled by the US gvmt, it's US territory.
Anything that tries to make fine distinctions is just a sleezebag way to get around the intent of US law. That this should be our own Gvmt, rather than some sleezebag pedophile disturbes be more than just a little.
"We have the greatest justice system in the world. Oh, but by the way, we're not going to allow the 'bad-guys' to have any access to it. I mean really, trials are just for the 'not-guilty' folk."
Hard to believe this is the same republic that was so angered by the very similar acts of King George that we'd risk our own lives to commit 'terrorist' acts and overthrow the opressive government starting in 1776. Have we fallen so far so quickly?
You *might* be right about the non-commercial use part. However, only the Beta versions were free. These would time out IIRC and in any case you were, by the license, required to buy a copy.
I can download completely free copies of Office on the net, does this allow me to use it for free? Woopie!
Linux was barely on the map in 94-95-96 when the whole crushing of Netscape we happening. Free software wasn't anywhere near producing a free browser that would compete.
Netscape never offered a free browser. They offered a 90 day trial, and free use of beta versions. (Believe me, I was involved in deciding or not deciding to license Netscape. When MS's browser came for free, mgmt wouldn't spring for the Netscape browser at any cost even though it was better for a long time to come.)
Go check your facts on Netscape - you're simply wrong. We can debate what the cause was for the Netscapes change, and exactly how detrimental it was, but your facts are simply wrong.
Cheers, Greg
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute
on
Microsoft and EU Talks End
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
So we can come to the car analogy again, for example, if someone starts putting proprietary air filters or even a proprietary stereo (where you can't figure out the connections, for example - you'd have to rip out all the old speakers and everything and completely replace it to put a new one in). Those things would really suck, and make me not want to buy that car, but would it really be "unfair?" Should the government step in and say that car manufacturer can no longer install stock stereo systems?
If you couldn't get your car without the Stereo, the multiple cd changer. Sure, it's free, wink wink, nudge, nudge.
Do you remember that Netscape wanted and needed to change for their browser? And Bill Gates said in a public forum that MS still had OS revenue and they could "compete" in the "free" browser market while he didn't see how Netscape could.
After MS included the browser for free, loaded on the machine, and excluded any other browsers, Netscape was forced to enter the "Free" browser market and simply make money on server products. (They're not free, Netscape had to try to leverage it's server market products market-share to support the "free" browser.) I can't find quotes, as they're old but some of the statements by Gates are pretty damning.
It's been said many times before, but once you reach monopoly status, you can't use the same tactics to force people out of your markets. The power and ability to do so, the theory goes is too great and the results always ultimately hurt consumers.
So, no, I don't think this is unjustified. Sure, it's way late and probably will only serve to increase the rising tide against MS, rather than early on where it could have turned the tide. That's too bad, but we shouldn't give up on prosecuting the murderer simply because it was 20 years ago and he's in jail on bank fraud. (Not to mention, we don't know where things will go tomorrow and having a judgement in the bank will go a long ways to prevent abuse as much as possible as MS either reforms or dies.)
ATT's edge is in my tests about 600-1000ms ping times.
Voicestream is 1000-3000 ms on average.
Ping times in seconds is not a good thing.
If the Verizon service is similar, it will work pretty nice for downloading big files but suck for any interactive sessions such as VPN etc. (Not to mention packet loss etc which will make it lots worse!)
He'll drown you too in his fear when you try to rescue him. Doesn't matter that if he drowns you, he drowns himself too - he's irrational.
IMHO, MS really is scared. They really don't have a lever to use to defeat Linux.
You can't buy them out. You can't give it away free, and beat them on price. (Linux IS free, and as a bonus, the source code is included.)
MS knows the power of "Free" - that's what got office in the door - OEM bundles of free office suites. Free inclusion of IE etc.
So, what alternatives are left to attack Linux. Of all the alternatives, this seems the most powerful - attack the IP foundations of Linux. It's still a weak attack, but, IMHO, probably the best they could come up with.
You're right, the math is off, but the point of the parent is still right.
The 80/20 or 90/10 rules likely still apply. A vast majority of the spam comes from a very small minority. Pick your targets well, and it's likely that the effect would be much larger than one might expect on the ratio of spammers to those who were legally apprehended.
Even on a total spammers to those targeted (200:6) it would be about a 3% drop in spam. If these are some of the most senior/most prolific, the effects might be very much larger than 6%.
(If they give them the death penalty [I wish] I expect the impact might be really large! *grin*)
Slashdot Mirror
Because a serious enemy, Iran is getting more powerful every day.
Without some deterrent, the influence of Iran could be a serious problem.
Finally, the western mindset doesn't much understand the "loss of face" issues that much of the eastern world must deal with.
I suspect for Saddam, death would be preferrable to loss of face. (How he was caught alive, one doesn't know, though it's clear he wasn't in a decent state of mind and probably was mostly unaware of what was going on. Drugs or serious fatigue come to mind...)
There are lots of explainations for why he was so stubborn. Having WMD isn't the most likely IMHO.
Cheers,
Greg
That's like saying a bullet is a lethal weapon.
No, it's not. Without a "delivery system" (i.e. a gun) it's not likely a lethal weapon in any circunstance.
WMD's to be of any real threat need both the chemicals themselves and a reasonably reliable delivery system.
WMD = Weapon of Mass Distruction.
If you can't reliably create it and disperse it over wide areas you don't have a *mass* weapon.
Finally, a single lost canister of Sarin wasn't at all what they were accused of having.
First, it's a big country. They could've buried the stuff anywhere. Second, they could've also moved the stuff to a number of neighboring countries. Third and finally, we know he had the weapons before. There are no records of their destruction so where are they now?
I doubt you're right. *Every* expert says - "they must not have had anything." Even David Kay who said we'd "find a smoking arsenal" concluded that Iraq didn't have any significant quantities of WMD and even it's programs/plans were pretty limited.
Lets even suppose that they hid everything. Given the presentation to the UN and the State of the Union, one would have thought we could pinpoint *exactly* where those weapons were huh? So, are we just that stupid about what we really don't know, or was the whole presentation a sham - that we really were not nearly as certain as we implied. In either case, we have a huge error that *someone* needs to stand up and say "the buck stops here, I screwed up, I'll take the blame." Has that happened - no, I hasn't.
This is simply crap. It doesn't matter how much good we do for the world, the terrorists would hate us anyway. They'd find some reason to hate the USA, however lame it might be. Hell, even if we got out of everyones business, they'd probably hate us for doing that instead of helping out a bit. Someone would hate us anyway, whether it be terrorists or others. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Go read some history.
The Iranians hate(d) us for our actions that oppressed their people. (This can't excuse it, but it can certainly explain it.)
Iraq isn't much different.
Afganistan: Well, we armed despots with guns to fight the Soviets, and when they left, we simply left the country to decend into hell. The Taliban were a welcome relief that offered stability if not a free society. The result was a haven for Bin Laden et al.
House of Saud, Saudi?
Pakistan?
Pinochet?
Noriega?
Guatamala?
Need I continue? We support(ed) all theses despots when they were convienient for us.
Perhaps you're right and they would hate us anyway. But before I assume the rest of the world are total scum and figure we ought to kill as many of them as I can, I think the honerable thing to do would be to quit the despot actions we regularly take on the rest of the world.
Once our hands are clean, I'll be a lot more supportive about "cleaning house" when needed.
Frankly the grief we get is pretty well deserved. Granted, it's not those exact people (e.g. the people in the planes in the WTC horror) who caused the evil inflicted on the poor masses of the world, but it *is* our government who did it, and our taxes that paid for it.
Cheers,
Greg
re: Sarin...
The US never lost a mutition? Come on.
Here's the laundry list given before the war...
-Chemical weapons, ("500 tons" of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, and
"29,984" munitions capable of delivering
chemical agents)
-Biological weapons ("25,000 liters" of anthrax, "38,000 liters" of
botulinum toxin)
So, out of just 500 *tons* we were able to find *ONE* artillary shell.
Doesn't that seem just a bit odd. We were *SO* certain about what we'd find. We ridiculed the inspectors on being so incompetant they couldn't find jack. And low and behold, we couldn't either. Well, the sarin we found came from a road-side bomb. (One could argue it was a surrendered mutition! LOL - sick joke I know.)
I think everyone was pretty much lame with Saddam. Clinton and Bush I were mostly interested in containment. That seemed to work pretty well. When Saddam got too frisky, we spanked him back into line. What more could one do?
Now we're stuck in a very dangerous situation. Sure, we've got the Cobra by the tail, but somehow one has to either let go, or get it under control. Either choice has the very real possibility of getting us bitten badly. The saddest part is that the American public and the millitary have to pay the price for the stupid decision to pick up the Cobra in the first place where there were other alternatives.
Sadder still, will be the price the Iraqi's will pay and have already paid.
My prediction is that Iraq will be a tribal factional Afgainistan type country soon, or under the imperial rule of the US.
Rather than regime change, we ought to focus on doing the world right, and being honest brokers. The world would hate us a lot less and we'd have fewer excuses to revoke personal liberties to "save" us from the terrorists.
Cheers,
Greg
If an individual pleaded guilty to a *felony* stealing/fraud/etc then they would most likely get a significant prison sentence.
Not only that, but the individual would give up their right to vote and thus their influence over gvmt. Not so the corp.
IMHO, CEO's and executive officers ought to be responsible, *personally* for the acts of their companies - both civil and criminal. Unless the Executive can show that it would have been completely unreasonable for them to have known about the malfeasence.
Cheers,
Greg
Holy cow...
- get-ours " policy of dealing with the rest of the world. The USA has some very good people, but we have often had government who have done massive evil in the name of "freedom" and "democracy." It's a shame.)
We overthrew an deomcratically elected gvmt in Iran in 1953 and supported the subsequest Iranian governments in large style.
When the Shah oppressed his people without consience for more than 20 years, and was finally thrown out, the Iranian revolution occured in 1979.
Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and had little time to reverse the course set by Eisenhower and the following administrations.
To blame Carter for the disaster that Eisenhower created in Iran is simply a foolish and ignorant thing to do.
And it's no wonder after US sponsered oppression that the Iranians hated us.
(And thus follows Iraq. We hate Iran. Saddam hates Iran. Lets arm that despot to attack Iran. Oops - that wasn't such a great plan... And thus follows our ignorant, evil, and "to-hell-with-the-rest-of-the-world-as-long-as-we
Cheers,
Greg
And accordingly, one does *everything* one can to prevent having to amputate.
I don't see you in the office for the third time about your ingrown toenail and say "hey lets amputate." You've had time to recover, this is just a problem. We need to *DO* something!
We did mostly nothing for 10 years to Iraq. Bush lays down the ultimatum and we "amputate" in like six months - for a wound that we can't find now.
Anyway - war is the last, *last*, **LAST** resort. We didn't approach it that way at all.
Rant off.
Cheers,
Greg
Or, the police plant or contrive evidence to show you did commit a crime and you go to prison.
No, at least here, some police are more worried about finding *someone* to pin the crime on, rather than finding the actual criminal.
In that vein, before you do anything, speak to my lawyer first. *PERIOD*
If it appears as though you mean no harm, then I'll think about co-operating. More likely, you'll get exactly what the constitution allows and absolutly nothing more.
There are many who are in prison innocently who had their crime pinned on them by police who simply wanted a conviction rather than a conviction of the *right* person. Refusing the be questioned without an attorney, refusing searches and siezures without a properly executed warrant etc are the first steps to protecting yourself against these problems.
Sure, you're right, it's probably not the most polite and best approach, but when my freedom and reputation are at stake and I'm not sure of the character of those on the other side, that is just the way it must be to afford me the protection I require.
Just by 0.02 cents.
Cheers,
Greg
I don't know exactly how much you looked at the examples in the article.
It was cutting off the left-most parts of the paragraphs in the white frame.
Thus you couldn't really read the articles as it was like reading a printed page with the left few words cut off. Every line required guessing which words were missing.
Cheers,
Greg
Jeepers...
That can be a boot floppy too.
On a NT/2000/2003 box, PDC/AD-PDC etc, I can get complete root access in less than 10 minutes, provided I can boot from CD/floppy. (If the file system is encrypted, then no go, but I suspect that is very rare.)
Sure NT/2000 can be a pain to *fix* if the filesystem trashes a bunch of things. But we're talking about a system that is functioning properly.
And with the shatter exploits, priviledged escalation is trivial on a Win box.
Frankly, for most boxes, local access is game over, but for Win boxes, it's pretty dang easy. Just do a google search for "NT reset password" - the first link is a free-ware utility that will do it easily for you. Ironically, it uses Linux and Linux drivers to do it for you...
Cheers,
Greg
My point is the major *cause* of the UN doing nothing about Rwanda was the *US*! Gasp!
Oh, but I forgot. Humanitarian tragidies that occur in poor African nations don't count...
My point is the major *cause* of the UN doing nothing about Rwanda was the *US*! Gasp!
Oh, but I forgot. Humanitarian tragedies that occur in poor African nations don't count...
Sure, the UN has it's problems, but IMHO more often than not, the UN is bullied around by the US. Many failings of the UN can be traced to the greater and greater use of bullying by the US.
So, rather than blame the UN for it's inaction, one ought to often blame the US. Further, that Kerry is going back to the UN should actually give some hope that a US leader is interested in re-vitalizing the UN into a more proactive and relevant institution.
GWB on the other hand, seems more likely to nuke the French for actually having an opinion.
The face of the UN is largely shaped by it's largest and most powerful member(s). The US is by far the largest and most powerful member.
Cheers,
Greg
At least we'd have a few more bodies on the other side of the canoe.
Right now, I'm quite afraid of taking a swim. (Have you ever listened to Scalia? Ashcroft? Rumsfield? Not a what-job out there that's got a leg up on them!) And with Congress repubs too pussy whipped to stand up, we're in a very bad way.
I should stop before I burst an aneurism.
Cheers,
Greg
Well, when I recall how we we're going to let all those killjoys, you know, old Europa - the chocolate makers, join in on the "spoils" of the war...
Well, when I recall that, I just wonder what Don Rumsfeld was smoking? Super crack? (I'm not sure any druggie was/is that far removed from reality...)
The UN is a great way (ok, not great, but the best possibility we've got right now) to help share of of those spoils - you know, the dead soldiers and around 5 billion ($5,000,000,000) a month. (That's only about $115,000 a minute or $1900 a second.)
I dunno, we're losing about 1-2 soldiers a day or so. And that's just for now. This doesn't even count the terribly injured. (We don't have too many die, just a very large number who come home without legs and other horrible permanant injuries.)
So, finding someone who might be willing to help us out of the horrible jam we've gotten ourselves into would actually be a pretty nice thing...
Rwanda? Perhaps you'd like to explain what the UN had to do with Rwanda? It was primarily the US who stalled and didn't get the UN to do anything about the terrible massacre that occured. By the time the US got the balls together to overcome it's fear of another Somalia it was too late.
So, perhaps you might enlighten us about the UN and Rawanda.
GW Bush is the biggest threat to the freedoms of those here in the US. He's more than willing to sell us all down the road for more power.
Cheers,
Greg
Very insightful. No mod points here, or you'd get them.
Thanks!
Problem is, about half the software around simply doesn't run right when run as non-admin.
Sure, non-admin privs sounds like a great thing until you try to use it. For many of my clients, it's simply not a workable thing.
That's not MS's fault, per se' but given the lack of a care about security in the past, everyone who develops apps for windows has grown accustomed to no security and apps simply don't work as they should.
In short, the buck IMHO still comes back to rest at MS's door-step. They are still doing far too little to fix the problem.
Cheers,
Greg
The IBM that took over OS/2 from....wait for it... Microsoft(!) is a way different IBM today than it was back then.
IBM wasn't very committed to OS/2 really.
It appears as though IBM is much more greatly committed to Linux and OSS now than it was to OS/2 back then.
IBM had just come off of one of it's biggest revenue losses ever. It had just gotten Gerstner on board to fix things. IBM simply didn't have time to focus on OS/2 - it had to focus on survival and turning the firm around.
It has done that.
And where is Microsoft? In grand strategy terms, I think it's in the deep decline that IBM was in back in the early and mid 90's.
We will see if the roles are reversed. The recovery IBM made was nothing short of astounding.
Personally, I'd hate to have my company in the cross-hairs as a competitor to IBM. They have the resources to do it right and support the customer that no-one else does. (Check out the large iron business over the last 20 years and count who is left.)
Cheers,
Greg
Moreover...
Forbid that you actually talk to the person in a polite and reasonable way. Ask what's up. Ask if he has a psychological problem. Ask about friends and family.
Ten minutes of this might have saved two or three hours of wasted paperwork, and lots of added expense.
I'm sure I don't understand all the trials and tribulations of being a cop. But I do my best to do my job right, regardless of how irritating the client is. If you don't want to do it right, find another job, IMHO.
In general, it seems a whole lot of cops have power complexes and attitude problems. They're often more interesting in throwing that around than solving problems.
Anyway...
Cheers,
Greg
The point being, that Gitmo is completely under US control.
I don't care if it's a rowboat in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. If it's controlled by the US gvmt, it's US territory.
Anything that tries to make fine distinctions is just a sleezebag way to get around the intent of US law. That this should be our own Gvmt, rather than some sleezebag pedophile disturbes be more than just a little.
"We have the greatest justice system in the world. Oh, but by the way, we're not going to allow the 'bad-guys' to have any access to it. I mean really, trials are just for the 'not-guilty' folk."
Hard to believe this is the same republic that was so angered by the very similar acts of King George that we'd risk our own lives to commit 'terrorist' acts and overthrow the opressive government starting in 1776. Have we fallen so far so quickly?
Alas.
Greg
You *might* be right about the non-commercial use part. However, only the Beta versions were free. These would time out IIRC and in any case you were, by the license, required to buy a copy.
I can download completely free copies of Office on the net, does this allow me to use it for free? Woopie!
Linux was barely on the map in 94-95-96 when the whole crushing of Netscape we happening. Free software wasn't anywhere near producing a free browser that would compete.
Netscape never offered a free browser. They offered a 90 day trial, and free use of beta versions. (Believe me, I was involved in deciding or not deciding to license Netscape. When MS's browser came for free, mgmt wouldn't spring for the Netscape browser at any cost even though it was better for a long time to come.)
Go check your facts on Netscape - you're simply wrong. We can debate what the cause was for the Netscapes change, and exactly how detrimental it was, but your facts are simply wrong.
Cheers,
Greg
So we can come to the car analogy again, for example, if someone starts putting proprietary air filters or even a proprietary stereo (where you can't figure out the connections, for example - you'd have to rip out all the old speakers and everything and completely replace it to put a new one in). Those things would really suck, and make me not want to buy that car, but would it really be "unfair?" Should the government step in and say that car manufacturer can no longer install stock stereo systems?
If you couldn't get your car without the Stereo, the multiple cd changer. Sure, it's free, wink wink, nudge, nudge.
Do you remember that Netscape wanted and needed to change for their browser? And Bill Gates said in a public forum that MS still had OS revenue and they could "compete" in the "free" browser market while he didn't see how Netscape could.
After MS included the browser for free, loaded on the machine, and excluded any other browsers, Netscape was forced to enter the "Free" browser market and simply make money on server products. (They're not free, Netscape had to try to leverage it's server market products market-share to support the "free" browser.) I can't find quotes, as they're old but some of the statements by Gates are pretty damning.
It's been said many times before, but once you reach monopoly status, you can't use the same tactics to force people out of your markets. The power and ability to do so, the theory goes is too great and the results always ultimately hurt consumers.
So, no, I don't think this is unjustified. Sure, it's way late and probably will only serve to increase the rising tide against MS, rather than early on where it could have turned the tide. That's too bad, but we shouldn't give up on prosecuting the murderer simply because it was 20 years ago and he's in jail on bank fraud. (Not to mention, we don't know where things will go tomorrow and having a judgement in the bank will go a long ways to prevent abuse as much as possible as MS either reforms or dies.)
Anyway...
Cheers,
Greg
Check the latency - this is a serious problem.
ATT's edge is in my tests about 600-1000ms ping times.
Voicestream is 1000-3000 ms on average.
Ping times in seconds is not a good thing.
If the Verizon service is similar, it will work pretty nice for downloading big files but suck for any interactive sessions such as VPN etc. (Not to mention packet loss etc which will make it lots worse!)
Latency Latency Latency...
We all want to know - what's the latency?
Cheers,
Greg
"Few short hours"? - Would you consider like 12 hours to be a few short hours?
Agreed about the data, but 12 hours for a major outlet like HM is pretty incredible.
Makes you think twice about the supposed reliability of anything MS doesn't it? If not you, than certainly me...
Anyway...
Think of a drowning man.
He'll drown you too in his fear when you try to rescue him. Doesn't matter that if he drowns you, he drowns himself too - he's irrational.
IMHO, MS really is scared. They really don't have a lever to use to defeat Linux.
You can't buy them out. You can't give it away free, and beat them on price. (Linux IS free, and as a bonus, the source code is included.)
MS knows the power of "Free" - that's what got office in the door - OEM bundles of free office suites. Free inclusion of IE etc.
So, what alternatives are left to attack Linux. Of all the alternatives, this seems the most powerful - attack the IP foundations of Linux. It's still a weak attack, but, IMHO, probably the best they could come up with.
Cheers,
Greg
You're right, the math is off, but the point of the parent is still right.
The 80/20 or 90/10 rules likely still apply. A vast majority of the spam comes from a very small minority. Pick your targets well, and it's likely that the effect would be much larger than one might expect on the ratio of spammers to those who were legally apprehended.
Even on a total spammers to those targeted (200:6) it would be about a 3% drop in spam. If these are some of the most senior/most prolific, the effects might be very much larger than 6%.
(If they give them the death penalty [I wish] I expect the impact might be really large! *grin*)
Cheers,
Greg
Can I have some of that crack you're smoking?
It's gotta be good, considering the totally altered state of reality you're in...
*grin*