As soon as Nokia's Windows Phone 7 devices are released, I will probably get one. Both iPhone and Android have many issues caused mostly because they're fundamentally so far from each, like left and right. Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 is in the middle ground and takes the best from both worlds.
As someone who has used nokias for a long time, I can tell you that you'll likely be very disappointed. Essentially all the best design people are leaving, or already have left nokia at this stage (exodus started some time before the announcement in february). You'll likely get a massive turd, with both hardware issues caused by the OS as well as software issues caused by the fact that hardware guys have to learn how to make a phone for a completely different OS in record time and release it even faster.
Hence the "major" in my post. There are quite a few of leftist movements in US itself as well, but those have a similar chance of getting hold of a meaningful post.
In EU and Southern America (whichever you judge to be closer) on the other hand there are several major countries that have leftist parties in power.
This is reality. There have been several cross-platform xbox+PC shooters where PC versions mouse controls had to be neutered to provide a semblance of a level playing field (and console players still got butchered en masse).
Nowadays there's usually a very powerful aim assist which only requires people with controller to "shoot approximately in that direction", and PC side gets forced mouse smoothing etc mouse nerfs. Bulletstorm was a great example of this - we had to crack the encryption of.ini files and find the option to disable mouse smoothing in tens of kilobytes of.ini crap and aim assist in that game was brutal - I could get headshots almost half of the time just by pointing pistol at a target and pressing the trigger when aim assist was on.
You're missing the point. I'm talking about "starting from the scratch", which is what microsoft had to do. This involves costs of setting up, hiring, establishing working system of creation and so on. Nintendo rolled on the existing base, which is much, much cheaper in addition to choosing to use vastly subpar hardware even at launch and ride on its brand name and an idea of selling simple games to average people. In retrospect, Wii didn't really compete in the same market as PS3 and Xbox360 - it created a new one.
So, anyway, Microsoft invested $10bn into XBox development, and is now making a relatively small profit. They have never made a return on their investment. Any other company would have gone bust by now.
In all the honesty, that just shows how much it takes to get a modern gaming console out and it's ecosystem running nowadays. Remember how sega went out of business after having a very strong presence in the market for a long time? Now you know why. Even one flop for a company only making gaming consoles is enough to put it under.
1. 30% cut and a cut-off from subscriber data is a massive gamechanger, and a clear rip-off. This is basic info to anyone who has ever had any contact with publishing business. You have to be utterly clueless to believe otherwise.
2. Research touchscreen patents. Research what apple did with them. Research how apple broke a whole bunch of real, basic patents owned by companies that did actual ground-up research on how phones work. Not crappy "software patents" bullshit, but real, tangible hardware patents. Again, only an iSheeple world apple can come up as some sort of moral/ethical winner on this issue - to everyone else it's a pretty clear cut case of "buy some important patents, refuse to cross-licence to hurt competition who obeys patents and break patents belonging to that competition yourself". The only thing court case will determine is the size of the payment. Apple's counter-suit had some very shaky software patents as a counter to very real hardware patents concerning the very basic structure of cell phone data connectivity.
3. Flash works fine on: a. Symbian b. Android c. Several other major mobile OSs' d. iOS is the only mobile OS that doesn't support it
Arguing that "some applications aren't optimized for it, so banning it outright is proper" and yet not banning all non-optimized web pages which are often far more horrendous on a mobile browser then flash applications even on a small phone screen is a classic iSheeple argument. It's hard to argue against, just like "black is white" argument is hard to argue against - because the argument itself is essentially presenting a fact against itself.
Reality is, the arguments presented make about as much sense to people outside the iSheeple target group as dianetics make sense to a person not involved with church of Scientology. As in, they don't make any.
Holy iSheeple batman, that's some stuff you're spouting. 30% off subs "to avoid backdooring"? No flash "because it isn't mobile ready" when there are countless mobiles doing it just fine? Nokia not being hit by their patents before suit when they specifically stated that they have problems releasing good touchscreen phones because apple bought out certain key patents?
I do not know what world you're living on, but it's not the one on this planet earth.
It is not a matter of opinion if I'm a teacher and you're my student. It may be a matter of opinion if you're obviously generalizing and don't even know who I am.
Even so, I could sue you for the statement above, and probably win. There are several examples of such cases in both US and various West European jurisdictions.
Proving damages is the easy part. Simply bring up every case of where teacher was accused of pedophilia to court as proof, and run the horrifying life-breaking consequences by the judge/jury. At the end of the several months it will take you, judge and jury will be ready to hang the kid for trying to force an innocent to go through that.
In which case it has to be backed up by some SERIOUS evidence, and facebook posting among friends doesn't really count as one. In addition, it's clearly stated in TFA that "student is sorry for groundless accusations and is drafting an apology letter" which strongly implies that student in fact did not mean anything other then to do standard teenage bitching by it without realising the seriousness of the offence committed by it.
The fact remains that sometimes a bad line thrown in anger can cost someone else their life which is why there are legal limiters placed on free speech, fully in-line with US constitution. This is one of those lines in modern society when aimed at a teacher, and even a teenager has no right to destroy someone's life for the sake of hormone-induced bitching. Some basic rules of behaviour should have been already taught at that age, and as it's apparent that they weren't, the school was perfectly within their rights to act.
In fact if they weren't, the country would probably be the worst place in the world to teach. Because it would mean that every time a student is pissed at a teacher, then can accuse him of anything they want and watch the crowd of "my darling can do no wrong" parents and clueless pedohunting activists burn the innocent teacher at stake as the "darlings" watch giggling and thinking who they will target next, reveling in the power as teenagers naturally do, being in the age of expanding the boundaries. And EVERY SINGLE STUDENT will be pissed off at his teacher several times a year at least. That's natural.
So please, stop pretending that this is something bad happening. It's not. You may even be able to find rules that school broke in the process, but in this case, you'd be killing the spirit of these laws, as well as the spirit of the constitution granting freedom of speech.
So, breaking a civil law = not breaking a law in your book?
Not to even mention that most civilized countries count purposeful and damaging libel against government officials as a criminal offence, but that's not here or there as we're talking about USA here.
Why is that relevant? Student commits a crime against school employee. Location of the crime is irrelevant - relevant is that crime by student had a school employee as a target.
Freedom of speech is about being allowed to say "pedophiles should be hanged".
False testimony/libel is saying "mr. teacher x is a pedophile".
Former is legal. Latter is not. Do not mix one with the other. Location the libel is irrelevant - internet is governed by same laws as everything else.
Considering the number of these "drm free corporate back cloud solutions" going belly-up being quite significant, while essentially all posted reasonably popular bands have their full discographies in reach of a simple search on TPB, and these have been seeded for longer then most of the companies have been in existence...
And considering how many users got a really nice finger from these companies when they went belly-up...
Essentially any modern phone can play mp3s. Even nokia's S40 "dumbphones" that go for 50-ish without contract can play it. Often in better quality then iphone due to specialized DSP on board for cases when they're branded as "music phones".
Not on spotify. Spotify is essentially a net radio where you get to choose what songs you want it to play. But if it goes off the air, you don't get to keep anything just like with the radio.
Of course, it's also free with advertisements and cheap without. But it does require "always on" internet, and a fee if you want to use it on things other then PC, though fee is minimal. Of course, considering that a month of ad-free access with right to use on any device supported by the client costs about as much as one album on itunes... why should I care? Honestly, the main reason why itunes has never taken off around here in Northern Europe is because no one buys their music anymore. You just listen to it on spotify.
And if you absolutely must, you can just record line-out. But generally speaking, pirating would probably be easier and faster.
Last time google accidentally tried to sidestep a law, they landed themselves in a very big and very public pile of shit. It cost them a lot too, and not just money.
This is no longer "just" privacy issue. Here they are playing with people's lives. A car packs a serious amount of energy when in motion on a road, and it doesn't matter how good of a software or a driver watching software perform is - there are LAWS that specifically require extreme measures for such testing. Reason being that human testing which is what it's doing no matter how you spin it - we're risking people's lives by putting a high energy kinetic "projectile" on wheels in machine's hands and releasing it onto a busy street.
Get a permit and a properly controlled environment, and test away. At least in EU, car manufacturers have been doing it for at least a decade.
This appears to be essentially a 1:1 idea taken from future cell phones shown in macross: frontier. In there the phones made various noises, wiggled, and their "hands" where actually various phone extensions, like headphones. And they appeared to be operated by being squeezed in various way in addition to holographically projected controls.
Actually, mobile Opera is possibly the best browser on the market. It's much more lightweight then competition, at least as good, and has some very promising features that competition lacks. While it's possible that fanboy crowd wouldn't switch to a competing product, those who aren't fanboys likely will.
Hell, one of the reasons why "omg symbian browser sucks" argument is pointless from end user POV is because both opera and opera mini on that platform work wonderfully.
FYI: all carrier operated aircraft is STOL-modified. Modifications typically include: 1. Ruggedised landing gear (and often slightly longer nose landing gear for better take off angle). 2. Ruggedised airframe. 3. Landing hook.
This tends to add quite a bit of extra weight to the aircraft. Additionally some STOL mods include larger wingspan (i.e. F-35's upcoming naval version) and other modifications.
Carrier-based AWACS aircraft, in comparison with heavy ground based one is a joke. We're talking significantly smaller antennas and less power to radar, and I'm sorry, but laws of physics dictate that there is no way to compensate for that.
Refueling isn't done via essentially jury-rigging another heavy fighter to lug 4 external tanks (it's something done in carrier-only scenario and is extremely inefficient). It's done via a real heavy refueling aircraft like american KC-X tankers.
Finally, most fighter aircraft has a significantly longer effective range with external fuel tanks. The only real exception to this rule in modern fighters is SU-27 and its derivatives, which has significant internal tanks as it was designed from get go not to carry any external fuel tanks unless absolutely necessary.
1. Libya has 1970s SAMs and 1960s AAA, the places where those nodes are still in Gaddafi's hands are airbases around Tripoli. The Prowlers and Super Hornets on a US carrier as well as the Rafales on Charles de Gaulle can identify those, jam and kill those with HARM and SCALP missiles with very very little collateral damage.
Which brings us to the point that you have to go into ground attack. Which means awesome propaganda material for enemy and a huge anti-western backlash in the region. No go. Remember, we do NOT want to get on the ground. We do NOT want to attack ground. We do NOT want to do anything that will make it look like West is attacking Arab world. It's one thing to supply the rebels (which is doable via sending simple supply fleets to their ports), it's entirely another to start taking part in the shooting war on the ground, even from the air. I think we all learned from Iraq and Afghanistan that when you go between two sides who both hate you, they stop fighting each other and both turn on you. What we want done is air superiority, i.e. no transport flights in our out of the country. This is best achieved by simple AWACS and loitering air superiority aircraft. Carrier is utterly pointless considering the air bases you listed.
Carriers beat NATO airbases because they are able to get much, much closer while carriers and amphibious assault ships make for very good and efficient staging areas for humanitarian assistance.
Carrier is perhaps the single most overestimated and overadvertised military unit of modern ages. As long as you have an airbase within reasonable range, carrier is a lame duck. It's far less efficient, far more vulnerable, and deploys significantly weaker aircraft then airbases can. Amphibious assault is done by amphibious ships, supplying by supply ships. The reason carrier get advertised when this happens is because these ships are usually a part of carrier's strike force, and US navy needs every single reason it can get its hands on to advertise carriers as viable. There is absolutely no reason to send a carrier strike force for amphibious mission when there is a large airbase nearby - have airbase provide air support and send a strike force of actual, specialized supply and amphibious ships. It's much cheaper, much less risky and much faster.
The main reason for media advertising carriers so much is to turn public attention from reality - that being that the moment the real war against a real opponent starts (i.e. China, Russia, etc), ALL US carriers have life expectancy of less then 24 hours, with most being killed inside first 6-12 hours by enemy submarines and supersonic maritime strike bombers. When you consider the cost of each unit, and what you could have for that cost, you begin to understand just how wasteful they generally are.
Essentially the main viability of a carrier is force projection where friendly airbases are scarce. In Iraq and Afghanistan, carriers got a lot of media attention, but vast majority of air force projected over area was flown from ground bases, and essentially entire early strike was done from US-based airbases with refuel over Atlantic, and support flights provided from Saudi-Arabian and EU bases. The reason US has had so much wrangling with local former USSR republics over air bases is because if they stop functioning, there is simply no way to pick up the slack. Vast majority of existing heavy attack and bomber craft as well as supply planes simply cannot operate from a carrier due to lack of STOL capabilities.
1. Libya has decent SAM and AAA. You'd need to go into attack mode and kill at least radar installations first. That would be something we really, really don't want to be doing, as that paints it like an invasion. Hence, you want stealth fighters if possible with AWACS craft from out of SAM radar range guiding the interception. Rafales, tyhoons and F18s are at a very real risk of getting shot down, especially if doing interceptions. Look at the lessons learned from Iraq - at the start of the war, you have no non-stealth craft in the SAM range until B-2s and F-117s have killed most to all of them. Else, look forward to lost aircraft.
2. Carriers are essentially pointless like a cock on a cow here. We have NATO airbases all over the area. We can use actual ground-based fighters, that are generally lighter, more nimble, far more numerous, and can carry more payload as they don't need to have ruggedised airframe, hook and other STOL capabilities. Deployment options range from Crete, Greece and Italy that are within a few tens of minutes of flight to France and Spain that may take about an hour.
Slashdot Mirror
People buying mac personal computers because advertisement says it can't get personal computer viruses.
It's a valid discussion though, or at least the way it would go if done by separate people. We've been there dosens of times already on slashdot.
As soon as Nokia's Windows Phone 7 devices are released, I will probably get one. Both iPhone and Android have many issues caused mostly because they're fundamentally so far from each, like left and right. Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 is in the middle ground and takes the best from both worlds.
As someone who has used nokias for a long time, I can tell you that you'll likely be very disappointed. Essentially all the best design people are leaving, or already have left nokia at this stage (exodus started some time before the announcement in february). You'll likely get a massive turd, with both hardware issues caused by the OS as well as software issues caused by the fact that hardware guys have to learn how to make a phone for a completely different OS in record time and release it even faster.
Hence the "major" in my post. There are quite a few of leftist movements in US itself as well, but those have a similar chance of getting hold of a meaningful post.
In EU and Southern America (whichever you judge to be closer) on the other hand there are several major countries that have leftist parties in power.
That would be because there are no (major) left wing parties in US. There is ultra right wing known as republicans, and right wing known as democrats.
If you want real left wing parties, closest you'll find them is across the Atlantic.
This is reality. There have been several cross-platform xbox+PC shooters where PC versions mouse controls had to be neutered to provide a semblance of a level playing field (and console players still got butchered en masse).
Nowadays there's usually a very powerful aim assist which only requires people with controller to "shoot approximately in that direction", and PC side gets forced mouse smoothing etc mouse nerfs. Bulletstorm was a great example of this - we had to crack the encryption of .ini files and find the option to disable mouse smoothing in tens of kilobytes of .ini crap and aim assist in that game was brutal - I could get headshots almost half of the time just by pointing pistol at a target and pressing the trigger when aim assist was on.
You're missing the point. I'm talking about "starting from the scratch", which is what microsoft had to do. This involves costs of setting up, hiring, establishing working system of creation and so on. Nintendo rolled on the existing base, which is much, much cheaper in addition to choosing to use vastly subpar hardware even at launch and ride on its brand name and an idea of selling simple games to average people. In retrospect, Wii didn't really compete in the same market as PS3 and Xbox360 - it created a new one.
So, anyway, Microsoft invested $10bn into XBox development, and is now making a relatively small profit. They have never made a return on their investment. Any other company would have gone bust by now.
In all the honesty, that just shows how much it takes to get a modern gaming console out and it's ecosystem running nowadays. Remember how sega went out of business after having a very strong presence in the market for a long time? Now you know why. Even one flop for a company only making gaming consoles is enough to put it under.
1. 30% cut and a cut-off from subscriber data is a massive gamechanger, and a clear rip-off. This is basic info to anyone who has ever had any contact with publishing business. You have to be utterly clueless to believe otherwise.
2. Research touchscreen patents. Research what apple did with them. Research how apple broke a whole bunch of real, basic patents owned by companies that did actual ground-up research on how phones work. Not crappy "software patents" bullshit, but real, tangible hardware patents. Again, only an iSheeple world apple can come up as some sort of moral/ethical winner on this issue - to everyone else it's a pretty clear cut case of "buy some important patents, refuse to cross-licence to hurt competition who obeys patents and break patents belonging to that competition yourself". The only thing court case will determine is the size of the payment. Apple's counter-suit had some very shaky software patents as a counter to very real hardware patents concerning the very basic structure of cell phone data connectivity.
3. Flash works fine on:
a. Symbian
b. Android
c. Several other major mobile OSs'
d. iOS is the only mobile OS that doesn't support it
Arguing that "some applications aren't optimized for it, so banning it outright is proper" and yet not banning all non-optimized web pages which are often far more horrendous on a mobile browser then flash applications even on a small phone screen is a classic iSheeple argument. It's hard to argue against, just like "black is white" argument is hard to argue against - because the argument itself is essentially presenting a fact against itself.
Reality is, the arguments presented make about as much sense to people outside the iSheeple target group as dianetics make sense to a person not involved with church of Scientology. As in, they don't make any.
Holy iSheeple batman, that's some stuff you're spouting. 30% off subs "to avoid backdooring"? No flash "because it isn't mobile ready" when there are countless mobiles doing it just fine? Nokia not being hit by their patents before suit when they specifically stated that they have problems releasing good touchscreen phones because apple bought out certain key patents?
I do not know what world you're living on, but it's not the one on this planet earth.
You do realise that "across the globe" counts a whole lot more then these three?
It is not a matter of opinion if I'm a teacher and you're my student. It may be a matter of opinion if you're obviously generalizing and don't even know who I am.
Even so, I could sue you for the statement above, and probably win. There are several examples of such cases in both US and various West European jurisdictions.
Proving damages is the easy part. Simply bring up every case of where teacher was accused of pedophilia to court as proof, and run the horrifying life-breaking consequences by the judge/jury. At the end of the several months it will take you, judge and jury will be ready to hang the kid for trying to force an innocent to go through that.
In which case it has to be backed up by some SERIOUS evidence, and facebook posting among friends doesn't really count as one. In addition, it's clearly stated in TFA that "student is sorry for groundless accusations and is drafting an apology letter" which strongly implies that student in fact did not mean anything other then to do standard teenage bitching by it without realising the seriousness of the offence committed by it.
The fact remains that sometimes a bad line thrown in anger can cost someone else their life which is why there are legal limiters placed on free speech, fully in-line with US constitution. This is one of those lines in modern society when aimed at a teacher, and even a teenager has no right to destroy someone's life for the sake of hormone-induced bitching. Some basic rules of behaviour should have been already taught at that age, and as it's apparent that they weren't, the school was perfectly within their rights to act.
In fact if they weren't, the country would probably be the worst place in the world to teach. Because it would mean that every time a student is pissed at a teacher, then can accuse him of anything they want and watch the crowd of "my darling can do no wrong" parents and clueless pedohunting activists burn the innocent teacher at stake as the "darlings" watch giggling and thinking who they will target next, reveling in the power as teenagers naturally do, being in the age of expanding the boundaries. And EVERY SINGLE STUDENT will be pissed off at his teacher several times a year at least. That's natural.
So please, stop pretending that this is something bad happening. It's not. You may even be able to find rules that school broke in the process, but in this case, you'd be killing the spirit of these laws, as well as the spirit of the constitution granting freedom of speech.
So, breaking a civil law = not breaking a law in your book?
Not to even mention that most civilized countries count purposeful and damaging libel against government officials as a criminal offence, but that's not here or there as we're talking about USA here.
Why is that relevant? Student commits a crime against school employee. Location of the crime is irrelevant - relevant is that crime by student had a school employee as a target.
Freedom of speech is about being allowed to say "pedophiles should be hanged".
False testimony/libel is saying "mr. teacher x is a pedophile".
Former is legal. Latter is not. Do not mix one with the other. Location the libel is irrelevant - internet is governed by same laws as everything else.
Considering the number of these "drm free corporate back cloud solutions" going belly-up being quite significant, while essentially all posted reasonably popular bands have their full discographies in reach of a simple search on TPB, and these have been seeded for longer then most of the companies have been in existence...
And considering how many users got a really nice finger from these companies when they went belly-up...
Yeah. You got that one right.
Essentially any modern phone can play mp3s. Even nokia's S40 "dumbphones" that go for 50-ish without contract can play it. Often in better quality then iphone due to specialized DSP on board for cases when they're branded as "music phones".
Not on spotify. Spotify is essentially a net radio where you get to choose what songs you want it to play. But if it goes off the air, you don't get to keep anything just like with the radio.
Of course, it's also free with advertisements and cheap without. But it does require "always on" internet, and a fee if you want to use it on things other then PC, though fee is minimal. Of course, considering that a month of ad-free access with right to use on any device supported by the client costs about as much as one album on itunes... why should I care?
Honestly, the main reason why itunes has never taken off around here in Northern Europe is because no one buys their music anymore. You just listen to it on spotify.
And if you absolutely must, you can just record line-out. But generally speaking, pirating would probably be easier and faster.
Last time google accidentally tried to sidestep a law, they landed themselves in a very big and very public pile of shit. It cost them a lot too, and not just money.
This is no longer "just" privacy issue. Here they are playing with people's lives. A car packs a serious amount of energy when in motion on a road, and it doesn't matter how good of a software or a driver watching software perform is - there are LAWS that specifically require extreme measures for such testing. Reason being that human testing which is what it's doing no matter how you spin it - we're risking people's lives by putting a high energy kinetic "projectile" on wheels in machine's hands and releasing it onto a busy street.
Get a permit and a properly controlled environment, and test away. At least in EU, car manufacturers have been doing it for at least a decade.
This appears to be essentially a 1:1 idea taken from future cell phones shown in macross: frontier. In there the phones made various noises, wiggled, and their "hands" where actually various phone extensions, like headphones. And they appeared to be operated by being squeezed in various way in addition to holographically projected controls.
Actually, mobile Opera is possibly the best browser on the market. It's much more lightweight then competition, at least as good, and has some very promising features that competition lacks. While it's possible that fanboy crowd wouldn't switch to a competing product, those who aren't fanboys likely will.
Hell, one of the reasons why "omg symbian browser sucks" argument is pointless from end user POV is because both opera and opera mini on that platform work wonderfully.
US carriers don't operate STOL aircraft.
FYI: all carrier operated aircraft is STOL-modified. Modifications typically include:
1. Ruggedised landing gear (and often slightly longer nose landing gear for better take off angle).
2. Ruggedised airframe.
3. Landing hook.
This tends to add quite a bit of extra weight to the aircraft. Additionally some STOL mods include larger wingspan (i.e. F-35's upcoming naval version) and other modifications.
Carrier-based AWACS aircraft, in comparison with heavy ground based one is a joke. We're talking significantly smaller antennas and less power to radar, and I'm sorry, but laws of physics dictate that there is no way to compensate for that.
Refueling isn't done via essentially jury-rigging another heavy fighter to lug 4 external tanks (it's something done in carrier-only scenario and is extremely inefficient). It's done via a real heavy refueling aircraft like american KC-X tankers.
Finally, most fighter aircraft has a significantly longer effective range with external fuel tanks. The only real exception to this rule in modern fighters is SU-27 and its derivatives, which has significant internal tanks as it was designed from get go not to carry any external fuel tanks unless absolutely necessary.
1. Libya has 1970s SAMs and 1960s AAA, the places where those nodes are still in Gaddafi's hands are airbases around Tripoli. The Prowlers and Super Hornets on a US carrier as well as the Rafales on Charles de Gaulle can identify those, jam and kill those with HARM and SCALP missiles with very very little collateral damage.
Which brings us to the point that you have to go into ground attack. Which means awesome propaganda material for enemy and a huge anti-western backlash in the region. No go.
Remember, we do NOT want to get on the ground. We do NOT want to attack ground. We do NOT want to do anything that will make it look like West is attacking Arab world. It's one thing to supply the rebels (which is doable via sending simple supply fleets to their ports), it's entirely another to start taking part in the shooting war on the ground, even from the air. I think we all learned from Iraq and Afghanistan that when you go between two sides who both hate you, they stop fighting each other and both turn on you.
What we want done is air superiority, i.e. no transport flights in our out of the country. This is best achieved by simple AWACS and loitering air superiority aircraft. Carrier is utterly pointless considering the air bases you listed.
Carriers beat NATO airbases because they are able to get much, much closer while carriers and amphibious assault ships make for very good and efficient staging areas for humanitarian assistance.
Carrier is perhaps the single most overestimated and overadvertised military unit of modern ages. As long as you have an airbase within reasonable range, carrier is a lame duck. It's far less efficient, far more vulnerable, and deploys significantly weaker aircraft then airbases can. Amphibious assault is done by amphibious ships, supplying by supply ships. The reason carrier get advertised when this happens is because these ships are usually a part of carrier's strike force, and US navy needs every single reason it can get its hands on to advertise carriers as viable. There is absolutely no reason to send a carrier strike force for amphibious mission when there is a large airbase nearby - have airbase provide air support and send a strike force of actual, specialized supply and amphibious ships. It's much cheaper, much less risky and much faster.
The main reason for media advertising carriers so much is to turn public attention from reality - that being that the moment the real war against a real opponent starts (i.e. China, Russia, etc), ALL US carriers have life expectancy of less then 24 hours, with most being killed inside first 6-12 hours by enemy submarines and supersonic maritime strike bombers. When you consider the cost of each unit, and what you could have for that cost, you begin to understand just how wasteful they generally are.
Essentially the main viability of a carrier is force projection where friendly airbases are scarce. In Iraq and Afghanistan, carriers got a lot of media attention, but vast majority of air force projected over area was flown from ground bases, and essentially entire early strike was done from US-based airbases with refuel over Atlantic, and support flights provided from Saudi-Arabian and EU bases. The reason US has had so much wrangling with local former USSR republics over air bases is because if they stop functioning, there is simply no way to pick up the slack. Vast majority of existing heavy attack and bomber craft as well as supply planes simply cannot operate from a carrier due to lack of STOL capabilities.
A problem and an issue:
1. Libya has decent SAM and AAA. You'd need to go into attack mode and kill at least radar installations first. That would be something we really, really don't want to be doing, as that paints it like an invasion. Hence, you want stealth fighters if possible with AWACS craft from out of SAM radar range guiding the interception. Rafales, tyhoons and F18s are at a very real risk of getting shot down, especially if doing interceptions. Look at the lessons learned from Iraq - at the start of the war, you have no non-stealth craft in the SAM range until B-2s and F-117s have killed most to all of them. Else, look forward to lost aircraft.
2. Carriers are essentially pointless like a cock on a cow here. We have NATO airbases all over the area. We can use actual ground-based fighters, that are generally lighter, more nimble, far more numerous, and can carry more payload as they don't need to have ruggedised airframe, hook and other STOL capabilities. Deployment options range from Crete, Greece and Italy that are within a few tens of minutes of flight to France and Spain that may take about an hour.