Unfortunately no matter what actions we take, or what rhetoric we put forth, we shall always be condemned for helping people.
If we help the people in Afghanistan, we insult the Taliban.
If we help the Israelis we insult the Palestinians.
If we help the Albanians, we insult the Serbs.
The only answer to your concerns is for us to completely pull out of all conflicts and become isolationist. You are effectively saying that we should have let Saddam Hussein have his way with Kuwait, and probably invade Saudi Arabia as well.
I agree we could be more careful with who we choose as friends, but we will always make someone mad, no matter who we help. That's part of the reality that we must accept and learn to deal with.
Why do you think nobody has claimed responsibility for the attacks on 9/11?
The Palestinians have already denounced the attacks, even though many(such as yourself) are claiming they were done in their name.
The point is, they were unjustifiable. The US has made mistakes in the past, and has made decisions which were horrible yet justifiable, such as the use of atomics in Japan. But we've never done anything that justified the attacks on 9/11.
And that's why you won't see anybody speculating as to why this happened, because there is no reason behind it. It *WAS* the act of lunatics.
Yet there is no evidence that the Palestinians were behind this terrorism, in fact their leaders, such as Arafat, have denounced it as unjustifiable.
The only ones who have expressed satisfaction with the attack are those whose hearts are evil. Such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban.
Do you not understand the difference between innocent and guilty?
To claim that you don't support killing innocent people, and then try to equate the killing of guilty people with the killing of innocents is fundamentally flawed logic.
Or don't you understand the distinction?
For what it's worth, I've already rethought my position in the past month. If you had asked me in August, I would have agreed with you. Today, I do not.
The reason? Quite simple, the unjustified attacks on 9/11 changed the situation.
I just do not understand why you cannot comprehend that, and why you continue to justify the killing of innocent civilians.
There is no possible way that one could ever make a parallel which was exact, because the US has never engaged in anything as evil or unjustified as what happened on 9/11.
I don't need to have it both ways, because your justification for terror is logically flawed.
We don't attack innocent civilians purposefully, we attack those responsible for directing the terrorists. i.e. al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
They on the other hand are too timid to attack someone able to defend themselves, so they go after our civilians.
I don't think you quite understand the situation today. Your philosophy of justifying terrorism as revenge is dead, it died on 9/11. It may have been an acceptable stance when we were only talking about a few people dead from car bombs and such. But again, 9/11 changed that when the anty was upped.
Again, your logic is flawed. I suggest you rethink your position before responding.
Tony Blair is truly an inspiration to Americans. If you didn't get a chance to hear him speak last Wednesday before the Labour party, the transcript is here:
Actually 300bps was 30cps. You have 8-N-1 correct, but you forgot the start and stop bits, so it actually took 10 bits per character.
Modems stopped using start/stop bits sometime around 14.4 bps I think.
Re:Pocket PC to replace laptops?
on
Pocket PC 2002
·
· Score: 2
I have one of the older Aero2130 models upgraded to a PocketPC OS, so it's a bit harder for me.
But if I had one of the new iPaq's I would buy one of the portable keyboards, and with that it would be quite easy to read and respond to email and such on a plane trip. Certainly much less hassle than carrying a laptop to accomplish the same thing.
They most certainly don't have a history of being pro-Microsoft. All their TCO stuff is directed at proving desktops are really expensive and we should all go back to big iron.
Gartner recommends whatever it's clients pay it to recommend.
Do you have some examples of these other companies going under?
Both Excite and Exodus who recently announced problems seem to use Solaris for their web servers according to netcraft. Those aren't who you were thinking of, right?
Are Suse, Caldera or VA Linux obscure companies in the world of Open Source?
"With most Windows servers I see, and I would say this sticks for the whole gamut of Windows usuage"
That's an awfully big assumption.
"Also, one final note, compare all of that to how people use the different servers: Apache is very heavily used by ISPs, IIS is heavily used by do-it-yourself admins who dont know all that much. "
That's another awfully wrong assumption.
IIS is much more heavily used by corporations because it is much more efficient to develop dynamic content web sites than is Apache.
"It is very reasonable to state the very same hardware will serve twice the volume with Apache Unix than IIS-win. "
No, that's not at all reasonable to assume that. In fact, IIS5 outperforms Apache by quite a bit.
You may be thinking of Tux, which has outperformed IIS in benchmarks, but isn't in high use.
As far as the $1k server versus $1M server. The Netcraft survey also doesn't account for machines behind a load balancer, which is the typical configuration of $1k servers running Linux/Apache or Windows/IIS.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately no matter what actions we take, or what rhetoric we put forth, we shall always be condemned for helping people.
If we help the people in Afghanistan, we insult the Taliban.
If we help the Israelis we insult the Palestinians.
If we help the Albanians, we insult the Serbs.
The only answer to your concerns is for us to completely pull out of all conflicts and become isolationist. You are effectively saying that we should have let Saddam Hussein have his way with Kuwait, and probably invade Saudi Arabia as well.
I agree we could be more careful with who we choose as friends, but we will always make someone mad, no matter who we help. That's part of the reality that we must accept and learn to deal with.
Why do you think nobody has claimed responsibility for the attacks on 9/11?
The Palestinians have already denounced the attacks, even though many(such as yourself) are claiming they were done in their name.
The point is, they were unjustifiable. The US has made mistakes in the past, and has made decisions which were horrible yet justifiable, such as the use of atomics in Japan. But we've never done anything that justified the attacks on 9/11.
And that's why you won't see anybody speculating as to why this happened, because there is no reason behind it. It *WAS* the act of lunatics.
Yet there is no evidence that the Palestinians were behind this terrorism, in fact their leaders, such as Arafat, have denounced it as unjustifiable.
The only ones who have expressed satisfaction with the attack are those whose hearts are evil. Such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban.
I saw the footage on Foxnews, not CNN. While I agree that Fox used it irresponsibly, the theory that this was stock footage has already been debunked.
The footage came from Reuters news service.
CNN also showed footage the following day of Palestinians placing flowers at the door to the US embassy in Tel Aviv.
three words: Not Exact Parallel
It would be ridiculous to argue that our attack against Japan was not justifiable.
Do you not understand the difference between innocent and guilty?
To claim that you don't support killing innocent people, and then try to equate the killing of guilty people with the killing of innocents is fundamentally flawed logic.
Or don't you understand the distinction?
For what it's worth, I've already rethought my position in the past month. If you had asked me in August, I would have agreed with you. Today, I do not.
The reason? Quite simple, the unjustified attacks on 9/11 changed the situation.
I just do not understand why you cannot comprehend that, and why you continue to justify the killing of innocent civilians.
There is no possible way that one could ever make a parallel which was exact, because the US has never engaged in anything as evil or unjustified as what happened on 9/11.
You obviously didn't understand the point made.
I don't need to have it both ways, because your justification for terror is logically flawed.
We don't attack innocent civilians purposefully, we attack those responsible for directing the terrorists. i.e. al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
They on the other hand are too timid to attack someone able to defend themselves, so they go after our civilians.
I don't think you quite understand the situation today. Your philosophy of justifying terrorism as revenge is dead, it died on 9/11. It may have been an acceptable stance when we were only talking about a few people dead from car bombs and such. But again, 9/11 changed that when the anty was upped.
Again, your logic is flawed. I suggest you rethink your position before responding.
Nope, it was the modems.
Go do a search for the specs of old 300 and 1200 baud modems.
Apparently you believe these "terrorists" are not that but rather "freedom fighters" and were justified in their attack on 9/11.
Wow. That's simply incredible.
I must say, for a B-grade movie actor, he played a very convincing President on that television series.
Martin Sheen can only hope that the West Wing is picked up for as many seasons.
Tony Blair is truly an inspiration to Americans. If you didn't get a chance to hear him speak last Wednesday before the Labour party, the transcript is here:
G SP EECHES/TBCONF2001SPEECH.html
http://www.labour.org.uk/lp/new/labour/docs/LON
He clearly understands and embraces American values far more than even some Americans do. (*cough* Falwell *cough*)
Keep in mind that the Taliban has only been in control a few years, and it has only been in those few years where education has suffered.
Prior to this Afghanistan did have a good literacy rate.
Besides, the US is dropping transistor radios so that the people can tune into the new Radio Free Afghanistan.
Even in the heart of the 1980's when we most deeply hated Iran and we accidentally shot down Air Flight 655...
We did not go out into the streets and cheer. We all paused and mourned as the reality of what we had done sunk over us.
Even though our cloaks may be grey rather than white... it is quite clear they are not black.
So do not dare to compare us with those who perpetrated the acts of 9/11.
Actually 300bps was 30cps. You have 8-N-1 correct, but you forgot the start and stop bits, so it actually took 10 bits per character.
Modems stopped using start/stop bits sometime around 14.4 bps I think.
I have one of the older Aero2130 models upgraded to a PocketPC OS, so it's a bit harder for me.
But if I had one of the new iPaq's I would buy one of the portable keyboards, and with that it would be quite easy to read and respond to email and such on a plane trip. Certainly much less hassle than carrying a laptop to accomplish the same thing.
How odd...
:)
I remember when Unix used to be sexy.
I guess as you get older, start gaining weight, the body parts start sagging, your not as flexible and quick to move... you lose your sex appeal.
Yes, but then the mindcraft results were verified by other third parties.
They most certainly don't have a history of being pro-Microsoft. All their TCO stuff is directed at proving desktops are really expensive and we should all go back to big iron.
Gartner recommends whatever it's clients pay it to recommend.
"Windows superiority is because heistory has shown us that they are usually untrue. "
*cough* Mindcraft
What Mindcraft proved was that there were signifigant problems with Linux and it performed horribly compared to Windows.
Yeah, it was picked apart... but they used the pickings to solve real issues.
Do you have some examples of these other companies going under?
Both Excite and Exodus who recently announced problems seem to use Solaris for their web servers according to netcraft. Those aren't who you were thinking of, right?
Are Suse, Caldera or VA Linux obscure companies in the world of Open Source?
Or do you just not want to hear bad news?
"With most Windows servers I see, and I would say this sticks for the whole gamut of Windows usuage"
That's an awfully big assumption.
"Also, one final note, compare all of that to how people use the different servers: Apache is very heavily used by ISPs, IIS is heavily used by do-it-yourself admins who dont know all that much. "
That's another awfully wrong assumption.
IIS is much more heavily used by corporations because it is much more efficient to develop dynamic content web sites than is Apache.
"It is very reasonable to state the very same hardware will serve twice the volume with Apache Unix than IIS-win. "
No, that's not at all reasonable to assume that. In fact, IIS5 outperforms Apache by quite a bit.
You may be thinking of Tux, which has outperformed IIS in benchmarks, but isn't in high use.
As far as the $1k server versus $1M server. The Netcraft survey also doesn't account for machines behind a load balancer, which is the typical configuration of $1k servers running Linux/Apache or Windows/IIS.
Whoops!
Now I have to sit here for 20 seconds typing randomly so that my post can be accepted by the almighty slashdot.
The US has a system of codified and common law. Yes, it's not strictly common law, but an improved system based on it's concepts.