Designating the status served AT&T, but killed off competition -- as AT&T desired. US ended up having to sue the company and break it up into the equally monopolistic "Baby Bells".
I'm glad, we are not doing this again. May be, we'd have the phones on every desk a few years later, but the cell-phones could've arrived a decade earlier...
Similarly, our splurging on roads (well beyond the strategic highways of Eisenhower's vision) saddens me. Without it, we could well have had usable and affordable little helicopters by now, for example.
Something too heavy or too slow by modern standards, like a Pentium2 or Pentium3. If you find something with broken screen, you'll get a big discount. Look for stuff with a built-in network card and a FreeBSD-supported modem (such as IBM's ThinkPads).
These were designed to draw little power. Even if its battery life is not great, you'll still be able to move it from one room to another without shutdown and the UPS will be built-in.
Being an x86 machine, it will run our favorite OS smoothly too.
So? Yes, the end result of purchasing something and stealing it can be the same. A lot of vastly different means can lead to the same ends.
Sometimes the ideas were very good
According to who? Somebody, somewhere has to decide, what is and what is not good. And whoever is picked to make the decision (a government agency, a priest, free market, etc.), there will be people, who'll disagree. Still, I'd prefer the free market.
replaced by people in India who work for 1/10th the price
Oh, yeah, and now, like a good modern Marxist, you object to the globalization. Go break a window or two...
Could it be because IDEAS are UNDERVALUED in the market
Could it be, that you UNDERVALUE the work it takes to bring an idea (however great) to life. Very elitist of you, BTW -- comes with being a Marxist, I suppose.
What is the difference between investment and theft when it comes to innovation? I see no difference at all -- it doesn't matter if you steal my idea or invest in it, in the end I work very hard and become homeless either way.
The difference is huge -- just like that between buying something and stealing it. Paying money to a willing seller (even he is selling at -- as future might show -- a big discount) is still a purchase (of an idea), not a theft.
You seem to have referred to the dot-com-bust as the source of your disillusionment. Well, those people got busted not because their ideas were stolen, it was because they weren't good (enough) in the first place... I worked in a dot-com too, I saw it happening.
Oh, sure, there are a few minorities in there- but they're all rich, they've all been corrupted by worship of mammon, which is the biggest problem that our country faces right now.
Widespread respect for honest wealth was always a nice feature of this country. The so-called "Marxists", on the other hand, by common consensus, belong on lamp-posts.
If he loses the elections, no future president will dare attacking a contemptuous tyrant
They certainly won't do it in the haphazard, unplanned, unilateral and arrogant way Bush did.
Another empty spinning attempt... Even if you are right, it is, in my strong opinion, much better to have done it imperfectly, than not at all.
unilaterally without UN support, is exactly the kind arrogance thats gotten us into so much trouble already.
Our foreign policy is and should be affected by UN and other foreigners, but it shouldn't be dictated by them. Like old age to youth, certain UN-members were trying to prevent us from doing, what they simply could not do themselves (any more).
It is not the arrogance, that's hurting us -- people, complaining about it, are not our enemies nor were they ever our helpful friends.
UN was trying bring peace to Yugoslavia for many years and became the sad laughing stock of Yugoslavs on all sides. In Somalia, UN was distributing food to, essensially, the local warlords. Clinton was convinced to try to fight some of them, but his overadherence to UN reduced the punch's power and 19 Americans died (plus hundreds of Somalians).
That Bush found "the minerals" to axe through the Gordian knot of politics, which Saddam was able to use for over a decade to mock us and the UN, is why I'm on the Bush's side. The removal of the contemptuous despot was not, of course, the whole reason for the action, but most of the objections heard from the opposing countries are not any more sincere.
The demonstration of America's willingness to attack (in addition to its already well known ability) was quite useful. Already Gaddafi bent over and Charles Taylor fled. It may even work on North Korea, who make no secret of their waiting for the results of this elections. Guess, who those thugs prefer?
It was a joke on my part. I find it funny, that the two parties have now switched positions. After 8 years of defending Clinton's draft dodging, Democrats accuse the entire National Guard of cowardice. And vice versa.
But character is relevant.
I quite like Bush's character, actually. But, more importantly, I prefer his convictions over those of Dukakis, err. Kerry...
What was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" can be more accurately described as "Operation Al Qaeda Recruitment Program."
A notable lack of substance in the above spinning...
Just like Bush and Kerry I support the war -- Saddam had to be removed, and I'm glad we did it (Kerry's own words, BTW). This -- Saddam's removal -- is why I support Bush. If he loses the elections, no future president will dare attacking a contemptuous tyrant, and the tyrants will know, that the "leader of the free world" will be reminded by his/her staffers about the "fate of the Bushes", who waged and promptly won to just wars, but lost the subsequent re-elections... You want eloquency? Here...
In any case, note, that if you disaprove of the war, Kerry is not your candidate either.
I doubt, Clinton, actually, cared to have an opinion back then. So hold on to your saliva.
The problem with John Kerry and Vietnam is not that his service is questionable. It is that he chose to make such a big deal out of 4 months of commanding a small boat 35 years ago -- instead of the 12 years of being a US Senator (an infinitely more powerful position) 0 years ago.
Vietnam is irrelevant. The rotten pseudo-liberalism is important. Kerry knows, his views are not popular in US, so he hides them behind the military attributes -- saluting, "reporting for duty", et al. What military music is to music...
As for the face-spitting, take comfort -- Kerry approved the current war, and continues to approve it. Perhaps, past military service is not required to make sound decisions...
Fortunately, no one is trying to address individual bits -- you'll need 8 Seagates put together to make your point stand better.
And then you need to count the on-line harddrives, rather than the manufactured ones. And then you need to convince me, that it makes sense to talk about all of the drives together -- do we need to be able to address any byte of this combined device without some sort of segmentation (like hostname:/filesystem)? We never tried that with 32-bit filesystems, when it was still possible, and we don't try it with 64-bit filesystems, while it is possible.
The jump from 32 to 64 is not complete yet, despite the actual difference between 2^64 and 2^32 being much smaller than that between 2^128 and 2^64...
According to this page, the number of atoms in the Universe is estimated between 10^78 to 10^81, you'll need to turn an awful lot of them into storage to build a device in need of 128-bit address.
If I put my new address into ~/.forward (or whatever), all of the people, who write me, will have to add my old server to their SPF records, otherwise my new server will refuse the forwarded e-mail.
I'm already suffering from this after establishing an SPF record for my domain -- a friend of mine (@mail.ru) forwards all his e-mails to his cell-phone. The cell-phone company checks the SPF record of my domain and rejects them, because mail.ru's servers are not listed in my SPF record (nor should they be)... As a result, I get the bounces and he gets no notifications.
Until the mail-forwarding is fixed somehow, SPF should not be adopted...
They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.
Yet, Osama bin Laden is on record stating, that it was our going to Saudi Arabia in 1990/91 (to defend that country from Iraq's aggression), that is the reason for his hostility towards us.
The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long,
always [emphasis mine -mi] with horrendous results.
Do you not consider Israel's continuing existence -- despite abundance of vicious and heavily armed by the USSR enemies -- a success of American "meddling"?
by launching a nuke at a bunch of US carriers or at Seoul.
They don't have the technology to hit a ship, much less a battleship in the open sea. All they can do is blackmail us by threatening Japan and South Korea.
We can keep waiting for them to build longer range missiles capable of hitting North America too (while we and others supply them with food and fuel) or tell South Korea and Japan to deploy a lot of Patriot missiles, pray to various deities and kick the crap out of North Korea.
You talk very nicely and don't make any sudden moves until you are sure you can get the gun away from him before he shots you.
Very good analogy -- while you "talk very nicely", you better have the snipers deployed around... The nuclear armed submarines suggested by the grandparent article are the "snipers"...
While American Greens advocate, we all switch to bicycles en masse, China is going to drastically cut its emissions and oil consumption with these plants.
Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to about $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase...
This is exactly the portion of the population that is most deserving of tax cuts because these are the people producing the wealth of the nation.
You don't detail, whether it is the Federal Income Tax, that increases for these people, or the total taxes paid by them. And you don't back the assertions that these people "produce the wealth of the nation" with anything, nor do you say, how much they were paying before and after the changes -- may be they are still well rewarded for their heroic wealth production. In other words, you are spinning...
The current administration's economic policies are irresponsible to the point of being reckless.
I strongly dislike the increase in government spending too.
The top 1% of the US earners pay about 21% of the total US income tax.
Do you have some support for this assertion?
Well, I read it on Yahoo!a few weeks back, but the searches engines now mostly point to NYTimes with its annoying registration. Here is the free link
for you. It is a little dated -- based on the figures for 1999. Sorry, if this page seems too partisan to you. Feel free to search the (also partisan) NYT yourself:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
Is it fair to force them to pay more?
Yes. First of all, the top one percent of income earners in the US have a MINIMUM gross income of $300,000/year, which is 7.5 times the median income of approximately $40,000/year.
No. Your envy is taking the better of you. Your "Yes" is evil... Making everybody equally rich is not possible. But by trying, you have a good chance of making everyone equially poor.
That page I found also addresses the wealth redistribution, so I'm not going to.
I know. I also happened to know, that so was Iraq. And Syria (had to cede it to France, though). And (Trans)Jordan. All these states and statelets were parts of the Ottoman Empire and had no own sovereignity for centuries.
It is all irrelevant -- by 1990 Kuwait has been recognized as an independent state for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad, we are not doing this again. May be, we'd have the phones on every desk a few years later, but the cell-phones could've arrived a decade earlier...
Similarly, our splurging on roads (well beyond the strategic highways of Eisenhower's vision) saddens me. Without it, we could well have had usable and affordable little helicopters by now, for example.
These were designed to draw little power. Even if its battery life is not great, you'll still be able to move it from one room to another without shutdown and the UPS will be built-in.
Being an x86 machine, it will run our favorite OS smoothly too.
So? Yes, the end result of purchasing something and stealing it can be the same. A lot of vastly different means can lead to the same ends.
According to who? Somebody, somewhere has to decide, what is and what is not good. And whoever is picked to make the decision (a government agency, a priest, free market, etc.), there will be people, who'll disagree. Still, I'd prefer the free market.
Oh, yeah, and now, like a good modern Marxist, you object to the globalization. Go break a window or two...
Could it be, that you UNDERVALUE the work it takes to bring an idea (however great) to life. Very elitist of you, BTW -- comes with being a Marxist, I suppose.
The difference is huge -- just like that between buying something and stealing it. Paying money to a willing seller (even he is selling at -- as future might show -- a big discount) is still a purchase (of an idea), not a theft.
You seem to have referred to the dot-com-bust as the source of your disillusionment. Well, those people got busted not because their ideas were stolen, it was because they weren't good (enough) in the first place... I worked in a dot-com too, I saw it happening.
If you really don't think, it is possible to become wealthy by honest means, we have nothing to talk about.
Industry and frugality, dude, industry and frugality...
Widespread respect for honest wealth was always a nice feature of this country. The so-called "Marxists", on the other hand, by common consensus, belong on lamp-posts.
Another empty spinning attempt... Even if you are right, it is, in my strong opinion, much better to have done it imperfectly, than not at all.
Our foreign policy is and should be affected by UN and other foreigners, but it shouldn't be dictated by them. Like old age to youth, certain UN-members were trying to prevent us from doing, what they simply could not do themselves (any more). It is not the arrogance, that's hurting us -- people, complaining about it, are not our enemies nor were they ever our helpful friends.
UN was trying bring peace to Yugoslavia for many years and became the sad laughing stock of Yugoslavs on all sides. In Somalia, UN was distributing food to, essensially, the local warlords. Clinton was convinced to try to fight some of them, but his overadherence to UN reduced the punch's power and 19 Americans died (plus hundreds of Somalians).
That Bush found "the minerals" to axe through the Gordian knot of politics, which Saddam was able to use for over a decade to mock us and the UN, is why I'm on the Bush's side. The removal of the contemptuous despot was not, of course, the whole reason for the action, but most of the objections heard from the opposing countries are not any more sincere.
The demonstration of America's willingness to attack (in addition to its already well known ability) was quite useful. Already Gaddafi bent over and Charles Taylor fled. It may even work on North Korea, who make no secret of their waiting for the results of this elections. Guess, who those thugs prefer?
It was a joke on my part. I find it funny, that the two parties have now switched positions. After 8 years of defending Clinton's draft dodging, Democrats accuse the entire National Guard of cowardice. And vice versa.
I quite like Bush's character, actually. But, more importantly, I prefer his convictions over those of Dukakis, err. Kerry...
A notable lack of substance in the above spinning...
Just like Bush and Kerry I support the war -- Saddam had to be removed, and I'm glad we did it (Kerry's own words, BTW). This -- Saddam's removal -- is why I support Bush. If he loses the elections, no future president will dare attacking a contemptuous tyrant, and the tyrants will know, that the "leader of the free world" will be reminded by his/her staffers about the "fate of the Bushes", who waged and promptly won to just wars, but lost the subsequent re-elections... You want eloquency? Here...
In any case, note, that if you disaprove of the war, Kerry is not your candidate either.
I doubt, Clinton, actually, cared to have an opinion back then. So hold on to your saliva.
The problem with John Kerry and Vietnam is not that his service is questionable. It is that he chose to make such a big deal out of 4 months of commanding a small boat 35 years ago -- instead of the 12 years of being a US Senator (an infinitely more powerful position) 0 years ago.
Vietnam is irrelevant. The rotten pseudo-liberalism is important. Kerry knows, his views are not popular in US, so he hides them behind the military attributes -- saluting, "reporting for duty", et al. What military music is to music...
As for the face-spitting, take comfort -- Kerry approved the current war, and continues to approve it. Perhaps, past military service is not required to make sound decisions...
Fortunately, no one is trying to address individual bits -- you'll need 8 Seagates put together to make your point stand better.
And then you need to count the on-line harddrives, rather than the manufactured ones. And then you need to convince me, that it makes sense to talk about all of the drives together -- do we need to be able to address any byte of this combined device without some sort of segmentation (like hostname:/filesystem)? We never tried that with 32-bit filesystems, when it was still possible, and we don't try it with 64-bit filesystems, while it is possible.
The jump from 32 to 64 is not complete yet, despite the actual difference between 2^64 and 2^32 being much smaller than that between 2^128 and 2^64...
According to this page, the number of atoms in the Universe is estimated between 10^78 to 10^81, you'll need to turn an awful lot of them into storage to build a device in need of 128-bit address.
You, repukes, will never Clinton alone, will ya?
But the in should still be a const char *... This is ./ and your code must be perfect.
I should have some patches ready soon after I see the source...
I'm already suffering from this after establishing an SPF record for my domain -- a friend of mine (@mail.ru) forwards all his e-mails to his cell-phone. The cell-phone company checks the SPF record of my domain and rejects them, because mail.ru's servers are not listed in my SPF record (nor should they be)... As a result, I get the bounces and he gets no notifications.
Until the mail-forwarding is fixed somehow, SPF should not be adopted...
- According to your opinion on Middle East:
Yet, Osama bin Laden is on record stating, that it was our going to Saudi Arabia in 1990/91 (to defend that country from Iraq's aggression), that is the reason for his hostility towards us.
- That same page
also states, that:
Do you not consider Israel's continuing existence -- despite abundance of vicious and heavily armed by the USSR enemies -- a success of American "meddling"?
Thank you.They don't have the technology to hit a ship, much less a battleship in the open sea. All they can do is blackmail us by threatening Japan and South Korea.
We can keep waiting for them to build longer range missiles capable of hitting North America too (while we and others supply them with food and fuel) or tell South Korea and Japan to deploy a lot of Patriot missiles, pray to various deities and kick the crap out of North Korea.
Very good analogy -- while you "talk very nicely", you better have the snipers deployed around... The nuclear armed submarines suggested by the grandparent article are the "snipers"...
While American Greens advocate, we all switch to bicycles en masse, China is going to drastically cut its emissions and oil consumption with these plants.
This example suggests, even the "bigger guys" can suffer...
... from the listings of abortion-providing doctors posted online by the anti-abortion extremists?
I'm sure, hunters would like to see the endangered species to thrive. Whether they like the Endangered Species Act is a totally different matter.
You don't detail, whether it is the Federal Income Tax, that increases for these people, or the total taxes paid by them. And you don't back the assertions that these people "produce the wealth of the nation" with anything, nor do you say, how much they were paying before and after the changes -- may be they are still well rewarded for their heroic wealth production. In other words, you are spinning...
I strongly dislike the increase in government spending too.
No. Your envy is taking the better of you. Your "Yes" is evil... Making everybody equally rich is not possible. But by trying, you have a good chance of making everyone equially poor.
That page I found also addresses the wealth redistribution, so I'm not going to.
Is it fair to force them to pay more? I don't think so. But then, again, I intend to join them some day...
What are you, a SCO lawyer? :-)
I know. I also happened to know, that so was Iraq. And Syria (had to cede it to France, though). And (Trans)Jordan. All these states and statelets were parts of the Ottoman Empire and had no own sovereignity for centuries.
It is all irrelevant -- by 1990 Kuwait has been recognized as an independent state for decades.