Your arguement about them raising the requirements to boost hardware sales is all speculation. Yes, I know if hardware sales go up they make more money because of Windows shipping with most of the systems but it would be stupid to base your development of an OS on something such as that. That was only recommendations anyway, all windows recommendations have been way high in my experience. Will Windows Vista fail? Maybe, I honestly don't know, if enough "Vista Only" versions of games or important business software is released than it should do alright. There just is no Microsoft conspiracy to make more sales by making Vista's requirements sky high, it's a retarded, baseless accusation.
Having no other counterargument, you make a lame Mac insult, ignoring that MacOS has supported multiple mice buttons since the 90s, that the Apple store sells one-button mice, and most importantly, that the four-button Mighty Mouse SHIPS WITH MACS.
I actually made a very valid Mac insult. Why did it take until fucking 2005 for them to finally ship new systems standard with a mouse that had more than one button? And WHY are they still selling systems with that crippling one button mouse? I went to the Apple website to check and it still comes with some systems. Almost every game in existance for the last 5 years makes use of multi-button mice, and I think that would be a big reason right there to stop the one button madness. I was not ignoring that MacOS has supported multi button mice for a while, I was only referring to them still SHIPPING systems with a one button mouse. That is fucking retarded.
Having a one-button mouse isn't a sign of dumbness, it's a sign of a superior user interface.
Also bullshit. Ok, maybe you don't like the right click menus in Windows, but I would take that over your "one" click in MacOS anyday. That is because yeah, maybe it is only one click of the mouse but you have to press four buttons on the keyboard in a specific order and hold those down then click. That is what I remember from using Macs, I do not remember one thing being made easier through the UI that negated the validity of having more than one mouse button.
As far as waiting a year and a half for OS X Tiger's features I don't care because I probably don't need them. I use my Windows computer at my home to play games and surf the web and do more important stuff on my linux boxen. At work I use a mixture of Windows and Linux so I have everything I need already there too. I am just happy I can easily hand build my own computers or upgrade other computers I have (I'm talking mobo and processors) instead of having to buy everything through one company and also pay out the ass for it. Sure, Apple's prices have come down in the last few years but they still have too much control and are too expensive for my tastes.
Ok retard you still haven't answered how people will magically decide to purchase new hardware when what they currently have works fine. You listed: 4.) Microsoft creates new version of Windows and tells people they need to buy new hardware for it. 5.) Microsoft magically makes money from hardware sales again for Vista. Funny how that works.
but fail to explain WHY people will listen to step 4. The only reason people will upgrade their whole computer is if what they have is not powerful enough to run the features they want to use with Vista/Vista only software or they purchase some hardware that is not compatible with their current hardware. If they are happy with what they have since they only surf the web/check email THEY WILL NOT PURCHASE A NEW COMPUTER.
The new computer purchase will occur no matter what if the hardware they currently have is not sufficient for what they want to do, so like I mentioned before it does not matter what version of Windows is included with the new computer since Microsoft makes money whether is is Windows XP or Windows Vista. Let me make my main point clear again since you are obviously slow Microsoft makes money whether is is Windows XP or Windows Vista that comes with a new computer and most people will be upgrading for reasons other than to only meet the hardware requirements to be able to run Vista.
People are NOT going to upgrade their whole computer just to be able to meet the requirements for Windows Vista. They WILL upgrade if there is Vista only software or hardware they want to use and they can do neither without a whole hardware upgrade. You are saying that people will see the system requirements and based only on that will buy a new computer. Why would they upgrade if they don't want to use any new features Vista has and have no other reasons to upgrade their current hardware? YOU ARE WRONG.
As far as me being a Microsoft "fanboi" I am not in the least. I will most likely not even upgrade to Vista since I am happy with my copy of XP Pro I got for free legally. I got it for free and it allows me to play games such as WoW easily so I am happy with it. I do agree that releasing 7 versions is insane, people are confused by 3 versions of Windows XP. Now will I use Vista? Yes, I am a software developer and will have to do testing on it. Having to worry about testing on 7 versions is very scary. I am NOT happy with Microsoft over that decision and unless I see something spectacular I am not going to purchase copies for my home computers. I am so far from being a fan of Microsoft it's not even funny so it is quite humorous you think I am one.
Ok, I have said enough. Now go back to your Mac that ships with a one-button mouse (since you too dumb to have more than one button, you would forget which button to press when) and try to remember that correlation does not imply causation.
You're completely missing the point. People don't go out and buy Windows upgrades. They get new versions of Windows when they buy new computers, but today's hardware is good enough for them, so they're less likely to buy new computers.
No, YOU are missing the point. I never said people go out and buy Windows upgrades. I know most people "upgrade" their version of Windows when they buy new computers since the OS that comes with it is usually newer than what they currently have. What I am saying is it does not matter what version of Windows comes with the new computers since Microsoft still makes money on each purchase of the new computer. You are saying they made the hardware requirements higher to boost their revenue and then you go and say but today's hardware is good enough for them, so they're less likely to buy new computers.. So what I am saying is if they are less likely to buy new computers anyway what difference does it make if Vista requires beefier hardware? If ALL they do is surf the web and send e-mails what difference does it make if Vista needs a supercomputer to run on since people won't upgrade if they don't have a reason to? You said it yourself most people don't need to upgrade and won't, so why will they magically change their mind if Vista comes installed on new computers instead of Windows XP?
People will upgrade if there is software that only works on Vista or they want to use features on Vista and their current hardware can not run it. They are not being coaxed into upgrading in any way.
That's because the betas don't have the final Aero Glass vectorized interface. With that disabled, the system goes back to a more XP-like interface, which makes one wonder what the point of getting Vista is. Ok, this is true, but like you said it can be disabled and it is not the ONLY new feature. Maybe some people will want to use it, is it wrong to include it as an option? From what I have heard from beta testers Vista also has better error handling/recovery. Other features I find interesting are: * Full support for the NX feature of processors. * Built-in DVD recording capabilities, including Mt. Rainier support. * A file-based disk imaging technology called XImage, that will install Vista in about 15 minutes rather than the 40 minutes taken by the current file-by-file copying method. * Native Raw image support. * Native, embedded RSS support, with developer API. * File encryption support superior to that available in Windows XP, which will make it easier and more automatic to prevent unauthorized viewing of files on stolen laptops or hard drives. * File virtualization, a feature that automatically creates private copies of files that an application can use when it does not have permission to access the original files. This facilitates stronger file security and helps applications not written with security in mind to run under stronger restrictions. * Transactional File Transfers, prevents a half updated set of files from being created during updates for example, which can cause stability problems. * SafeDocs Restore Service, a Windows Backup tool allowing automatic backup of files, recovery of specific files and folders, recovery of specific file types, or recovery all files. * Support of UNIX-style symbolic links.
The new networking stack and shell features are also interesting, and I am sure there are new features that will be desirable that I have not heard of yet. Aero is only one new feature, not the ONLY new feature as you make it sound like. If you don't want to use Aero fully featured you can scale it down to work on your hardware or disable it completely (which I would probably do).
So, please explain how Windows Vista was engineered to boost hardware sales when Microsoft will make money on hardware sales that include some version of Windows anyway. What version is included is not a factor, they make money whether it is Windows XP or if it were Windows Vista. The hardware requirements are irrelavent since most people don't even know the difference between what operating system is on the new computer they buy, they upgrade when their current hardware does not run software they wish to use or new hardware is not compatible with what they have.
Windows sales are made up almost entirely of new computer preinstallations. Microsoft itself has confirmed this.
Well no kidding that is true since it is the most popular, widespread OS. They would still make the same amount of money selling Windows XP, since that is the OS installed on most new computer systems.
You're arguing my point for me. People already have what they need, yet Vista requires incredibly steep requirements just to display some windows on the screen.
So how is pushing the limits a bad thing? I don't see people making a big deal when a new video game comes out that has high system requirements. They are trying something new and maybe it will suck, but maybe it won't. From other posts from people who have tried out the beta it does not sound like if you don't have a top of the line computer Vista is unresponsive or unusable.
I don't expect Microsoft fanbois to do anything but defend Microsoft business practices to the bitter end.
I am far from a Microsoft fanboy. I actually would not be running Windows XP Pro except when I was going to college I got it for free since I was majoring in CS. However, I don't see a problem with pushing the limits when releasing a new product. Of course when Vista is brand new the requirements may seem somewhat high but in a year or two it will be no big deal. If you were in charge of releasing a new product that had a lifespan of more than 2-3 years would you want to include and try some new techniques? I know thats what I like to do when I am developing software. So, I still do not believe that Vista was engineered to have high requirements to boost sales through more hardware sales. Believe that if you will, but you are wrong.
This is an obvious attempt to initiate hardware sales to please manufacturers and make them money.
Yeah, I am sure they would engineer their whole operating system to force people to upgrade their computer instead of possibly being able to sell copies to more people. Also, if people are happy with their current hardware and the applications they are running why would they purchase a new computer? If all they need the computer for is to go online and edit pictures how will they be forced to upgrade when they already have everything they need right now? I highly doubt support/patches for Windows XP will stop next year, and that is the only way people would be forced to upgrade thus "initiating" hardware sales. Next time get some hard facts before making baseless claims.
How exactly is it pointless project if you do have a need to shred a lot of papers that will fit in its feeder? I personally do not have a need for it but it would work perfectly for that purpose. Explain the alternative to re-using, instead of discarding a broken printer and modifying it into something useful that renders this project worthless.
people who DO have access to nukes/material who might now see it as their duty to support, aid, and abet a retaliatory act.
NO country would fire nuclear weapons at the US if the US had nuked a city in Iraq. It would mean instant death and would be suicide. Sure, like you said, if the US had nuked Iraq I am sure the number of people hating the US would jump into the millions. BUT NO COUNTRY would directly attack the US. That is my point, country, not people, a government would be STUPID to launch a nuclear attack against the US. Even if they were successful their country would be pummelled into the ground. It would not be worth it.
Hey asshat, maybe for you it is a pointless project but for people who have A LOT of documents to shred (most offices) that do fit flat, exactly into a paper tray this is a cheap and not too difficult project to accomplish. If someone has a broken laser printer that can be used in this project then what makes it so pointless to do that? Way to make yourself look like a moron.
Can you really say the world is a better place since the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?
Yes, I can say the world is a better place because of the US invading those two countries. The two most relevant reasons I can think of off the top of my head are both had leaders that actively supported terrorism and harbored terrorist organisations. Saddam also provided around $50,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That is LIFE changing money over there.
A better question would be why was Hussain taken care of when he was?
This is interesting to me. Please give some examples.
Suggesting that US policy dictates the liklihood of somebody smuggling a nuke into the US is like suggesting that welfare policy dictates the liklihood of some idiot opening fire in a mall with a machine gun. The world is full of idiots and it is just becoming harder to limit there actions.
This is exactly my thinking too. There are already thousands, maybe more, people who would love to do major damage to the US. I do not see any action the US could take to make a significant impact on changing that.
The person I replied to was making it sound like another COUNTRY would send nukes at the US if we had nuked Iraq. I know the risk of a nuke getting snuck into the US and used is somewhat high, but that is WAY different than having a country fire nukes directly at us. The threat of a nuke getting snuck in would not change based on if Iraq was nuked by the US. So once again, if the US had nuked Iraq what nuclear powers would shoot nukes at the US? NONE.
The US tries its best to not have civilian casualties but yes it WILL happen when war happens that close to civilians. It is not even NEAR the same thing to have a civilian killed as the result of being near where a bomb drops compared to going and abducting a person and cutting their head off. Have you seen the videos where you can hear the poor souls still attempting to breathe after their neck has been sliced in half? We are NOT using the same tactics as them.
Also, where is your proof that people are being tortured? Do you realize that at Guantanamo Bay around 12+ dollars is allocated to feed each prisoner per day (they make sure the food does not violate any religious beliefs) and around 8 dollars is used to feed each soldier per day. Another thing is that there is one dentist available and if a soldier is signed up to be looked at by the dentist and a prisoner has a toothache at the same time the soldier must wait until every prisoner with a problem has been seen first. Oh, and the story about the Koran being flushed down the toilet during an interrogation, there is NOT even a toilet in that room. In fact they recently put a new couch and coffee table in it. I could go on and on because I have heard from people who have been there what it really is like. Please get a clue before you post next time.
Bullshit. Part of the agreement to the ceasefire from Desert Storm was to allow inspections for weapons at any time. Iraq did not allow that, only letting inspections occur at their leisure. Yes, WMD's were not found but the invasion was warranted and Hussein is an asshat who needed to be taken out of power. Can you really say the world is a worse place with him out of power?
The pot is just split up between all the people who tied. If they left all the money in the pot then on the next round someone who was not even still in the hand could win it.
I have never seen this occur. Everywhere I have played they shuffle once they get to a marked card. I did not know they had the power to shuffle at will, interesting.
How do you get on his bad side?! He's one of the most easygoing people I've met.
Where is this Rannie you speak of at? Definately not NIU. If you call an instructer who runs a class like a drill sargeant easy going ok then. I learned a lot from the man and I stayed on his good side but out of about 30 students who started in the assembler class I took with him only about 10 made it to the final. If you showed up one minute late to class then he would not accept assignments that were due. Show up a minute late when he was giving a quiz and he would give you a zero. I can understand if a student was more than a few minutes late, but to make it that strict is insane considering there was only about 15 minutes between classes. I had a class at the engineering building and had to make it to the CS building in that 15 minutes. Could I wait for a bus? Hell no, I had to basically run to make it for fear of being a few minutes late. I am sorry but there are definately times when he should have given people breaks. Like when it was horrible, icy weather and a guy in my class fell on his bicycle. He was cut up, if he did that on purpose he would have showed up more than 45 seconds late. Dead serious, he was 45 seconds late and got a zero on the quiz. How about an assignment where I didn't make printing the output a separate function b/c it was like 5 lines of code and I only used it once (and the assignment wasn't practicing using functions, I had some other functions so I knew how to write them). Oh, got a zero on that one even though it worked fine, the printing just was not its own function. Take some points off but to receive a zero is bullshit. I know people who changed majors because of that man and that is just wrong. One girl in the class went to drop off an assignment and Rannie was not in the office so she slid it under the door because she had to make it to another class. She got a zero and he said he didn't see it or something. I was waiting for him to return when she slid it under the door. Easygoing he is NOT. I made sure to not take any more classes he instructed after that one experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that monitor is awesome. I was broke in college, how did you afford an $8,000 display? That would have been awesome.
Your arguement about them raising the requirements to boost hardware sales is all speculation. Yes, I know if hardware sales go up they make more money because of Windows shipping with most of the systems but it would be stupid to base your development of an OS on something such as that. That was only recommendations anyway, all windows recommendations have been way high in my experience. Will Windows Vista fail? Maybe, I honestly don't know, if enough "Vista Only" versions of games or important business software is released than it should do alright. There just is no Microsoft conspiracy to make more sales by making Vista's requirements sky high, it's a retarded, baseless accusation.
Having no other counterargument, you make a lame Mac insult, ignoring that MacOS has supported multiple mice buttons since the 90s, that the Apple store sells one-button mice, and most importantly, that the four-button Mighty Mouse SHIPS WITH MACS.
I actually made a very valid Mac insult. Why did it take until fucking 2005 for them to finally ship new systems standard with a mouse that had more than one button? And WHY are they still selling systems with that crippling one button mouse? I went to the Apple website to check and it still comes with some systems. Almost every game in existance for the last 5 years makes use of multi-button mice, and I think that would be a big reason right there to stop the one button madness. I was not ignoring that MacOS has supported multi button mice for a while, I was only referring to them still SHIPPING systems with a one button mouse. That is fucking retarded.
Having a one-button mouse isn't a sign of dumbness, it's a sign of a superior user interface.
Also bullshit. Ok, maybe you don't like the right click menus in Windows, but I would take that over your "one" click in MacOS anyday. That is because yeah, maybe it is only one click of the mouse but you have to press four buttons on the keyboard in a specific order and hold those down then click. That is what I remember from using Macs, I do not remember one thing being made easier through the UI that negated the validity of having more than one mouse button.
As far as waiting a year and a half for OS X Tiger's features I don't care because I probably don't need them. I use my Windows computer at my home to play games and surf the web and do more important stuff on my linux boxen. At work I use a mixture of Windows and Linux so I have everything I need already there too. I am just happy I can easily hand build my own computers or upgrade other computers I have (I'm talking mobo and processors) instead of having to buy everything through one company and also pay out the ass for it. Sure, Apple's prices have come down in the last few years but they still have too much control and are too expensive for my tastes.
Ok retard you still haven't answered how people will magically decide to purchase new hardware when what they currently have works fine. You listed:
4.) Microsoft creates new version of Windows and tells people they need to buy new hardware for it.
5.) Microsoft magically makes money from hardware sales again for Vista. Funny how that works.
but fail to explain WHY people will listen to step 4. The only reason people will upgrade their whole computer is if what they have is not powerful enough to run the features they want to use with Vista/Vista only software or they purchase some hardware that is not compatible with their current hardware. If they are happy with what they have since they only surf the web/check email THEY WILL NOT PURCHASE A NEW COMPUTER.
The new computer purchase will occur no matter what if the hardware they currently have is not sufficient for what they want to do, so like I mentioned before it does not matter what version of Windows is included with the new computer since Microsoft makes money whether is is Windows XP or Windows Vista. Let me make my main point clear again since you are obviously slow Microsoft makes money whether is is Windows XP or Windows Vista that comes with a new computer and most people will be upgrading for reasons other than to only meet the hardware requirements to be able to run Vista.
People are NOT going to upgrade their whole computer just to be able to meet the requirements for Windows Vista. They WILL upgrade if there is Vista only software or hardware they want to use and they can do neither without a whole hardware upgrade. You are saying that people will see the system requirements and based only on that will buy a new computer. Why would they upgrade if they don't want to use any new features Vista has and have no other reasons to upgrade their current hardware? YOU ARE WRONG.
As far as me being a Microsoft "fanboi" I am not in the least. I will most likely not even upgrade to Vista since I am happy with my copy of XP Pro I got for free legally. I got it for free and it allows me to play games such as WoW easily so I am happy with it. I do agree that releasing 7 versions is insane, people are confused by 3 versions of Windows XP. Now will I use Vista? Yes, I am a software developer and will have to do testing on it. Having to worry about testing on 7 versions is very scary. I am NOT happy with Microsoft over that decision and unless I see something spectacular I am not going to purchase copies for my home computers. I am so far from being a fan of Microsoft it's not even funny so it is quite humorous you think I am one.
Ok, I have said enough. Now go back to your Mac that ships with a one-button mouse (since you too dumb to have more than one button, you would forget which button to press when) and try to remember that correlation does not imply causation.
You're completely missing the point. People don't go out and buy Windows upgrades. They get new versions of Windows when they buy new computers, but today's hardware is good enough for them, so they're less likely to buy new computers.
No, YOU are missing the point. I never said people go out and buy Windows upgrades. I know most people "upgrade" their version of Windows when they buy new computers since the OS that comes with it is usually newer than what they currently have. What I am saying is it does not matter what version of Windows comes with the new computers since Microsoft still makes money on each purchase of the new computer. You are saying they made the hardware requirements higher to boost their revenue and then you go and say but today's hardware is good enough for them, so they're less likely to buy new computers.. So what I am saying is if they are less likely to buy new computers anyway what difference does it make if Vista requires beefier hardware? If ALL they do is surf the web and send e-mails what difference does it make if Vista needs a supercomputer to run on since people won't upgrade if they don't have a reason to? You said it yourself most people don't need to upgrade and won't, so why will they magically change their mind if Vista comes installed on new computers instead of Windows XP?
People will upgrade if there is software that only works on Vista or they want to use features on Vista and their current hardware can not run it. They are not being coaxed into upgrading in any way.
That's because the betas don't have the final Aero Glass vectorized interface. With that disabled, the system goes back to a more XP-like interface, which makes one wonder what the point of getting Vista is.
Ok, this is true, but like you said it can be disabled and it is not the ONLY new feature. Maybe some people will want to use it, is it wrong to include it as an option? From what I have heard from beta testers Vista also has better error handling/recovery. Other features I find interesting are:
* Full support for the NX feature of processors.
* Built-in DVD recording capabilities, including Mt. Rainier support.
* A file-based disk imaging technology called XImage, that will install Vista in about 15 minutes rather than the 40 minutes taken by the current file-by-file copying method.
* Native Raw image support.
* Native, embedded RSS support, with developer API.
* File encryption support superior to that available in Windows XP, which will make it easier and more automatic to prevent unauthorized viewing of files on stolen laptops or hard drives.
* File virtualization, a feature that automatically creates private copies of files that an application can use when it does not have permission to access the original files. This facilitates stronger file security and helps applications not written with security in mind to run under stronger restrictions.
* Transactional File Transfers, prevents a half updated set of files from being created during updates for example, which can cause stability problems.
* SafeDocs Restore Service, a Windows Backup tool allowing automatic backup of files, recovery of specific files and folders, recovery of specific file types, or recovery all files.
* Support of UNIX-style symbolic links.
The new networking stack and shell features are also interesting, and I am sure there are new features that will be desirable that I have not heard of yet. Aero is only one new feature, not the ONLY new feature as you make it sound like. If you don't want to use Aero fully featured you can scale it down to work on your hardware or disable it completely (which I would probably do).
So, please explain how Windows Vista was engineered to boost hardware sales when Microsoft will make money on hardware sales that include some version of Windows anyway. What version is included is not a factor, they make money whether it is Windows XP or if it were Windows Vista. The hardware requirements are irrelavent since most people don't even know the difference between what operating system is on the new computer they buy, they upgrade when their current hardware does not run software they wish to use or new hardware is not compatible with what they have.
Windows sales are made up almost entirely of new computer preinstallations. Microsoft itself has confirmed this.
Well no kidding that is true since it is the most popular, widespread OS. They would still make the same amount of money selling Windows XP, since that is the OS installed on most new computer systems.
You're arguing my point for me. People already have what they need, yet Vista requires incredibly steep requirements just to display some windows on the screen.
So how is pushing the limits a bad thing? I don't see people making a big deal when a new video game comes out that has high system requirements. They are trying something new and maybe it will suck, but maybe it won't. From other posts from people who have tried out the beta it does not sound like if you don't have a top of the line computer Vista is unresponsive or unusable.
I don't expect Microsoft fanbois to do anything but defend Microsoft business practices to the bitter end.
I am far from a Microsoft fanboy. I actually would not be running Windows XP Pro except when I was going to college I got it for free since I was majoring in CS. However, I don't see a problem with pushing the limits when releasing a new product. Of course when Vista is brand new the requirements may seem somewhat high but in a year or two it will be no big deal. If you were in charge of releasing a new product that had a lifespan of more than 2-3 years would you want to include and try some new techniques? I know thats what I like to do when I am developing software. So, I still do not believe that Vista was engineered to have high requirements to boost sales through more hardware sales. Believe that if you will, but you are wrong.
This is an obvious attempt to initiate hardware sales to please manufacturers and make them money.
Yeah, I am sure they would engineer their whole operating system to force people to upgrade their computer instead of possibly being able to sell copies to more people. Also, if people are happy with their current hardware and the applications they are running why would they purchase a new computer? If all they need the computer for is to go online and edit pictures how will they be forced to upgrade when they already have everything they need right now? I highly doubt support/patches for Windows XP will stop next year, and that is the only way people would be forced to upgrade thus "initiating" hardware sales. Next time get some hard facts before making baseless claims.
Why do you need a dedicated computer? What's wrong with using 127.0.0.1?
I assume b/c it needs to be responded to in some way.
sounds like the train schedule around where I live...
How exactly is it pointless project if you do have a need to shred a lot of papers that will fit in its feeder? I personally do not have a need for it but it would work perfectly for that purpose. Explain the alternative to re-using, instead of discarding a broken printer and modifying it into something useful that renders this project worthless.
people who DO have access to nukes/material who might now see it as their duty to support, aid, and abet a retaliatory act.
NO country would fire nuclear weapons at the US if the US had nuked a city in Iraq. It would mean instant death and would be suicide. Sure, like you said, if the US had nuked Iraq I am sure the number of people hating the US would jump into the millions. BUT NO COUNTRY would directly attack the US. That is my point, country, not people, a government would be STUPID to launch a nuclear attack against the US. Even if they were successful their country would be pummelled into the ground. It would not be worth it.
Haha, I had the same thought too. I think the fire hazards would outweigh the benefits though!
It's a pointless project, pure and simple.
Hey asshat, maybe for you it is a pointless project but for people who have A LOT of documents to shred (most offices) that do fit flat, exactly into a paper tray this is a cheap and not too difficult project to accomplish. If someone has a broken laser printer that can be used in this project then what makes it so pointless to do that? Way to make yourself look like a moron.
Can you really say the world is a better place since the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?
Yes, I can say the world is a better place because of the US invading those two countries. The two most relevant reasons I can think of off the top of my head are both had leaders that actively supported terrorism and harbored terrorist organisations. Saddam also provided around $50,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That is LIFE changing money over there.
A better question would be why was Hussain taken care of when he was?
This is interesting to me. Please give some examples.
Suggesting that US policy dictates the liklihood of somebody smuggling a nuke into the US is like suggesting that welfare policy dictates the liklihood of some idiot opening fire in a mall with a machine gun. The world is full of idiots and it is just becoming harder to limit there actions.
This is exactly my thinking too. There are already thousands, maybe more, people who would love to do major damage to the US. I do not see any action the US could take to make a significant impact on changing that.
The person I replied to was making it sound like another COUNTRY would send nukes at the US if we had nuked Iraq. I know the risk of a nuke getting snuck into the US and used is somewhat high, but that is WAY different than having a country fire nukes directly at us. The threat of a nuke getting snuck in would not change based on if Iraq was nuked by the US. So once again, if the US had nuked Iraq what nuclear powers would shoot nukes at the US? NONE.
The US tries its best to not have civilian casualties but yes it WILL happen when war happens that close to civilians. It is not even NEAR the same thing to have a civilian killed as the result of being near where a bomb drops compared to going and abducting a person and cutting their head off. Have you seen the videos where you can hear the poor souls still attempting to breathe after their neck has been sliced in half? We are NOT using the same tactics as them.
Also, where is your proof that people are being tortured? Do you realize that at Guantanamo Bay around 12+ dollars is allocated to feed each prisoner per day (they make sure the food does not violate any religious beliefs) and around 8 dollars is used to feed each soldier per day. Another thing is that there is one dentist available and if a soldier is signed up to be looked at by the dentist and a prisoner has a toothache at the same time the soldier must wait until every prisoner with a problem has been seen first. Oh, and the story about the Koran being flushed down the toilet during an interrogation, there is NOT even a toilet in that room. In fact they recently put a new couch and coffee table in it. I could go on and on because I have heard from people who have been there what it really is like. Please get a clue before you post next time.
The latest Iraq war is unlawful.
Bullshit. Part of the agreement to the ceasefire from Desert Storm was to allow inspections for weapons at any time. Iraq did not allow that, only letting inspections occur at their leisure. Yes, WMD's were not found but the invasion was warranted and Hussein is an asshat who needed to be taken out of power. Can you really say the world is a worse place with him out of power?
yeah ok everyone is going to walk around with this girdle and cable. idiot
OK who would bomb the US if the US had done that? Umm nobody.
No that would be ONE player with a ROYAL flush and three players with a straight to the ace.
The pot is just split up between all the people who tied. If they left all the money in the pot then on the next round someone who was not even still in the hand could win it.
I have never seen this occur. Everywhere I have played they shuffle once they get to a marked card. I did not know they had the power to shuffle at will, interesting.
Why kick you out when they can use the same tactics against you and still make money.
umm the dealer can not count cards because there are set rules of when they must hit and stand. Have you ever played blackjack?
How do you get on his bad side?! He's one of the most easygoing people I've met.
Where is this Rannie you speak of at? Definately not NIU. If you call an instructer who runs a class like a drill sargeant easy going ok then. I learned a lot from the man and I stayed on his good side but out of about 30 students who started in the assembler class I took with him only about 10 made it to the final. If you showed up one minute late to class then he would not accept assignments that were due. Show up a minute late when he was giving a quiz and he would give you a zero. I can understand if a student was more than a few minutes late, but to make it that strict is insane considering there was only about 15 minutes between classes. I had a class at the engineering building and had to make it to the CS building in that 15 minutes. Could I wait for a bus? Hell no, I had to basically run to make it for fear of being a few minutes late. I am sorry but there are definately times when he should have given people breaks. Like when it was horrible, icy weather and a guy in my class fell on his bicycle. He was cut up, if he did that on purpose he would have showed up more than 45 seconds late. Dead serious, he was 45 seconds late and got a zero on the quiz. How about an assignment where I didn't make printing the output a separate function b/c it was like 5 lines of code and I only used it once (and the assignment wasn't practicing using functions, I had some other functions so I knew how to write them). Oh, got a zero on that one even though it worked fine, the printing just was not its own function. Take some points off but to receive a zero is bullshit. I know people who changed majors because of that man and that is just wrong. One girl in the class went to drop off an assignment and Rannie was not in the office so she slid it under the door because she had to make it to another class. She got a zero and he said he didn't see it or something. I was waiting for him to return when she slid it under the door. Easygoing he is NOT. I made sure to not take any more classes he instructed after that one experience.
When I get routed to India for IBM or Dell, I'm more likely to get hung up on.
haha this just happened to me tonite with Dell. I think they couldnt find the answer in their script so they just hung up. I was VERY pissed.