And, as usual, I predict that Linux users will remain stubborn and say "Oh those features are stupid, no one will use them. Linux can already do that with this ugly hack. RTFM" until about two years after Longhorn is released, at which point suddenly you'll see GNOME and KDE emulating all those things that Longhorn has been doing for years.
At which point the Linux fan boys will proclaim that these are examples of Linux innovation.
Perhaps this is really a pointless argument, sort of like trying to debate with Republicans.
But... but... but... Microsoft did this years ago (minus.net). Or am I really the only one who remembers the version of Outlook implemented entirely using DHTML/HTA (which produces native widgets). I can't remember the codename, but the project was scrapped. The benefits of running Outlook inside IE just were not compelling enough to overcome the performance and other problems.
It's called Outlook Web Access, and it's pretty damn slick.
I have Exchange 2003 installed on my home servers, so I can get access to my mail, notes, calendar, contacts, from anywhere on the internet. It works almost exactly as though I'm running Outlook 2003, only within an IE browser.
Microsoft followed a development path with DOS/Windows which followed Moore's law. That is, they released software which had hardware requirements meeting the machines of the day. Thus Win3.1 could run reasonably in 4-8 megs, Win95 in 8-16 megs, WinNT in 16-32 megs... etc.
But in the early days, Linux had hardware requirements which far exceeded the capabilities of the common desktop. This was part of the great debate, and as an experimental platform it made sense to go this route. But it wouldn't have helped it to succeed as a mainstream desktop.
It wasn't until really probably the era of the Pentium II/III when desktops started coming routinely with 64 Megs of RAM that things had caught up with Linux resource needs. So I don't agree that Linux had a chance on the desktop in 1994, no moreso than OS/2 had, probably even less the case as OS/2 had numerous large scale deployments in Fortune 500 companies. Even then, factors contributed to prevent it from taking off.
Linux did have a chance right around the 1999 time frame to make signifigant strides, this mainly due to a weak spot in the market left by the delayed delivery of Windows 2000 to upgrade the slagging NT4. But since the release of Win2k, there has been no compelling technical reason to deploy Linux in either the desktop or server realm. I think Miguel is correct in that this situation is going to become even starker with the release of Longhorn. There will be a substantial gap between the capabilities of Linux and Windows.
I do have to applaud Miguel for his technical understanding of the issues, and his work on Mono and other technologies. It would be great if some day it was as enjoyable to develop on Linux as it is on Windows.
Just curious if you truly believe that humans cannot cause environmental change...
I suggest you look at history. For instance, the pictures coming out of Iraq today. Do you realize that Iraq is one of the cradles of civilization? At one time that was an incredibly fertile part of the world. Now it's mostly desert.
Similarly, talk to the Chinese about the sandstorms they have been experiencing in Beijing as the desert there encroaches further east.
Well heck, the Dustbowl in the US was an example of bad agricultural practices impacting our environment.
Yes, the Earth has fluctuated in the past, as asteroids have hit it, as major volcanoes have erupted. All sorts of events outside the control of humans.
And you're right. The Earth itself will survive.
I guess the question which concerns me is if our civilization will.
Frankly I think mankind is smart, and we have scientific knowledge to address these situations if and when they arise. That's why I want research done on these issues, and I want ideas thrown out as to why things might be happening.
I don't understand why some people are so opposed to this, and would rather shove their hand in the sand and yell "Nyah nyah nyah, i can't hear you" than believe that mankind can cause environmental change.
If an asteroid was coming towards the Earth and we knew about it ahead of time and could do something, would you say "No, let nature take it's course."?
Humans are really just a small pinprick on the geological evolution of the planet. If the climate were to change making it impossible for us to live here, don't worry... the planet will evolve and continue.
Back in 1991 during the last "Republican Jobless Recovery"(tm) I ended up taking a job doing admin'ing of DOS and Unix boxes for the Soil Survey in Iowa.
I didn't get pidgeon-holed, I actually learned a lot of valuable skills which I didn't already have. The pay was crap, I think I made $8/hour to start, and after being there 4 years I was salaried at around $30k.
Actually it was kind of interesting, since we were doing Internet stuff back before the Internet was popular. Setting up websites, ftp sites, mailing lists and so forth back in 1992-1994 time frame.
Then when the economy started taking off in 1995, I started looking and in 1996 landed a better paying job... and yet better pay in 1997 and then yet better pay again in 1999. That 4 years of experience still comes in handy today.
Now looking back, I actually think I would have benefited more from my first thought, which was joining the Air Force. Too late looking back now, but to others looking for work that honestly would be my suggestion. Not sure I'd join the Army, but military training can come in handy in the business world.
Naw... Nobody called the election for Al Gore. They all said it was too close to call, until John Ellis made the declaration that Bush won sometime around midnight.
Then every other news agency fell over themselves making the same declaration, afraid of losing the scoop.
The thing with exit polling is, you need it in order to properly monitor an election. It's the only counter check that we have to understand if the ballot boxes have been tampered with.
Anyway, the real debacle in Florida was how Katherine Harris purged the voting rolls prior to the election to make sure people couldn't excercise their constitutional right to vote. Everything after that was just stage craft.
The guy with the long mike hears "God, I just bombed [indistinct] Cuba [indistinct]."
Sounds exactly like Drudge.
He frequently takes quotes out of context using ellipses to create whole new meanings. My favorite was several months back when he tooks quotes from Gen. Wesley Clark testimony to Congress from page 6, then page 26, then back to page 7... stringing it together into a paragraph that said something completely different than what the quotes in context clearly said.
I agree with your point, but the sad thing is we're already there.
Dan Rather on CBS announces the Florida election results way too early
It wasn't Dan Rather. It was John Ellis at Fox News...
For those who don't know... John Ellis is the cousin of GW Bush. If the phrase "conflict of interest" comes to mind, it unfortunately didn't to the Editors at Fox News.
At least with a newspaper, they'll print a correction. If I hadn't been here, your disinformation would have been recorded for posterity unchecked.
Remember when Compaq bought DEC? Fired all the really good people, let the really good technology (64-bit Alpha) wither and die (not due to lack of innovation, but complete lack of marketing and executive support), and became just another brand of PC-clone?
DEC and their technology was long dead by the time Compaq bought them. Their really good marketable technology, mostly dealing with the StorageWorks line of RAID storage was integrated into the Compaq lineup.
I thought you were going to give us a semi-insightful analogy, about how DEC lost their dominance in the marketplace in the 1980's because they refused to acknowledge the evolution of Unix, still holding onto their VAX mindset. Then by the time they did realize that VAX was dying, they were too late. Their entries into the PC clone market weren't so great, their entry into Unix wasn't so great... the market left them at the alter.
Your post is an example of how people don't learn from history... they confuse the facts to interpret their own reasoning.
No surprise, really...
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 1
When Microsoft introduced Windows NT 3.1 back in 1992 they did not have the concept of CALs. This meant that you could buy it for $500 or whatever and replace a Netware server that cost $10,000 for the licensing.
But that was because 3.1 was kind of a crappy first version product, and Microsoft sold it cheap to get attention.
When 3.5 came out, they introduced CALs, but they still wanted to encourage use, and they gave away NFR copies. That's where I got our first install. Even received an upgrade to 3.51 for free.
Then 4.0 came out, no more free copies, plenty of CALS... they'd hit mainstream.
This is the evolution of software companies. Redhat is doing the same thing.
But you can't really blame them, they didn't start turning a profit until they moved to this model. People who believe that they can get somthing for nothing are going to get burned in the long run when their dreams are crushed.
TANSTAAFL
Re:RedHat not for the SMB market
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 2
They changed the pricing model with SBS 2003.
There is a Standard edition which just has Windows Server and Exchange. It's about $500.
The Premium edition which includes SQL Server and ISA Server costs $1200.
As the other person responded, Microsoft only charges you once for the software and then self-serve support and updates are free. That's not the position Redhat has taken, where security patches and other updates are only available now to people who pay the year subscription. So you are forced to pay for the software again each year.
Many times a Senator will vote against an amendment, not based upon what the subject says, but based on some piece of wording in the amendment. For instance John Kerry voting against one Iraq spending bill because it didn't say how it was going to pay for the spending, but he voted for another bill which did say how it was going to pay.
The Bush administration claims this is evidence that he's flip-flopping on supporting troops in Iraq. What they don't want to admit is the fact is, he's being very consistent in his belief in a balanced budget.
There's been other articles which talk about that, how the GOP claims that Kerry voted 350 times to raise taxes strains credibility, etc.
Kerry tries to get to some of it at his DBunker website. http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/archiv es/001445. html
Here's another one: http://www.factcheck.org/
I'm not sure about the third party anymore. I used to think that was a good thing, but as I've gotten more into this, you'd be amazed at the dynamics of the dialogue within the party. It's actually quite divided on a number of issues, and that debate helps bring forth some of the better ideas.
Not sure about the Republicans. I used to be in the GOP, and they don't allow near as much dissent of opinion. You tow whatever line they decide and that's it.
re: Iraq intelligence It wasn't that he had no reguard for intelligence, just that all the intelligence pointed to the wrong conclusion. Hindsight is 20/20 after all.
No, it's clear at this point that he was cherry picking intelligence. To claim otherwise is to not understand what intelligence means.
It's rare that the CIA intelligence is hard, it's usually anecdotal, or it's supposition based on patterns. The CIA is also quite clear on this, and puts plenty of caveats in their documents.
The Bush administration quite clearly choose not to listen to the caveats. That wasn't bad intelligence, that was a CHOICE. Making such a choice is fine, that's sometimes what Presidents must do. But with choice comes Responsibility. If you make a bad choice, you must be willing to admit you were wrong. This administration doesn't want to do that, instead they try to change the subject.
re: Valerie Plame There is absolutely no proof or reason to believe that Bush had anything to do with this other than a desire to see him as an evil individual
This claim is puzzling, as nobody is denying that this leak came from the White House.
Re: medicare bill I need to do a little research though before I am willing to conceed that point.
Thank you for taking the time to research to find the truth.
I do tend to agreed that Bush has made A LOT of mistakes, but I don't believe that he has put our country at risk for partisain Political advantage.
Outing CIA operatives. Presenting faulty data to support passage of a massive spending bill. Increasing the Federal Debt by another $2 trillion. Responding to terrorist threat in a manner which promotes the terrorist cause instead of fighting to reduce it.
All of these things were done for partisan political gain and have placed our nation at terrible risk.
Then on the other hand there is Kerry who will promise anything as long as it is popular, but when it is not popular anymore will switch sides.
That's not the John Kerry I know. But I'm certainly willing to hear your proof for this claim.
I asked for proof. You give me tape recording, signed documents, something solid I will believe it.
It's too bad you didn't ask the same before believing the Iraq Weapons claims.
Too much competition doesn't even begin to enter into the PC OS market, because there never has been that amount of competition. MS won by default, which has nothing to do with them being right or wrong.
There was that much competition in the 1980's, before Microsoft became dominant.
You must be too young to remember this, but there was a day when you could go to a store like Computerland and be faced with a choice of 8 different computers. None of which interoperated with one another.
Over time people got tired of this, they got tired of seeing something and finding out it wouldn't work on their computer. So they started making purchasing decisions based upon compatibility. This led to the final decision to standardize on Microsoft. This has also been going on with hardware, the advent of CPU sockets and SIMMs, IDE ports, USB ports, and so forth is all about making the computing easy to understand and hook up and make work.
You're right in that this doesn't make MS right or wrong. Microsoft never made that decision, it was instead the Consumers.
But it does help to explain the dominance of Microsoft software.
Are you willing to listen to the proof, or are you going to claim it's all biased?
We can go back to the 2000 election campaign for starters. The points that Bush ran on, in no particular order or all-inclusive:
- That we could cut taxes, increase spending, while still maintaining a balanced budget. - That we could change Medicare without harming it. - That he would be a Uniter, not a Divider. He would change the tone in Washington away from partisan bickering. - That we should have a humble foreign policy, more isolationist than a global police force.
Then we can get into all the recent crap...
The numerous times, like this article, where he has said something should be a priority, and then either didn't follow up(no big deal), or did exactly the opposite(as he's done on education and environment).
The whole lead up to the Iraq war. A war of choice, I should point out, fabricated upon the belief that Hussein was a potential threat. With no regard for intelligent, reasoned debate on that choice, and a bullying attitude ramming down the throats of the American people this idea that Hussein had Nuclear and Chemical weapons at his disposal. Coupled with this same arrogant bullying attitude used towards our friends and allies.
Now we have new evidence.
In retaliation against Joe Wilson, Bush outed a strategic CIA operative... e.g. Wilson's wife Valiere Plame.
In order to pass the Medicare bill, Bush lied to Congress as to what it's cost would be. Ok, maybe lying is a bad word, but he told them something that he knew was wrong, and he told the Whitehouse actuarial staff to not answer questions from Congress because they also knew the numbers given were wrong.
And now this past week, Richard Clarke comes out and says, "Despite what this President may tell you, Terrorism wasn't his top priority in 2001, it wasn't even in his top 10 priorities. Bush is trying to claim that he did something where Clinton didn't, but in the Clinton administration it was their number 1 priority. Here's why I say this, here's what happened, here's my evidence."
Then to top of all of this, at the National Press Club dinner, Bush had the audacity to make fun of the fact that he lied to the American people about the WMDs in Iraq. He thinks it's a joke.
I understand your sentiment, I understand that we should respect the Office of President in this country, and this partisan political rhetoric is difficult to swallow. It certainly was when the Republicans were bashing Clinton over and over again.
There's one difference, and this I find truly sad. The charges made against Clinton were fabricated and were done for pure partisan political advantage.
But as a former Republican, I can say without a doubt that the charges against Bush are truly sad, for they are credible.
This President is the greatest buffoon to ever hold this office. Even Richard Nixon didn't stoop to putting our nation at risk for partisan political advantage.
Put aside your ideological hatred of President Bush and maybe you'll realize he's a good man who's taken action where other Presidents just sat by idlely
LOL!
Richard Clarke this past week put the nail on the coffin of that argument.
BTW, what's with you and President NotMyFault? I notice this tendancy to always want to blame the problems you create on someone else. Just seems kind of immature and childish.
Carter was a pretty bad President, mainly because he came in with a naive ideology, and couldn't work wtih the Democratic Congress to get anything done.
But he was at least Honest, which is more than one could say for Richard Nixon... or George W. Bush.
After only 3 years, it's becoming apparent that GW Bush is surpassing all past presidents as most incompetent buffoon in the White House.
Slashdot Mirror
A couple weeks ago I was trying to find some information at work and I went to...
http://www.w3.org
Only to get the BIG RED BANNER OF GOODNESS telling me I was obviously mistaken for wanting to go there.
Little did I realize that the W3C is a terrorist organization intend on spreading sex and disease amongst our children.
Whatever the reason, it's actually gotten worse at work, not better.
And, as usual, I predict that Linux users will remain stubborn and say "Oh those features are stupid, no one will use them. Linux can already do that with this ugly hack. RTFM" until about two years after Longhorn is released, at which point suddenly you'll see GNOME and KDE emulating all those things that Longhorn has been doing for years.
At which point the Linux fan boys will proclaim that these are examples of Linux innovation.
Perhaps this is really a pointless argument, sort of like trying to debate with Republicans.
But ... but ... but ... Microsoft did this years ago (minus .net). Or am I really the only one who remembers the version of Outlook implemented entirely using DHTML/HTA (which produces native widgets). I can't remember the codename, but the project was scrapped. The benefits of running Outlook inside IE just were not compelling enough to overcome the performance and other problems.
It's called Outlook Web Access, and it's pretty damn slick.
I have Exchange 2003 installed on my home servers, so I can get access to my mail, notes, calendar, contacts, from anywhere on the internet. It works almost exactly as though I'm running Outlook 2003, only within an IE browser.
Microsoft followed a development path with DOS/Windows which followed Moore's law. That is, they released software which had hardware requirements meeting the machines of the day. Thus Win3.1 could run reasonably in 4-8 megs, Win95 in 8-16 megs, WinNT in 16-32 megs... etc.
But in the early days, Linux had hardware requirements which far exceeded the capabilities of the common desktop. This was part of the great debate, and as an experimental platform it made sense to go this route. But it wouldn't have helped it to succeed as a mainstream desktop.
It wasn't until really probably the era of the Pentium II/III when desktops started coming routinely with 64 Megs of RAM that things had caught up with Linux resource needs. So I don't agree that Linux had a chance on the desktop in 1994, no moreso than OS/2 had, probably even less the case as OS/2 had numerous large scale deployments in Fortune 500 companies. Even then, factors contributed to prevent it from taking off.
Linux did have a chance right around the 1999 time frame to make signifigant strides, this mainly due to a weak spot in the market left by the delayed delivery of Windows 2000 to upgrade the slagging NT4. But since the release of Win2k, there has been no compelling technical reason to deploy Linux in either the desktop or server realm. I think Miguel is correct in that this situation is going to become even starker with the release of Longhorn. There will be a substantial gap between the capabilities of Linux and Windows.
I do have to applaud Miguel for his technical understanding of the issues, and his work on Mono and other technologies. It would be great if some day it was as enjoyable to develop on Linux as it is on Windows.
"I know most /.'s will find this hard to believe but M$ has always provided a huge amount of source code in an open source fashion."
/.'s are ignorant of the computing field. :-(
That's because most
Just curious if you truly believe that humans cannot cause environmental change...
I suggest you look at history. For instance, the pictures coming out of Iraq today. Do you realize that Iraq is one of the cradles of civilization? At one time that was an incredibly fertile part of the world. Now it's mostly desert.
Similarly, talk to the Chinese about the sandstorms they have been experiencing in Beijing as the desert there encroaches further east.
Well heck, the Dustbowl in the US was an example of bad agricultural practices impacting our environment.
Yes, the Earth has fluctuated in the past, as asteroids have hit it, as major volcanoes have erupted. All sorts of events outside the control of humans.
And you're right. The Earth itself will survive.
I guess the question which concerns me is if our civilization will.
Frankly I think mankind is smart, and we have scientific knowledge to address these situations if and when they arise. That's why I want research done on these issues, and I want ideas thrown out as to why things might be happening.
I don't understand why some people are so opposed to this, and would rather shove their hand in the sand and yell "Nyah nyah nyah, i can't hear you" than believe that mankind can cause environmental change.
If an asteroid was coming towards the Earth and we knew about it ahead of time and could do something, would you say "No, let nature take it's course."?
Just curious.
You can look at this from an Earthcentric view...
Humans are really just a small pinprick on the geological evolution of the planet. If the climate were to change making it impossible for us to live here, don't worry... the planet will evolve and continue.
Good for the Earth.
Bad for Humans.
All depends on your perspective.
I don't know...
Back in 1991 during the last "Republican Jobless Recovery"(tm) I ended up taking a job doing admin'ing of DOS and Unix boxes for the Soil Survey in Iowa.
I didn't get pidgeon-holed, I actually learned a lot of valuable skills which I didn't already have. The pay was crap, I think I made $8/hour to start, and after being there 4 years I was salaried at around $30k.
Actually it was kind of interesting, since we were doing Internet stuff back before the Internet was popular. Setting up websites, ftp sites, mailing lists and so forth back in 1992-1994 time frame.
Then when the economy started taking off in 1995, I started looking and in 1996 landed a better paying job... and yet better pay in 1997 and then yet better pay again in 1999. That 4 years of experience still comes in handy today.
Now looking back, I actually think I would have benefited more from my first thought, which was joining the Air Force. Too late looking back now, but to others looking for work that honestly would be my suggestion. Not sure I'd join the Army, but military training can come in handy in the business world.
Naw... Nobody called the election for Al Gore. They all said it was too close to call, until John Ellis made the declaration that Bush won sometime around midnight.
Then every other news agency fell over themselves making the same declaration, afraid of losing the scoop.
The thing with exit polling is, you need it in order to properly monitor an election. It's the only counter check that we have to understand if the ballot boxes have been tampered with.
Anyway, the real debacle in Florida was how Katherine Harris purged the voting rolls prior to the election to make sure people couldn't excercise their constitutional right to vote. Everything after that was just stage craft.
The guy with the long mike hears "God, I just bombed [indistinct] Cuba [indistinct]."
Sounds exactly like Drudge.
He frequently takes quotes out of context using ellipses to create whole new meanings. My favorite was several months back when he tooks quotes from Gen. Wesley Clark testimony to Congress from page 6, then page 26, then back to page 7... stringing it together into a paragraph that said something completely different than what the quotes in context clearly said.
I agree with your point, but the sad thing is we're already there.
Dan Rather on CBS announces the Florida election results way too early
It wasn't Dan Rather. It was John Ellis at Fox News...
For those who don't know... John Ellis is the cousin of GW Bush. If the phrase "conflict of interest" comes to mind, it unfortunately didn't to the Editors at Fox News.
At least with a newspaper, they'll print a correction. If I hadn't been here, your disinformation would have been recorded for posterity unchecked.
Except... about once a year Ellison get's some goofball idea in his head that he's going to sell.
One year it's thin client computing, then it's clusters, then it's Peoplesoft.
Let me know if people are actually deploying this one.
SS10, 128 Megs RAM, dual SM51 procs, 9 gig and a 4gig drive... CDROM, DAT... box to convert PS/2 mouse and keyboard and regular PC video... :-)
Oh yeah...
-- Steve
Linux free for 7 years
Remember when Compaq bought DEC? Fired all the really good people, let the really good technology (64-bit Alpha) wither and die (not due to lack of innovation, but complete lack of marketing and executive support), and became just another brand of PC-clone?
DEC and their technology was long dead by the time Compaq bought them. Their really good marketable technology, mostly dealing with the StorageWorks line of RAID storage was integrated into the Compaq lineup.
I thought you were going to give us a semi-insightful analogy, about how DEC lost their dominance in the marketplace in the 1980's because they refused to acknowledge the evolution of Unix, still holding onto their VAX mindset. Then by the time they did realize that VAX was dying, they were too late. Their entries into the PC clone market weren't so great, their entry into Unix wasn't so great... the market left them at the alter.
Your post is an example of how people don't learn from history... they confuse the facts to interpret their own reasoning.
When Microsoft introduced Windows NT 3.1 back in 1992 they did not have the concept of CALs. This meant that you could buy it for $500 or whatever and replace a Netware server that cost $10,000 for the licensing.
But that was because 3.1 was kind of a crappy first version product, and Microsoft sold it cheap to get attention.
When 3.5 came out, they introduced CALs, but they still wanted to encourage use, and they gave away NFR copies. That's where I got our first install. Even received an upgrade to 3.51 for free.
Then 4.0 came out, no more free copies, plenty of CALS... they'd hit mainstream.
This is the evolution of software companies. Redhat is doing the same thing.
But you can't really blame them, they didn't start turning a profit until they moved to this model. People who believe that they can get somthing for nothing are going to get burned in the long run when their dreams are crushed.
TANSTAAFL
They changed the pricing model with SBS 2003.
There is a Standard edition which just has Windows Server and Exchange. It's about $500.
The Premium edition which includes SQL Server and ISA Server costs $1200.
As the other person responded, Microsoft only charges you once for the software and then self-serve support and updates are free. That's not the position Redhat has taken, where security patches and other updates are only available now to people who pay the year subscription. So you are forced to pay for the software again each year.
Found a table... this comes from a Minnesota comparison, but...
http://www.mncn.org/bp/rank2003.htm
You want Table 2. As a percentage, Mass is 30th, per capita it's 4th.
As for these flip-flop claims...
v es/001445. html
Many times a Senator will vote against an amendment, not based upon what the subject says, but based on some piece of wording in the amendment. For instance John Kerry voting against one Iraq spending bill because it didn't say how it was going to pay for the spending, but he voted for another bill which did say how it was going to pay.
The Bush administration claims this is evidence that he's flip-flopping on supporting troops in Iraq. What they don't want to admit is the fact is, he's being very consistent in his belief in a balanced budget.
There's been other articles which talk about that, how the GOP claims that Kerry voted 350 times to raise taxes strains credibility, etc.
Kerry tries to get to some of it at his DBunker website.
http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/archi
Here's another one:
http://www.factcheck.org/
I'm not sure about the third party anymore. I used to think that was a good thing, but as I've gotten more into this, you'd be amazed at the dynamics of the dialogue within the party. It's actually quite divided on a number of issues, and that debate helps bring forth some of the better ideas.
Not sure about the Republicans. I used to be in the GOP, and they don't allow near as much dissent of opinion. You tow whatever line they decide and that's it.
re: Iraq intelligence
It wasn't that he had no reguard for intelligence, just that all the intelligence pointed to the wrong conclusion. Hindsight is 20/20 after all.
No, it's clear at this point that he was cherry picking intelligence. To claim otherwise is to not understand what intelligence means.
It's rare that the CIA intelligence is hard, it's usually anecdotal, or it's supposition based on patterns. The CIA is also quite clear on this, and puts plenty of caveats in their documents.
The Bush administration quite clearly choose not to listen to the caveats. That wasn't bad intelligence, that was a CHOICE. Making such a choice is fine, that's sometimes what Presidents must do. But with choice comes Responsibility. If you make a bad choice, you must be willing to admit you were wrong. This administration doesn't want to do that, instead they try to change the subject.
re: Valerie Plame
There is absolutely no proof or reason to believe that Bush had anything to do with this other than a desire to see him as an evil individual
This claim is puzzling, as nobody is denying that this leak came from the White House.
Re: medicare bill
I need to do a little research though before I am willing to conceed that point.
Thank you for taking the time to research to find the truth.
I do tend to agreed that Bush has made A LOT of mistakes, but I don't believe that he has put our country at risk for partisain Political advantage.
Outing CIA operatives.
Presenting faulty data to support passage of a massive spending bill.
Increasing the Federal Debt by another $2 trillion.
Responding to terrorist threat in a manner which promotes the terrorist cause instead of fighting to reduce it.
All of these things were done for partisan political gain and have placed our nation at terrible risk.
Then on the other hand there is Kerry who will promise anything as long as it is popular, but when it is not popular anymore will switch sides.
That's not the John Kerry I know. But I'm certainly willing to hear your proof for this claim.
I asked for proof. You give me tape recording, signed documents, something solid I will believe it.
It's too bad you didn't ask the same before believing the Iraq Weapons claims.
Too much competition doesn't even begin to enter into the PC OS market, because there never has been that amount of competition. MS won by default, which has nothing to do with them being right or wrong.
There was that much competition in the 1980's, before Microsoft became dominant.
You must be too young to remember this, but there was a day when you could go to a store like Computerland and be faced with a choice of 8 different computers. None of which interoperated with one another.
Over time people got tired of this, they got tired of seeing something and finding out it wouldn't work on their computer. So they started making purchasing decisions based upon compatibility. This led to the final decision to standardize on Microsoft. This has also been going on with hardware, the advent of CPU sockets and SIMMs, IDE ports, USB ports, and so forth is all about making the computing easy to understand and hook up and make work.
You're right in that this doesn't make MS right or wrong. Microsoft never made that decision, it was instead the Consumers.
But it does help to explain the dominance of Microsoft software.
You want to tell me Bush is a liar, Prove it.
Are you willing to listen to the proof, or are you going to claim it's all biased?
We can go back to the 2000 election campaign for starters. The points that Bush ran on, in no particular order or all-inclusive:
- That we could cut taxes, increase spending, while still maintaining a balanced budget.
- That we could change Medicare without harming it.
- That he would be a Uniter, not a Divider. He would change the tone in Washington away from partisan bickering.
- That we should have a humble foreign policy, more isolationist than a global police force.
Then we can get into all the recent crap...
The numerous times, like this article, where he has said something should be a priority, and then either didn't follow up(no big deal), or did exactly the opposite(as he's done on education and environment).
The whole lead up to the Iraq war. A war of choice, I should point out, fabricated upon the belief that Hussein was a potential threat. With no regard for intelligent, reasoned debate on that choice, and a bullying attitude ramming down the throats of the American people this idea that Hussein had Nuclear and Chemical weapons at his disposal. Coupled with this same arrogant bullying attitude used towards our friends and allies.
Now we have new evidence.
In retaliation against Joe Wilson, Bush outed a strategic CIA operative... e.g. Wilson's wife Valiere Plame.
In order to pass the Medicare bill, Bush lied to Congress as to what it's cost would be. Ok, maybe lying is a bad word, but he told them something that he knew was wrong, and he told the Whitehouse actuarial staff to not answer questions from Congress because they also knew the numbers given were wrong.
And now this past week, Richard Clarke comes out and says, "Despite what this President may tell you, Terrorism wasn't his top priority in 2001, it wasn't even in his top 10 priorities. Bush is trying to claim that he did something where Clinton didn't, but in the Clinton administration it was their number 1 priority. Here's why I say this, here's what happened, here's my evidence."
Then to top of all of this, at the National Press Club dinner, Bush had the audacity to make fun of the fact that he lied to the American people about the WMDs in Iraq. He thinks it's a joke.
I understand your sentiment, I understand that we should respect the Office of President in this country, and this partisan political rhetoric is difficult to swallow. It certainly was when the Republicans were bashing Clinton over and over again.
There's one difference, and this I find truly sad. The charges made against Clinton were fabricated and were done for pure partisan political advantage.
But as a former Republican, I can say without a doubt that the charges against Bush are truly sad, for they are credible.
This President is the greatest buffoon to ever hold this office. Even Richard Nixon didn't stoop to putting our nation at risk for partisan political advantage.
Put aside your ideological hatred of President Bush and maybe you'll realize he's a good man who's taken action where other Presidents just sat by idlely
LOL!
Richard Clarke this past week put the nail on the coffin of that argument.
BTW, what's with you and President NotMyFault? I notice this tendancy to always want to blame the problems you create on someone else. Just seems kind of immature and childish.
Umm, Michael has a chip on his shoulder and regularly posts flamebait. Usually it's reserved to attacking Microsoft.
That being said. Bush does suck, and this quote is just another example of how desperate he is to get reelected.
Carter was a pretty bad President, mainly because he came in with a naive ideology, and couldn't work wtih the Democratic Congress to get anything done.
But he was at least Honest, which is more than one could say for Richard Nixon... or George W. Bush.
After only 3 years, it's becoming apparent that GW Bush is surpassing all past presidents as most incompetent buffoon in the White House.
Uhh, because counterpunch is a communist website.
They pretty much hate all US Presidents equally because they are all behind promoting and defending the evil Capitalism.
Seriously... read the site..