My rant was about something that is real and is happening. I judge Americans by my time there and my American friends, I judge America by its actions. I would be going to far off topic (more than already) to go on about the racism, being told not to say what I thought etc. I did not see any more freedom during my time in the US than I have in most other countries I have been to.
I met a lot of great people and many are still friends, but America no longer stands for freedom in my eyes or in the eyes of the rest of the world (from what I read in many foriegn newspapers).
??? why? because he is right or because you are bigoted? Most Europeans (except the British) have first hand experience of war and real lack of freedom. From that experience they have a far deeper understanding of the real issues involved. The US has great claims to freedom but in reality has few real freedoms compared to Europe. Most Americans are keen to rant on about the 'constitution' as if they have the only one. Yet how many understand the ECHR ? Freedom of speech existed in Europe (e.g. Speakers Corner in London) before America existed and when someone tried to put back the clock there was a war.
That is why countries like France and Germany do not want to go to war for oil. Countries like the US and Britain think it is a good idea to invade a defenceless country and even worse, try to make out that those that do not want to kill defenceless people are cowards...
We get Fox there first to film it and if it goes bad we don't tell anyone that the truck was shut down. So if all goes well we get good press and if all goes pear shaped we say 'hell, look at this disaster... we need a device that can stop this by shutting down rogue trucks before they can cause this sort of incident!!!'
So instead of getting one of those devices that turns red lights to green, I could just block all the side roads along my way with dead trucks:) Traffic chaos for everyone else and clear roads for me:)
And yet, they feel they have to help the rest of the world be free...
When did that start? I am still reading about the occupation of Iraq in my papers... American policy, both internal and external, is about control. The government wants to control the people both at home and abroad. Give them democracy so that they can vote for who we say they can vote for... That is not freedom by any stretch of the imagination. Saddam Hussein also held elections just like we intend to. He chose who they could vote for, now we chose who they can vote for. Those people know that democracy really means the right to vote for who they want to vote for.
This idea is about more control. I do not think that this technology will arrive in the short term but I think that soon all new cars will be fitted with such a device 'for your own safety'. Then like seat belts, the laws will follow to say that it is illegal to tamper with or not use it.
My advice, keep that old car running and in good order.
In a country such as Laos, people earn about $75 a month... or $900 a year... if they work from 15 until 65 they will earn $45,000 in their life forgetting the fact that they are extremely unlikely to have work all the time.
So it now becomes a career move to write a virus, get your own brother (or someone you trust) to hand you in and collect the money. You do your time in relative comfort and your whole family is rich (comparatively)...
and am therefore a home user. I find it installs easilly and works fine. OK, in the past I have had some issues but Windows 3.11 was not easy either. I now have SuSE 9 and it went straight on to this machine and works out of the box. Just like Windows is meant to...
No I am not flaming your spelling but I object to the choice of words. SuSE Professional is a product that is sold in a box. Unlike Microsoft that sells licenses that can be used per machine. The SuSE product can be used as you wish except for general copyright issues. You can use the product to install SuSE Linux on as many machines as you wish. Microsoft Windows is only 'licensed' for use on one machine.
I do accept that this is a bit of a nit pick but I think that the difference is important and I therefore do not like the 'license' word when refering to SuSE, or in fact any flavour of Linux that I can think of.
Re:Bluejacking : a growing problem in taxis ...
on
Spammed by Bluetooth
·
· Score: 1
Switch to Sony.... my T610 has Bluetooth turned off by default and has the option to hide when turned on. I do not have another phone to play with atm so I cannot swear to it but it has always asked if I want to recieve anything that one of my friends sends to me.
and as soon as this starts to happen people start to remember to turn off Bluetooth or to set an original code... (saying that reminds me that mine is still set to 0000:))
I have been into photography for a couple of decades and cannot see digital camera replacing film. There are too many facets to photography for digital to meet them all. I do see digital making greater inroads than it does now and that is a good thing.
I have two cameras. A 35mm and an APS. The APS is for what I call snaps and I will replace that with a digital camera in the near future. The current snap camera I have is a Canon Ixus because I can have it my pocket most of the time and when I see some moment that I want, I can capture it. Downside is crap negative size so a 4 Mpix digital would now be better. I know there are better digitals but I want small, fits in the pocket digital.
My other camera is an Olympus. This is for creations. You cannot get recipricousy failure with digital. I am not sure what would happen if you had a CCD open for 2 hours at night? With film, the colours develop at different rates and you get a sureal scene. I have yet to find a digital camera that works fast enough to use with fast movement. So if I am at the F1 track I have the Olympus (and regret apeture priority). These are just 2 examples of what I do with film but their are millions of others.
I think digital will replace the point and shoot, snap camera and I think it should. I do not think it is anywhere near the proffesional or creative photography level yet.
Good quality digital costs so much that if I did have the money I would spend it on a Hassleblad.
It is evident that France stood on principle. The majority of French people were/are opposed to the war and the government stood by what the people that elected them wanted. The british people were/are opposed to the war and the British government supported the war against the wishes of the people they were supposed to represent. I think that the French government has, therefore, a much higher moral standing.
The US government, a 'superpower' (whatever that is supposed to mean) drove us to war against a country that had already been disarmed and acts like a hero??? that is weasly !!! to beat up someone that has had there arms tied behind their back is not heroic. All the lies that were told to justify were just that, lies and the French have been proved right.
As for all the crap about sanction busting, I wish it were true as someone should start to support the Iraqis. They have been oppressed for decades and now they are being occupied by the US and still oppresed.
France said that all this war would do is create terrorism and now we are starting to realise that they were right. The whole world has to suffer the terrorism that the US is creating and the US government gets upset when France will not help create the suffering that ferments the social unrest that breeds terrorists.
I would rant some patriotic French chant here but I cannot speak French:)
It sounds like you listen to too much spin. Yes, there are thousands of people trying to get into the US to improve their lives. Just as there are thousands leaving the US to improve their lives. The way politicians blame 'immigrants' for problems is the same as the way Hitler (a German politician in the '30s/'40s) blamed the Jews for Germany's problems. It is done to take attention from the real problems that the politicians are doing little to solve. The majority of 'immigrants' work very hard and put far more into the economy than their indiginous neighbours. It would not win votes to say that they are better than you so they are portrayed as spunging parasites. Our economy needs more of them as our general population gets older and there are not enough young people around to do the work. As we educate our children to take office jobs we need immigrants to take away the rubbish and look after our gardens. They work hard and do well and we call them spunging parasites. I am leaving with thousands of other and you will say 'good ridance', I will be glad to get away from people like you and to live in a place where my hard work is appreaciated even though I will then be an immigrant.
There is no reason why a country that stives to earn a fair income in an open market economy cannot have a social conscience. The term 'capitalism' sounds as stupid as 'communism' and implies some sort of ill thought out idealism. The real world that the rest of us live in means that we all chose our own standards to live by. Most European countries think that it is fair to make sure that the working people are treated fairly. Most third world countries think that the workers should be pushed to the limit without any consideration except for the money that can rung out of them. France is not a poor country and has shown that it has a good moral basis. If I were looking for a new home (and if I could speak the language) I would be happy to live there.
Sorry:) that reference was to a follow up... The gun was debated in - http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co. uk/ pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960215/debtext/60215-06.htm
Forging a barrel that large would've required industrial capacity that Iraq has never come close to possessing
The barrels (it was made of several sections and each one included an additional detonation) were built in England by a company called 'Matrix Churchill'.
See http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/ pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960215/debtext/60215-09.htm
In GW1 a lot of fuss was made about an Iraqi super gun. This was a long barrel fixed to a mountain. It had a fixed trajectory and would always fire at the same place when made. The powers that be (our beloved propaganda machine) told us that, with this gun, they could launch waves of attacks at Israel.
This was rubbish because once the first incoming arrives the radar defence system is able to work out the launch location and it is destroyed. This is why the scud missile system was favoured as it is mobile and could be moved before the retaliation arrived.
The super gun was developed originally to take out satellite systems. It could fire a bomb into space and it would only take one bomb as the shrapenel would damage all satellites in the area, accuracy is not required as satellites are relatively fragile.
If we had not had our survellence satellites we would not have been able to walk through as easilly as we did in GWI or GWII. If the super gun had been built it would have destroyed our theatre intelligence and more of our lives would have been lost. The problem for the propaganda machine was that 'would the public support going after a defensive weapon?' so they portrayed it as offensive.
That said, maybe Saddam was daft enough to think it could be used offensively... I doubt it though.
I guess that it will live a long life until someone can convince the phone companies that it is dead. I have a T610 with a bluetooth headset, Tungsten and a USB dongle. I think that they are great and I am very happy with them. I cannot see the point in any other system. At work I can even play games with collegues using the bluetooth network. We also send sound files to each other using the bluetooth (trying to see who can find the most irritating ring tone [mine is the birdy song]).
In your rush to be abusive you have shown that you are the idiot... I am not the original poster that you replied to, I am someone that read your rant and replied. You obviously do not know f all about what you are talking about but you continue to show your stupidity whilst claiming some sort of superiority. Maybe you should learn to read and then you could start to learn about computers. In the mean time look up Socratic Irony, and you may see why you look so daft.
Although your offensive title made me realise you are probably just a wind up, I took a look anyway and found a story about FreeDOS??? Nothing about how you achieved what you claim or how well it worked. I am sure that if you put in the disk it would install but I am equally sure that it would be unusable. It is an easy troll to say 'I did this' without saying if it actually worked.
I often use old hardware to setup backoffice tasks and always use Linux. The Dorises in the front are happy using Windows and do not care what I get up to. When I can get them I like old P90 or such that will run with minimum mechanical parts (i.e. fans) because they are less prone to breakdown. I know that it is possible to use NT/2000 onto these beasts but I cannot get XP to run. Linux is best as long as you do not want the latest GUI.
The only beef I have with the Linux evangelists is that they make out that Linux runs the same on the old hardware. Gnome/KDE need the same type of hardware as XP but on Linux you do not need to have Gnome/KDE so you can have a happy working system on the old hardware. I know that the barrack room lawyers out there will point out that Gnome/KDE are not Linux but are apps that run on Linux but it is that sort of crap that distances joe average from Linux. There are plenty of GUIs that will run on a 486 but for the tasks that I use the old beasts for, I am happy without a GUI because I do not expect to sit in front of it.
To me, Linux is about choice. It gives me the options to make a system that suits the task. Windows is about having someone else tell you what you need. Some people do not want choice, they want to be told what they need, and for them Windows is the right OS.
But the Israelis use US weapons to kill those children with so they cannot be doing wrong, can they?
There is no point trying to put any rational to what is, ideology... The US has a long history of harbouring terrorists and now wants to paint a different picture. Even though the IRA are not as in your face now there are still other terrorist organisations, like the Cambodian Freedom Fighters, operating out of the US. Due to our long history of forming, arming and helping these organisations, it is difficult to turn our backs on our old friends. Israel got where it is now by blowing up embassies etc. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist... It is easy to go on but in the end you simply have to accept that as there are no longer commies under your bed, there has to be a new paria.
They are the bad guys that the gov has to protect you from... Who cares that Saddam had been disarmed, was our ally until 1991 and had no links with terrorists... we had to be protected from him. In the same way that we need to be protected from those Palestinians. It is irrelevant that they are defensless, we have to kill them in case they corrupt our children with their different ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
My rant was about something that is real and is happening. I judge Americans by my time there and my American friends, I judge America by its actions. I would be going to far off topic (more than already) to go on about the racism, being told not to say what I thought etc. I did not see any more freedom during my time in the US than I have in most other countries I have been to.
I met a lot of great people and many are still friends, but America no longer stands for freedom in my eyes or in the eyes of the rest of the world (from what I read in many foriegn newspapers).
??? why? because he is right or because you are bigoted? Most Europeans (except the British) have first hand experience of war and real lack of freedom. From that experience they have a far deeper understanding of the real issues involved.
The US has great claims to freedom but in reality has few real freedoms compared to Europe. Most Americans are keen to rant on about the 'constitution' as if they have the only one. Yet how many understand the ECHR ? Freedom of speech existed in Europe (e.g. Speakers Corner in London) before America existed and when someone tried to put back the clock there was a war.
That is why countries like France and Germany do not want to go to war for oil. Countries like the US and Britain think it is a good idea to invade a defenceless country and even worse, try to make out that those that do not want to kill defenceless people are cowards...
We get Fox there first to film it and if it goes bad we don't tell anyone that the truck was shut down. So if all goes well we get good press and if all goes pear shaped we say 'hell, look at this disaster... we need a device that can stop this by shutting down rogue trucks before they can cause this sort of incident!!!'
Just another day at rumour control...
So instead of getting one of those devices that turns red lights to green, I could just block all the side roads along my way with dead trucks :) Traffic chaos for everyone else and clear roads for me :)
The brakes would not last long either :( out of control truck on its way down a hill without steering or brakes... great idea...
And yet, they feel they have to help the rest of the world be free...
When did that start? I am still reading about the occupation of Iraq in my papers... American policy, both internal and external, is about control. The government wants to control the people both at home and abroad. Give them democracy so that they can vote for who we say they can vote for... That is not freedom by any stretch of the imagination. Saddam Hussein also held elections just like we intend to. He chose who they could vote for, now we chose who they can vote for. Those people know that democracy really means the right to vote for who they want to vote for.
This idea is about more control. I do not think that this technology will arrive in the short term but I think that soon all new cars will be fitted with such a device 'for your own safety'. Then like seat belts, the laws will follow to say that it is illegal to tamper with or not use it.
My advice, keep that old car running and in good order.
In a country such as Laos, people earn about $75 a month... or $900 a year... if they work from 15 until 65 they will earn $45,000 in their life forgetting the fact that they are extremely unlikely to have work all the time.
So it now becomes a career move to write a virus, get your own brother (or someone you trust) to hand you in and collect the money. You do your time in relative comfort and your whole family is rich (comparatively)...
and am therefore a home user. I find it installs easilly and works fine. OK, in the past I have had some issues but Windows 3.11 was not easy either. I now have SuSE 9 and it went straight on to this machine and works out of the box. Just like Windows is meant to...
No I am not flaming your spelling but I object to the choice of words. SuSE Professional is a product that is sold in a box. Unlike Microsoft that sells licenses that can be used per machine. The SuSE product can be used as you wish except for general copyright issues. You can use the product to install SuSE Linux on as many machines as you wish. Microsoft Windows is only 'licensed' for use on one machine.
I do accept that this is a bit of a nit pick but I think that the difference is important and I therefore do not like the 'license' word when refering to SuSE, or in fact any flavour of Linux that I can think of.
Switch to Sony.... my T610 has Bluetooth turned off by default and has the option to hide when turned on. I do not have another phone to play with atm so I cannot swear to it but it has always asked if I want to recieve anything that one of my friends sends to me.
and as soon as this starts to happen people start to remember to turn off Bluetooth or to set an original code... (saying that reminds me that mine is still set to 0000 :))
I have been into photography for a couple of decades and cannot see digital camera replacing film. There are too many facets to photography for digital to meet them all. I do see digital making greater inroads than it does now and that is a good thing.
I have two cameras. A 35mm and an APS. The APS is for what I call snaps and I will replace that with a digital camera in the near future. The current snap camera I have is a Canon Ixus because I can have it my pocket most of the time and when I see some moment that I want, I can capture it. Downside is crap negative size so a 4 Mpix digital would now be better. I know there are better digitals but I want small, fits in the pocket digital.
My other camera is an Olympus. This is for creations. You cannot get recipricousy failure with digital. I am not sure what would happen if you had a CCD open for 2 hours at night? With film, the colours develop at different rates and you get a sureal scene. I have yet to find a digital camera that works fast enough to use with fast movement. So if I am at the F1 track I have the Olympus (and regret apeture priority). These are just 2 examples of what I do with film but their are millions of others.
I think digital will replace the point and shoot, snap camera and I think it should. I do not think it is anywhere near the proffesional or creative photography level yet.
Good quality digital costs so much that if I did have the money I would spend it on a Hassleblad.
Step 1) Pay offshore company peanuts to transcribe medical records
Ammendment to step 1 ) Do not pay offshore company to transcribe medical records,...
Ammendment to step 3 ) Bigger profit
It is evident that France stood on principle. The majority of French people were/are opposed to the war and the government stood by what the people that elected them wanted. The british people were/are opposed to the war and the British government supported the war against the wishes of the people they were supposed to represent. I think that the French government has, therefore, a much higher moral standing.
:)
The US government, a 'superpower' (whatever that is supposed to mean) drove us to war against a country that had already been disarmed and acts like a hero??? that is weasly !!! to beat up someone that has had there arms tied behind their back is not heroic. All the lies that were told to justify were just that, lies and the French have been proved right.
As for all the crap about sanction busting, I wish it were true as someone should start to support the Iraqis. They have been oppressed for decades and now they are being occupied by the US and still oppresed.
France said that all this war would do is create terrorism and now we are starting to realise that they were right. The whole world has to suffer the terrorism that the US is creating and the US government gets upset when France will not help create the suffering that ferments the social unrest that breeds terrorists.
I would rant some patriotic French chant here but I cannot speak French
It sounds like you listen to too much spin. Yes, there are thousands of people trying to get into the US to improve their lives. Just as there are thousands leaving the US to improve their lives. The way politicians blame 'immigrants' for problems is the same as the way Hitler (a German politician in the '30s/'40s) blamed the Jews for Germany's problems. It is done to take attention from the real problems that the politicians are doing little to solve. The majority of 'immigrants' work very hard and put far more into the economy than their indiginous neighbours. It would not win votes to say that they are better than you so they are portrayed as spunging parasites. Our economy needs more of them as our general population gets older and there are not enough young people around to do the work. As we educate our children to take office jobs we need immigrants to take away the rubbish and look after our gardens. They work hard and do well and we call them spunging parasites. I am leaving with thousands of other and you will say 'good ridance', I will be glad to get away from people like you and to live in a place where my hard work is appreaciated even though I will then be an immigrant.
There is no reason why a country that stives to earn a fair income in an open market economy cannot have a social conscience. The term 'capitalism' sounds as stupid as 'communism' and implies some sort of ill thought out idealism. The real world that the rest of us live in means that we all chose our own standards to live by. Most European countries think that it is fair to make sure that the working people are treated fairly. Most third world countries think that the workers should be pushed to the limit without any consideration except for the money that can rung out of them. France is not a poor country and has shown that it has a good moral basis. If I were looking for a new home (and if I could speak the language) I would be happy to live there.
Sorry :) that reference was to a follow up.... uk/ pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960215/debtext/60215-06.htm
The gun was debated in -
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co
Forging a barrel that large would've required industrial capacity that Iraq has never come close to possessing
/ pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960215/debtext/60215-09.htm
The barrels (it was made of several sections and each one included an additional detonation) were built in England by a company called 'Matrix Churchill'.
See http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk
In GW1 a lot of fuss was made about an Iraqi super gun. This was a long barrel fixed to a mountain. It had a fixed trajectory and would always fire at the same place when made. The powers that be (our beloved propaganda machine) told us that, with this gun, they could launch waves of attacks at Israel.
This was rubbish because once the first incoming arrives the radar defence system is able to work out the launch location and it is destroyed. This is why the scud missile system was favoured as it is mobile and could be moved before the retaliation arrived.
The super gun was developed originally to take out satellite systems. It could fire a bomb into space and it would only take one bomb as the shrapenel would damage all satellites in the area, accuracy is not required as satellites are relatively fragile.
If we had not had our survellence satellites we would not have been able to walk through as easilly as we did in GWI or GWII. If the super gun had been built it would have destroyed our theatre intelligence and more of our lives would have been lost. The problem for the propaganda machine was that 'would the public support going after a defensive weapon?' so they portrayed it as offensive.
That said, maybe Saddam was daft enough to think it could be used offensively... I doubt it though.
Marketing? I think he is just stoned :) People believe all sorts of daft things when they are stoned... I even believe I make sense :p
I guess that it will live a long life until someone can convince the phone companies that it is dead. I have a T610 with a bluetooth headset, Tungsten and a USB dongle. I think that they are great and I am very happy with them. I cannot see the point in any other system. At work I can even play games with collegues using the bluetooth network. We also send sound files to each other using the bluetooth (trying to see who can find the most irritating ring tone [mine is the birdy song]).
In your rush to be abusive you have shown that you are the idiot... I am not the original poster that you replied to, I am someone that read your rant and replied. You obviously do not know f all about what you are talking about but you continue to show your stupidity whilst claiming some sort of superiority. Maybe you should learn to read and then you could start to learn about computers. In the mean time look up Socratic Irony, and you may see why you look so daft.
Although your offensive title made me realise you are probably just a wind up, I took a look anyway and found a story about FreeDOS??? Nothing about how you achieved what you claim or how well it worked. I am sure that if you put in the disk it would install but I am equally sure that it would be unusable. It is an easy troll to say 'I did this' without saying if it actually worked.
I often use old hardware to setup backoffice tasks and always use Linux. The Dorises in the front are happy using Windows and do not care what I get up to. When I can get them I like old P90 or such that will run with minimum mechanical parts (i.e. fans) because they are less prone to breakdown. I know that it is possible to use NT/2000 onto these beasts but I cannot get XP to run. Linux is best as long as you do not want the latest GUI.
The only beef I have with the Linux evangelists is that they make out that Linux runs the same on the old hardware. Gnome/KDE need the same type of hardware as XP but on Linux you do not need to have Gnome/KDE so you can have a happy working system on the old hardware. I know that the barrack room lawyers out there will point out that Gnome/KDE are not Linux but are apps that run on Linux but it is that sort of crap that distances joe average from Linux. There are plenty of GUIs that will run on a 486 but for the tasks that I use the old beasts for, I am happy without a GUI because I do not expect to sit in front of it.
To me, Linux is about choice. It gives me the options to make a system that suits the task. Windows is about having someone else tell you what you need. Some people do not want choice, they want to be told what they need, and for them Windows is the right OS.
But the Israelis use US weapons to kill those children with so they cannot be doing wrong, can they?
There is no point trying to put any rational to what is, ideology... The US has a long history of harbouring terrorists and now wants to paint a different picture. Even though the IRA are not as in your face now there are still other terrorist organisations, like the Cambodian Freedom Fighters, operating out of the US. Due to our long history of forming, arming and helping these organisations, it is difficult to turn our backs on our old friends. Israel got where it is now by blowing up embassies etc. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist... It is easy to go on but in the end you simply have to accept that as there are no longer commies under your bed, there has to be a new paria.
They are the bad guys that the gov has to protect you from... Who cares that Saddam had been disarmed, was our ally until 1991 and had no links with terrorists... we had to be protected from him. In the same way that we need to be protected from those Palestinians. It is irrelevant that they are defensless, we have to kill them in case they corrupt our children with their different ideas.
A cross-series reference is appropriate, as Eddie Izzard is a cross-dresser :)