Apparently EDS attempted to do a test upgrade on a small network of 7 machines, but accidentally deployed it to all 80,000 machines instead.
It should be pointed out that this mistake is very, very easy to do. Why? by default when you create new GPO policies (such as one that would start the installation of XP) they apply to the entire domain by default. You have to create the secuirty container first, such as "Test XP Upgrade", and as soon as you start creating your GPO entity, point it to the security object. (Sorry if my terminology is a bit rough, it's been 2 years since I was bitten by this bug, which is of course a feature and not a bug at all.)
It's a boneheaded design by Microsoft to have new GPO entries apply by default to the entire domain. That idiocy was compounded by the ignorance of EDS. (And of course I could be completely wrong, since I'm Assuming that they were using Active Directory to roll out this upgrade, which seems at least plausible considering that there's 80,000 machines.)
Finally, let me say, my God it's nice to be working in Tech Support and not have to admin Windows networks any more. "I'm so awfully happy to be a Beta."
Why oh why isn't there a Dance Dance Revolution for the freakin' gamecube. I'm a console holdout, I like the Gamecube the most (they seem to have the games that interest me the most) but I would really like to be able to play some Dance Dance Revolution.
I think you're right. The judge in this case relied on an earlier case in which the feds argued and won the exact opposite of their position here: A keylogger is NOT a wiretap. Now the feds (and all the rest of us) have to live with the consequences of that decision.
For the feds, this looks like a case of winning the battle (in the previous court case) but losing the war. The court has ruled that the feds can't have it both ways. Now, maybe the way the law stands right now is wack, but at least it won't change at the whim of the prosecution.
Federal prosecutors charged John Muhummad based on the fact that his murders caused traffic jams which in turn affected interstate commerce.
Wow, do you have a reference for that? That's a pretty inclusive definition of interstate commerce. Not that I'm doubting you, I'd just like to read the actual court docs.
Yes, steam allows you to install the game onto more than one computer.
Yes, you can only play on one computer at a time.
Think of it as a Microsoft Passport for online gaming.
When you log into Steam you create a unique account, and you enter the CD keys for HL2 or Coutnerstrike or whatever. Then, when you go to the cybercafe or what have you, and log onto Steam there, you have access to all the tiles you've registered CD keys for.
In some ways it's a great idea, in other ways it's not so great. For instance, you can buy HL2 right from Valve over the Steam thingie. The downside of this is the time it takes to download 5 CDs worth of content. As many people are complaining, it really messes up the pacing of the game if you get to play for a few minutes, then have to take a break while the next batch of content loads.
But the bright side is: No Vivendi. No need for bricks and mortar. Pure electronic publishing. Of course for the bright side to really shine you'd think they would charge maybe $10 or $20 less since surely they save that much by cutting out the middleman...
Anyway, I own the original Half-Life and I tried playing it on Steam. (This was after completely installing the full 5 CDs of Half Life Platinum Pack or whatever.) Now, the annoying thing was... loading content. Even on the dang train ride in the beginning of the game, it had to pause and download the next level. I said, this is dumb, I have the CDs, why is it downloading stuff? So I ditched Steam and played the Old-Fashioned Way. Though it's a mess, I'm not sure if I was playing the most up-to-date HL because it seems like some of the patches are steam-only... but I'm not gonna download a whole game via Steam when I've just installed it all on my hard drive and Steam is too dumb to use the files I already have. (Checksum anyone?)
From what I can tell the most benefit comes from Steam if you are a big Counterstrike player and you go to lots of cybercafes and are such a junky that you play at work, grandma's house, etc. You buy the game once and when you log into Steam it doesn't matter if you're at the computer lab or at home or wherever.
For the average home user, who plays games on one PC at home, steam doesn't really offer a lot, and the fact that it automatically starts and hangs out in the System Notification Area when you boot is kind of insulting as well.
Just my two cents. Two cents I still have, since I am playing the warez version of Half-Life 2.:)
Oops, I just realized my Steam account is the same name as my Slashdot account. Oh well, not like I was planning on using Steam anyways.;)
Well I hope you're right. I would love to be able to get more card for my buck. But a decent video card from three years ago (say a Ti4200) is still around the $100 dollar mark. I would have thought that would be like $30 by now.
The "entry" dx9 cards like the nvidia 5200 and the radeon 9000 have far, far less horsepower than the previous generation dx8 cards like the Ti4200 or the Radeon 8500. It's kind of disappointing, and it feels like we're being taken for a ride.
Did top of the line video cards used to cost $600 when they came out? That seems like a new phenomenon to me. They've found a way to make a computer cost $5000 again, this wasn't the case a few years ago.
Thank you. I had heard rumors that a 9600xt was good enough to play HL2, I'm becoming more and more convinced that that's the case.
Aside from DOOM III, which is a special effects tour de force, sort of a advanced pixel shader proof-of-concept if you will, I can't see any reason to spend more than $150 on a video card right now.
Drive the cost of production up and frustrate the hell out of the bastards.
Driving up the cost of production will result in less production. Yet demand here in the States will remain constant. So people will pay more for it. Making it once again profitable to grow cocaine.
I realize as the designer this isn't really your thing, but...
180,000 players x 15 bucks a month = 2.7 million dollars per month. That's over 30 million dollars a year. Add in another few million for (probably more than) 180,000 initial purchases of the game. Now, surely, I want you and your team to be rich, and no doubt there's a lot of bandwidth to pay for. But still, it seems a tad expensive.
Couldn't these games cost, say, five dollars a month? The (exorbitant?) recurring monthly fee has been the single biggest thing keeping me away from MMPs.
I should point out that I'm the sort of person who will donate to keep my favorite servers online, but I realize that model might not work on the scale we're talking about.
Convince me you're not gouging me and maybe I'll give City of Heroes a go.
The goal of this program is to show the value to users of having a genuine copy of Windows. Create "mindshare" if you will, that genuine Windows has greater value than your borrowed/downloaded/pirated copy. This will hopefully, in turn, encourage users to demand genuine Windows when they buy a PC
I'm having a hard time getting my mind around this.
Isn't the "Windows Tax" still in place?
I can't think of the last time I saw a newish computer that didn't have some a Windows XP Certificate of Authenticity sticker right on the case. (Which, by the way, is great if you need a Product Key, just go down to Best Buy and jot down the ones off the bottom of the laptops.)
I think I see what this is about, though. Microsoft can't really 100% reliably determine if you're running a legit copy or a pirated copy. They can't punish the pirates since they'll punish their legit customers. (I seem to recall some controversy about denying access to Windows Update to pirates, which they eventually had to back off on.)
So they are going the other route, try to offer a bonus to their legit customers. Which, of course, the pirates can take advantage of as well. (And wouldn't pirates just steal Holiday Fun Story, assuming they wanted it in the first place, which they dont?)
For what it's worth, I just ran the Validator, and it couldn't determine if my copy was valid. Which is pretty funny. The Validator is only for XP, it's trivial to determine that my OS is Windows 2000, so the Validator should really be sending me to the ad for how much better my life would be if I upgrade to XP.
This is not one of those McDonalds Hot coffee lawsuits
You mean your XBox didn't leak into your lap, causing third degree burns to your genitals? Yeah, having to get plastic surgery and running up thousands of dollars in medical bills doesn't hold a candle to the pain and suffering you must have endured, shelling out $130 to fix your toy.
I hereby name this the official Slashdot McDonalds Hot Coffee Lawsuit Thread Of October 29, 2004. Dogpile!!!
A president has very little control on the economy in general, much less the price of oil.
Oh, see, I disagree with that completely. In most cases, you're right, business is business and it maybe deviates a few percentage points based on anything the President does.
But there is one notable exception: When the President starts a war, that can greatly affect the economy.
Personally, I'm expecting double-digit interest rates, high inflation, and high unemployment to kick in over the next five years. You know, the same cycle we saw after Vietnam.
If the Arab states put on another oil embargo, we could have problems. If OPEC decides to start selling oil to China in Yuan, we would have a huge problem. Our foreign policy has some influence on whether or not those things happen.
Indeed, I think the biggest problem facing our country right now is that Bush doesn't have the power (abroad, not at home) that he thinks he does.
Here's a little history lesson called "why natural gas is at an all-time high":
When did we put a ban on using natural gas to generate electricity?
Answer: Late 70s, by executive order of Jimmy Carter, in response to the Arab Oil Embargo.
When did we rescind the ban on using natural gas to generate electricity?
Answer: Early 1990s, by executive order of George H. W. Bush.
We used to develop a surplus of gas over the summer and tap into that in the winter. Now, we actually use more in the summer for air conditioning and stuff like that.
Which is better for the nation? To maintain a surplus, which will keep costs low, but increase demand for oil and coal, and in turn create more air pollution?
Or to tap into that surplus, producing clean power, lowering demand for oil and coal, but ultimately raising the cost of natural gas?
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, can we ever go back. Probably not. In the past decade we've become dependent on natural gas as a source of electricity. This was not the case 15 years ago.
While we're at it, which is the #3 oil producing country in the world? Answer: USA.
Democracy is quietly dying because a buch of lazy people will happily pass the... bill without actually reading it In case you don't recall, the USA PATRIOT act was rammed through Congress by the Republican leadership. There was no time to read it. I don't recall exactly, but there were something like three days between the time the bill was introduced and the time it was voted on. The thing is 1000 pages, you'd have to spend at least the first day just reading it.
If you recall the floor debate, many many senators said that they were uncofortable with the language and weren't even sure on what the implications were, but they were voting for it anyway, putting their faith in the system and the President.
It's reprehensible that a bill which fundamentally alters so much of our government, and in fact creates a whole new branch of government, should get so little debate. But the Powers That Be wanted it that way.
Regardless, it's ludicrous to think that the Axis of Weasels had anything other than their pocketbooks in mind when they opposed the Iraq war.
Oh, spare me. As if the Coalition of the Willing had anything other than their pocketbooks in mind when supporting the war? What "vital interests" did you think PNAC has in mind when they talk about "a willingness to use force to protect vital American interests in the Gulf?"
See, the world is pretty simple. But for different reasons than the partisan hacks are foaming at the mouth on the television.
In fact, the truth is so simple that simple people must never be allowed to realize it.
Well, to whatever extent the rest of the world was with us after 9/11, I'm sure you agree they are much less with us today. Now partially their support for us was based on sympathy, and that can be expected to fade over time. However, you can't ignore our unilateralism and jingoism as factors that raise eyebrows around the world.
And I must point out, you have conflated Al Qaeda and the attacks of 9/11 with Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq. Indeed the world, including France, was with us when it was us vs. Al-Qaeda. Remeber France's declaration "We are all Americans" in Le Monde on Sep. 12, 2001? In case you don't here's the link. Remember hundreds of thousands taking to the streets in protest all over the world against our invasion of Afghanistan? Neither do I, because everyone saw the plain-as-day justification for that.
Now, I know the point you're trying to make. Saddam was handing out bribes in the oil for food program. And I can see how that would be a reason to oppose the war. Your argument is that such bribery is the sole reason France, Germany, et. al. would oppose the war. Nevermind that Iraq had bupkis to do with Al Qaeda, and Saddam and Osama bin Laden are politically farther apart than Dick Cheney and John Edwards.
Sure, Colin Powell and Bush went to the UN and tried to make the argument that Iraq was the logical next step in the war on terror. Everybody in the world collectively said "huh?" except for about half the people at home, our "special" allies the British, and a few others who saw an opportunity to curry favor with Uncle Sam, such as Poland and Spain. (Is it possible Poland and Spain knew about the Oil for Food abuses, and figured this was as close to a slice of that pie as they were likely to get?)
And as we know now, and some opined then, there were plenty of doubts about the "slam dunk" intelligence, which never made it to the President's ears, yes mysteriously still resonated among reasonable people everywhere.
In conclusion, you cannot imagine how ironic I find your statement "You cannot imagine how badly I wish the world were as simple as you people make it."
On a side note: I honestly can't believe people are still dumb enough to advance these arguments about how we need diplomacy. Seriously. Ask the Spanish. They capitulated after the 3/11 attacks, and yet last week they arrested a terrorist cell that was planning on blowing up their supreme court. You're not dealing with rational people.
Mother of all flip-flops! How is this possible? On the one hand, they capitulated, and on the other hand, they busted up a terror cell. If that can happen, I can almost believe that as President, Kerry would actually go after terrorists too!
Kerry has never said we should attempt to negotiate or reach a diplomatic accord with Al-Qaeda. What he has said is that we should negotiate and use diplomacy with the rest of the civilized world to coordinate the most effective response to Al-Qaeda.
You might call it the the difference between going it alone and rounding up a posse. I don't know about you, but given any fight, I'd rather have backup.
And for the record, Spain did not "capitulate" after the 3/11 attacks. They still held their democratic elections. And the ruling nationalist party lost. One of the reasons was their crappy handling of the Madrid bombing, which they (with no evidence) first tried to blame on ETA, and then tried to suppress information that it was indeed foreign terrorists.
Of course the Nationalists were very unpopular for getting Spain involved in Iraq in the first place, something like 90% of Spain was opposed to going to war. So they may well have been on their way out regardless of what happened on 3/11.
So here's the deal: bin Laden is not someone you can negotiate with. Granted. But the House of Saud, Musharraf, Mubaraq, and even Khatami, those are people you can, to a greater or lesser degree, negotiate with.
And even if you can't use diplomacy in the Middle East, it will surely work in Europe, Asia, parts of South America, you know the whole goddam world except for a few crazy dogmatic motherfuckers. And that's why diplomacy is important. It's how people (who aren't ruled by dogma) iron out their differences and come up with a mutually agreeable plan.
At least Kerry has a record. The only reason that Bush can make an issue of Kerry's record is because Bush has exactly zero legislative experience.
And as the AC said, Bush's record isn't exactly stellar. He's certainly not the Uniter her proclaimed. The "new tone" in Washington is a chilly one. For a man who wanted to be the Education President, he's done a great job of being the War President.
I think your analysis of DNC operations is pretty accurate. I disagree with your politics, but your analysis is a lot like the one I saw from Morris Fiorina on C-SPAN yesterday.
Lieberman scared me far more than Gore ever did. Terrible choice for VP. Kerry would have been much better. Frankly I think the DNC doesn't really know what the hell they're doing.
What is the appeal of a DOOM movie? Just to witness the bloodshed on the big screen?
I mean, I guess I love zombie movies and stuff, but it seems like a DOOM movie would be way too channeled towards the hardcore gamer audience and leave the other 98% of the population wondering "What's a BFG, and why does he wish he had one right now?" Another question they might have is 'Why doesn't that marine just pick up some duct tape and attach his flashlight to his shotgun?" (And let's not get into the possibility of having the DOOM movie incorporate the duct tape mod. That's just silly.)
Remember that Dungeons and Dragons movie from a few years ago? Horrible.
I think the best that video game movies are gonna get is what they do in Red vs. Blue. Because when you think about it, what exactly is to be gained by grabbing the red flag and bringing it to your base? To my knowledge no real-world conflict has ever ended because of a cap. Also, your country's flag doesn't magically teleport back to base when you walk over it. Come to think of it you're not really supposed to be walking on the flag in the first place. Shees what was Threewave thinking?
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently EDS attempted to do a test upgrade on a small network of 7 machines, but accidentally deployed it to all 80,000 machines instead.
It should be pointed out that this mistake is very, very easy to do. Why? by default when you create new GPO policies (such as one that would start the installation of XP) they apply to the entire domain by default. You have to create the secuirty container first, such as "Test XP Upgrade", and as soon as you start creating your GPO entity, point it to the security object. (Sorry if my terminology is a bit rough, it's been 2 years since I was bitten by this bug, which is of course a feature and not a bug at all.)
It's a boneheaded design by Microsoft to have new GPO entries apply by default to the entire domain. That idiocy was compounded by the ignorance of EDS. (And of course I could be completely wrong, since I'm Assuming that they were using Active Directory to roll out this upgrade, which seems at least plausible considering that there's 80,000 machines.)
Finally, let me say, my God it's nice to be working in Tech Support and not have to admin Windows networks any more. "I'm so awfully happy to be a Beta."
Why oh why isn't there a Dance Dance Revolution for the freakin' gamecube. I'm a console holdout, I like the Gamecube the most (they seem to have the games that interest me the most) but I would really like to be able to play some Dance Dance Revolution.
Is there any hope?
I think you're right. The judge in this case relied on an earlier case in which the feds argued and won the exact opposite of their position here: A keylogger is NOT a wiretap. Now the feds (and all the rest of us) have to live with the consequences of that decision.
For the feds, this looks like a case of winning the battle (in the previous court case) but losing the war. The court has ruled that the feds can't have it both ways. Now, maybe the way the law stands right now is wack, but at least it won't change at the whim of the prosecution.
Federal prosecutors charged John Muhummad based on the fact that his murders caused traffic jams which in turn affected interstate commerce.
Wow, do you have a reference for that? That's a pretty inclusive definition of interstate commerce. Not that I'm doubting you, I'd just like to read the actual court docs.
But in the British English, the company is a plural entity:
Microsft have annouced blah blah blah.
I puzzled over this for ages back in the day, a British computer gamer mag had an ad with the copy:
PSION HAVE PROBLEMS
It took me for freaking ever to get it into my head what that was supposed to mean.
Sure, one company is one entity, but it's made up of more than one individual, so in the British variant it is treated as a plural.
Here we might say "The Feds have arrested so and so" but to use your company analogy, The Feds are one entity... see it's kind of a gray area.
Yes, you have to install Steam to run HL2.
:)
;)
Yes, steam allows you to install the game onto more than one computer.
Yes, you can only play on one computer at a time.
Think of it as a Microsoft Passport for online gaming.
When you log into Steam you create a unique account, and you enter the CD keys for HL2 or Coutnerstrike or whatever. Then, when you go to the cybercafe or what have you, and log onto Steam there, you have access to all the tiles you've registered CD keys for.
In some ways it's a great idea, in other ways it's not so great. For instance, you can buy HL2 right from Valve over the Steam thingie. The downside of this is the time it takes to download 5 CDs worth of content. As many people are complaining, it really messes up the pacing of the game if you get to play for a few minutes, then have to take a break while the next batch of content loads.
But the bright side is: No Vivendi. No need for bricks and mortar. Pure electronic publishing. Of course for the bright side to really shine you'd think they would charge maybe $10 or $20 less since surely they save that much by cutting out the middleman...
Anyway, I own the original Half-Life and I tried playing it on Steam. (This was after completely installing the full 5 CDs of Half Life Platinum Pack or whatever.) Now, the annoying thing was... loading content. Even on the dang train ride in the beginning of the game, it had to pause and download the next level. I said, this is dumb, I have the CDs, why is it downloading stuff? So I ditched Steam and played the Old-Fashioned Way. Though it's a mess, I'm not sure if I was playing the most up-to-date HL because it seems like some of the patches are steam-only... but I'm not gonna download a whole game via Steam when I've just installed it all on my hard drive and Steam is too dumb to use the files I already have. (Checksum anyone?)
From what I can tell the most benefit comes from Steam if you are a big Counterstrike player and you go to lots of cybercafes and are such a junky that you play at work, grandma's house, etc. You buy the game once and when you log into Steam it doesn't matter if you're at the computer lab or at home or wherever.
For the average home user, who plays games on one PC at home, steam doesn't really offer a lot, and the fact that it automatically starts and hangs out in the System Notification Area when you boot is kind of insulting as well.
Just my two cents. Two cents I still have, since I am playing the warez version of Half-Life 2.
Oops, I just realized my Steam account is the same name as my Slashdot account. Oh well, not like I was planning on using Steam anyways.
Well I hope you're right. I would love to be able to get more card for my buck. But a decent video card from three years ago (say a Ti4200) is still around the $100 dollar mark. I would have thought that would be like $30 by now.
The "entry" dx9 cards like the nvidia 5200 and the radeon 9000 have far, far less horsepower than the previous generation dx8 cards like the Ti4200 or the Radeon 8500. It's kind of disappointing, and it feels like we're being taken for a ride.
Did top of the line video cards used to cost $600 when they came out? That seems like a new phenomenon to me. They've found a way to make a computer cost $5000 again, this wasn't the case a few years ago.
Thank you. I had heard rumors that a 9600xt was good enough to play HL2, I'm becoming more and more convinced that that's the case.
Aside from DOOM III, which is a special effects tour de force, sort of a advanced pixel shader proof-of-concept if you will, I can't see any reason to spend more than $150 on a video card right now.
Could we have a review for the common man? The one who can't afford to spend his rent check on a $600 video card?
Becuase their explanation is bullshit.
A GIS for "lynndie" has exactly one hit right now, and it's not a girl with an Iraqi prisoner on a leash.
Have you tried the links? Their reasonable explanation isn't very reasonable, nor is it an explanation.
Would this have happened under the "old" google, which was not a publically traded company?
Drive the cost of production up and frustrate the hell out of the bastards.
Driving up the cost of production will result in less production. Yet demand here in the States will remain constant. So people will pay more for it. Making it once again profitable to grow cocaine.
I realize as the designer this isn't really your thing, but...
180,000 players x 15 bucks a month = 2.7 million dollars per month. That's over 30 million dollars a year. Add in another few million for (probably more than) 180,000 initial purchases of the game. Now, surely, I want you and your team to be rich, and no doubt there's a lot of bandwidth to pay for. But still, it seems a tad expensive.
Couldn't these games cost, say, five dollars a month? The (exorbitant?) recurring monthly fee has been the single biggest thing keeping me away from MMPs.
I should point out that I'm the sort of person who will donate to keep my favorite servers online, but I realize that model might not work on the scale we're talking about.
Convince me you're not gouging me and maybe I'll give City of Heroes a go.
The goal of this program is to show the value to users of having a genuine copy of Windows. Create "mindshare" if you will, that genuine Windows has greater value than your borrowed/downloaded/pirated copy. This will hopefully, in turn, encourage users to demand genuine Windows when they buy a PC
I'm having a hard time getting my mind around this.
Isn't the "Windows Tax" still in place?
I can't think of the last time I saw a newish computer that didn't have some a Windows XP Certificate of Authenticity sticker right on the case. (Which, by the way, is great if you need a Product Key, just go down to Best Buy and jot down the ones off the bottom of the laptops.)
I think I see what this is about, though. Microsoft can't really 100% reliably determine if you're running a legit copy or a pirated copy. They can't punish the pirates since they'll punish their legit customers. (I seem to recall some controversy about denying access to Windows Update to pirates, which they eventually had to back off on.)
So they are going the other route, try to offer a bonus to their legit customers. Which, of course, the pirates can take advantage of as well. (And wouldn't pirates just steal Holiday Fun Story, assuming they wanted it in the first place, which they dont?)
For what it's worth, I just ran the Validator, and it couldn't determine if my copy was valid. Which is pretty funny. The Validator is only for XP, it's trivial to determine that my OS is Windows 2000, so the Validator should really be sending me to the ad for how much better my life would be if I upgrade to XP.
This is not one of those McDonalds Hot coffee lawsuits
You mean your XBox didn't leak into your lap, causing third degree burns to your genitals? Yeah, having to get plastic surgery and running up thousands of dollars in medical bills doesn't hold a candle to the pain and suffering you must have endured, shelling out $130 to fix your toy.
I hereby name this the official Slashdot McDonalds Hot Coffee Lawsuit Thread Of October 29, 2004. Dogpile!!!
A president has very little control on the economy in general, much less the price of oil.
Oh, see, I disagree with that completely. In most cases, you're right, business is business and it maybe deviates a few percentage points based on anything the President does.
But there is one notable exception: When the President starts a war, that can greatly affect the economy.
Personally, I'm expecting double-digit interest rates, high inflation, and high unemployment to kick in over the next five years. You know, the same cycle we saw after Vietnam.
If the Arab states put on another oil embargo, we could have problems. If OPEC decides to start selling oil to China in Yuan, we would have a huge problem. Our foreign policy has some influence on whether or not those things happen.
Indeed, I think the biggest problem facing our country right now is that Bush doesn't have the power (abroad, not at home) that he thinks he does.
Here's a little history lesson called "why natural gas is at an all-time high":
When did we put a ban on using natural gas to generate electricity?
Answer: Late 70s, by executive order of Jimmy Carter, in response to the Arab Oil Embargo.
When did we rescind the ban on using natural gas to generate electricity?
Answer: Early 1990s, by executive order of George H. W. Bush.
We used to develop a surplus of gas over the summer and tap into that in the winter. Now, we actually use more in the summer for air conditioning and stuff like that.
Which is better for the nation? To maintain a surplus, which will keep costs low, but increase demand for oil and coal, and in turn create more air pollution?
Or to tap into that surplus, producing clean power, lowering demand for oil and coal, but ultimately raising the cost of natural gas?
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, can we ever go back. Probably not. In the past decade we've become dependent on natural gas as a source of electricity. This was not the case 15 years ago.
While we're at it, which is the #3 oil producing country in the world? Answer: USA.
Democracy is quietly dying because a buch of lazy people will happily pass the ... bill without actually reading it
In case you don't recall, the USA PATRIOT act was rammed through Congress by the Republican leadership. There was no time to read it. I don't recall exactly, but there were something like three days between the time the bill was introduced and the time it was voted on. The thing is 1000 pages, you'd have to spend at least the first day just reading it.
If you recall the floor debate, many many senators said that they were uncofortable with the language and weren't even sure on what the implications were, but they were voting for it anyway, putting their faith in the system and the President.
It's reprehensible that a bill which fundamentally alters so much of our government, and in fact creates a whole new branch of government, should get so little debate. But the Powers That Be wanted it that way.
Blame the leadership.
and (c) wouldn't be covered by a patent.
Or are the gloves off, so to speak, when it comes to patent protection in videoland?
Regardless, it's ludicrous to think that the Axis of Weasels had anything other than their pocketbooks in mind when they opposed the Iraq war.
Oh, spare me. As if the Coalition of the Willing had anything other than their pocketbooks in mind when supporting the war? What "vital interests" did you think PNAC has in mind when they talk about "a willingness to use force to protect vital American interests in the Gulf?"
See, the world is pretty simple. But for different reasons than the partisan hacks are foaming at the mouth on the television.
In fact, the truth is so simple that simple people must never be allowed to realize it.
Nice use of the asshole tag there. Now, if I could just perfect the sarcasm tag, I'd make millions.
Well, to whatever extent the rest of the world was with us after 9/11, I'm sure you agree they are much less with us today. Now partially their support for us was based on sympathy, and that can be expected to fade over time. However, you can't ignore our unilateralism and jingoism as factors that raise eyebrows around the world.
And I must point out, you have conflated Al Qaeda and the attacks of 9/11 with Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq. Indeed the world, including France, was with us when it was us vs. Al-Qaeda. Remeber France's declaration "We are all Americans" in Le Monde on Sep. 12, 2001? In case you don't here's the link. Remember hundreds of thousands taking to the streets in protest all over the world against our invasion of Afghanistan? Neither do I, because everyone saw the plain-as-day justification for that.
Now, I know the point you're trying to make. Saddam was handing out bribes in the oil for food program. And I can see how that would be a reason to oppose the war. Your argument is that such bribery is the sole reason France, Germany, et. al. would oppose the war. Nevermind that Iraq had bupkis to do with Al Qaeda, and Saddam and Osama bin Laden are politically farther apart than Dick Cheney and John Edwards.
Sure, Colin Powell and Bush went to the UN and tried to make the argument that Iraq was the logical next step in the war on terror. Everybody in the world collectively said "huh?" except for about half the people at home, our "special" allies the British, and a few others who saw an opportunity to curry favor with Uncle Sam, such as Poland and Spain. (Is it possible Poland and Spain knew about the Oil for Food abuses, and figured this was as close to a slice of that pie as they were likely to get?)
And as we know now, and some opined then, there were plenty of doubts about the "slam dunk" intelligence, which never made it to the President's ears, yes mysteriously still resonated among reasonable people everywhere.
In conclusion, you cannot imagine how ironic I find your statement "You cannot imagine how badly I wish the world were as simple as you people make it."
On a side note: I honestly can't believe people are still dumb enough to advance these arguments about how we need diplomacy. Seriously. Ask the Spanish. They capitulated after the 3/11 attacks, and yet last week they arrested a terrorist cell that was planning on blowing up their supreme court. You're not dealing with rational people.
Mother of all flip-flops! How is this possible? On the one hand, they capitulated, and on the other hand, they busted up a terror cell. If that can happen, I can almost believe that as President, Kerry would actually go after terrorists too!
Kerry has never said we should attempt to negotiate or reach a diplomatic accord with Al-Qaeda. What he has said is that we should negotiate and use diplomacy with the rest of the civilized world to coordinate the most effective response to Al-Qaeda.
You might call it the the difference between going it alone and rounding up a posse. I don't know about you, but given any fight, I'd rather have backup.
And for the record, Spain did not "capitulate" after the 3/11 attacks. They still held their democratic elections. And the ruling nationalist party lost. One of the reasons was their crappy handling of the Madrid bombing, which they (with no evidence) first tried to blame on ETA, and then tried to suppress information that it was indeed foreign terrorists.
Of course the Nationalists were very unpopular for getting Spain involved in Iraq in the first place, something like 90% of Spain was opposed to going to war. So they may well have been on their way out regardless of what happened on 3/11.
So here's the deal: bin Laden is not someone you can negotiate with. Granted. But the House of Saud, Musharraf, Mubaraq, and even Khatami, those are people you can, to a greater or lesser degree, negotiate with.
And even if you can't use diplomacy in the Middle East, it will surely work in Europe, Asia, parts of South America, you know the whole goddam world except for a few crazy dogmatic motherfuckers. And that's why diplomacy is important. It's how people (who aren't ruled by dogma) iron out their differences and come up with a mutually agreeable plan.
At least Kerry has a record. The only reason that Bush can make an issue of Kerry's record is because Bush has exactly zero legislative experience.
And as the AC said, Bush's record isn't exactly stellar. He's certainly not the Uniter her proclaimed. The "new tone" in Washington is a chilly one. For a man who wanted to be the Education President, he's done a great job of being the War President.
I think your analysis of DNC operations is pretty accurate. I disagree with your politics, but your analysis is a lot like the one I saw from Morris Fiorina on C-SPAN yesterday.
Lieberman scared me far more than Gore ever did. Terrible choice for VP. Kerry would have been much better. Frankly I think the DNC doesn't really know what the hell they're doing.
What is the appeal of a DOOM movie? Just to witness the bloodshed on the big screen?
I mean, I guess I love zombie movies and stuff, but it seems like a DOOM movie would be way too channeled towards the hardcore gamer audience and leave the other 98% of the population wondering "What's a BFG, and why does he wish he had one right now?" Another question they might have is 'Why doesn't that marine just pick up some duct tape and attach his flashlight to his shotgun?" (And let's not get into the possibility of having the DOOM movie incorporate the duct tape mod. That's just silly.)
Remember that Dungeons and Dragons movie from a few years ago? Horrible.
I think the best that video game movies are gonna get is what they do in Red vs. Blue. Because when you think about it, what exactly is to be gained by grabbing the red flag and bringing it to your base? To my knowledge no real-world conflict has ever ended because of a cap. Also, your country's flag doesn't magically teleport back to base when you walk over it. Come to think of it you're not really supposed to be walking on the flag in the first place. Shees what was Threewave thinking?