The problem is that there is no real reason to get rid of Bush, yet the Demo'rats will continue to attack him wherever they can.
And it's understandable, this is politics. However, like most fanatics, they only hear one side of the story and anyone who brings up other facts or ideas are either liars or "fox news watchers". When ideas don't go their way, they will attack personally, as they have with Bush and as they will with anyone who opposed their view points.
This is not a quest to better a country, it's a quest to remove Bush from the White House at all costs because they hate Bush.
What they were keen to show pictures of was Bush playing dress up on an aircraft carrier, at least until Democrats said that playing soldier made the issue of his being AWOL during his national guard service fair game. After that story finaly made the mainstream media the footage looked more like 'Dukakis in tank' than 'Top Gun'.
Except the AWOL aligations were false, and the White House proved otherwise. This was a blatent attempt of the Democrats to portray John Kerry as the "war hero" while Bush as a deserter. The attempt failed miserably. In fact, Bush spent more time training to be a pilot than Kerry spent in Vietnam.
Another picture we were allowed to see was Bush presenting a fake turkey to adoring troops. The fact that the photo-op meant that most of the troops on the base were required to have 'meals ready to eat' for their christmas dinner must have gone down really well. Visiting the troops might have appeared more sincere if Bush had taken the time to attend just one funeral of one of the soldiers killed in his war.
If you had actually paid more attention, the use of the 'plastic turkey' was just a joke... of course, the picture was taken out of context and you liberal fools picked up on it. Secondly, Bush has attempted the funerals of many soldiers, but he cannot attend them all. He has also visited injured troops in hospitals, and actually went to Iraq to visit them (remember the turkey incident?)
I hope that the GOP keeps on hammering Dick Clarke for several more weeks. The troops in Iraq must love hearing why they are stuck there rather than finishing the job they wanted to finish in Afghanistan.
Actually, most of the troops within Iraq understand and agree with the mission given to them. I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for. It's too bad that you, sitting at home in front of your computer afforded to you by men who have died for their country to keep you from having to deal with such people as Saddam Hussein, can criticize and "assume" the thoughts of the troops in Iraq.
And yes, the troops love hearing how Bill Clinton and Dick Clarke failed to deal with Iraq in 1997 as Clinton had planned. Clinton had his finger on the trigger in 97, but felt he needed to please the French who had billions invested in Iraq already. The failure in Iraq is Clinton's fault and the troops know this.
Remember also, under Mr. Clarke, 5 seperate terrorist attacks took place, most of them under Clinton. Also, Clarke never criticized Iraq, only 9/11 and the actions of the administration before 9/11. However, the White House has also released several documents, recordings and emails showing how Clarke said otherwise.
Here's the fact: Clarke has a book to sell, he did not get the job he wanted within the Bush White House, and his career was ruined by his inability to do his job during the Clinton White House. So, you keep believing his side of the story, because it's a real novel.
Oh and I am sure that every member of the US armed services just loves the way that Halliburton has been granted multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts by Halliburton ex-CEO Cheney.
Halliburton is chosen for most of these kinds of things because they are the only company large enough, with enough people in the Middle East, who could do it quickly and efficiently. These "contracts" were also signed by the Army, not Mr. Cheney. And then Halliburton screwed up, the U.S. gov't kicked them off the contract and got someone else. Your tin foil hat theory doesn't hold ground.
What's to say the search warrant wasn't for all the equipment?
Yes, the government can take anything it wants when it has a search warrant for that item. It is also required to return it to you within a reasonable amount of time.
Would you argue that the police could not take someone's car because they have ample evidence it was used in a murder and had gotten a search warrant based on that evidence?
Likewise, would you argue that police could not take a computer they have enough evidence to prove that machine was used for illegal Denial of Service activities, child porn, or anything else?
If you feel that law enforcement should be stripped of their ability to enforce the law (whether murder or Denial of Service), then maybe you need to move to a third world country where this is the case.
FYI, This is a "Clinton Recession" and not a "Bush Recession".
Some facts that you may have overlooked:
1) The "dot-com" burst occured when Clinton was still President. In fact, it ocurred nearly 1 year before Bush was elected. 2) Eight months after Bush got in office, 9/11 happened. As we all know, and what has been acknolwedged by Usama Bin Laden, he himself was responsible for 9/11. If Clinton had taken Yemen's offer in the 90's to get Bin Laden, 9/11 may not have happened therefore the "bad luck" you speak of wouldn't be an issue.
Now some other things you may want to consider:
1) NO PRESIDENT has direct influence on the economy, and any influence that he does have is minor. Therefore, the 4% you speak of was not Clinton's doing. 2) The DJIA is about the same as it was when Clinton left office 3) The unemployment rate today is LESS than the average throughout the 1990s (ya know, when Clinton was there) 4) Every economist is saying the economy is improving. Sure jobs aren't being created as fast as they were in, let's say, 1998-1999, but economists all agree the economy is healing itself in the LONG TERM by increasing efficiency among the current workforce. 5) The tax cuts you are complaining about contributed to all of this. This is not a "fluke" by any stretch.
And regarding the deficit:
1) Before Republicans took control of both the House and Senate during the Clinton years, Democrats had a firm hold on BOTH houses. The deficits existed because of Democratic spending during the 40 years before Republicans took over. It's Congress that defines the budget, not the president (he meerly recommends and approves). 2) Once Gingrich became speaker, he started the "contract with America" in which he gave tax cuts while cutting spending. This was vetoed by Mr Clinton twice before being passed. After it was passed, the economy boomed, which lead to the late-90's great 4% per-year-average growth figure you speak of. 3) The budget became balanced under Gingrich's "contract with America". Clinton just signed the bill, but had almost no input into the bill. 4) When the President proposed tax cuts, he said we'd be back in the black again by 2010. So, I do not know how you consider that in 2014 we'll still have a $400 billion dollar deficit. 5) The cost of Iraq is MERE CRUMBS compared to what is spent on other things. Also, the occupation of Iraq is going to be only about 10% of the cost of the occupation of Japan following WWII (in inflation-adjusted numbers) AND is a smaller amount of GDP than the cost of occupation of Japan.
Tax raises are not inevitable, unless you elect a Democrat. Reagan's supply-side economics proved that huge growth can occur by cutting taxes. In 1981-2, he cut taxes and by 1986 there was an 8.25% increase over 1980 of federal revenue, in 1987 a 16% increase over 1980, in 1988 a 20.7% increase over 1980, and up through 1990 when there was a 28% increase over 1980. This was supported by the creation of 19 million jobs.
Bush is using the SAME policy, and we will see SIMILAR results in 5-8 years just as we did under Reagan.
You are correct, although you're too much of a coward to receive affirmation. I was wrong in stating "from the previous year", when I should have said "in the following decade".
In 1981, the TOTAL federal revenue was approximately $1 trillion. As you noted, the tax cuts occured in 1982. By the time the 1980s were gone, the tax cuts raised approximately $1.2 trillion dollars in revenue in the 1980s. (You can go Here (specifically look at the chart). This was a direct result of the tax cuts.
You may also want to check out this page which is labeled 'economics 101'. Some interesting facts:
1) These additional federal tax revenues contributed to the reduction of the federal deficit from 6.3% of GDP in l983 to 2.9% in l989 2) From l982 to l989, l9 million net new jobs were created in the United States (more than the number of jobs created in Europe and Japan combined), two-thirds of them high or middle paying, resulting in the lowest unemployment rate in l6 years. 3) Real family income increased every year from l983 through l990 in every income group (from the poorest fifth of households to the richest fifth). 4) 86% of the tax filers in the poorest fifth of families in l980 moved out of that bottom quintile by l988 (l6% moved all the way to the top fifth of income earners).
Also of interest is this site which talks about the Reagan cuts. Interesting enough is the chart which shows that the tax burdon increased for the highest wage earners while decreasing for the lowest wage earners. And a quote, " The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988."
Those supply-side economics... wow, such a terrible thing. Worked twice before and yet you refuse to learn from history.
Well, that's just hogwash. Pure conjecture, but I would expect that from someone who follows NPR, the radio station run by college professors and grad students. You know what they say about teaching, right? Those who can't do... teach.
Anyway...
As stated multiple times already in this story, borrowing and spending is a better way to do business.
For example, if a small business has $15,000 in the bank, it may be better for them to keep that capital on hand and BORROW $15,000 (using the $15,000 they have as collateral), thus keeping the money AND making the necessary improvements.
Companies, and the government, has done this for years. Apple is a good example of how to borrow money instead of spending cash on hand. Investment in business now means MORE money down the line, and guess what, it works for government too. Good examples would be the tax cuts by JFK and the tax cuts by Reagan. To be specific, the tax cuts instituted by Reagan was followed by an increase of collected income taxes by 99.1%. (Yes, that is almost TWICE as much as the previous year). This proves that investment now means higher returns down the line.
Or what kind of second rate education you received, but this has been known for a while. The USSR had several regions of the moon covered by robots.
Oh and yes, my "American education" didn't "censor" this info as yours supposedly has. Maybe it was your "American ignorance" or "American laziness" which prevented you from retaining this information when it was actually taught to you.
Domain name registrations are controlled by ICANN which is a Congressionally funded organization.
From their website:
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. These services were originally performed under U.S. Government contract by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and other entities. ICANN now performs the IANA function.
ICANN then contracts out services to corporations for manage the DNS registrations. Currently, VeriSign controls.com and.net.
OK, so maybe there are sections of the Patriot Act that are truly unconstitutional, but I do not think this is one of them.
What part of the Constitution gives someone the right to assist any other person/group/organization? The freedom of speech? I think that's stretching it. But OK, but what if you were to give them something? That's not protected under the freedom of speech.
And if it's unconstitutional, then why is it OK to give them "good" advise and not "bad" advise. What determines what is "good" and what is "bad"... wouldn't the first ammendment be the first ammendment no matter whether it's good or bad?
But of course, this was the 9th District Court, and they haven't made a constitutional law decision that was actually based on the constitution in some time. Basically, the 9th just gave the OK for rogue organizations within the U.S. to give Al Qaida strategic information about oh... nuclear plants or chemical plants... without the risk of penalty.
Well, this bug would seem to affect all members on the shared computer system, yet the Boston Globe only biasly charges Republicans with computer fraud?
If this bug was known, as the story would suggest, wouldn't Democrats have done the same... or is the "Party of Lawyers", as Newt Gingrish would say, suddenly obedient, quiet choir boys? I think not!
Or, maybe the Republicans were smart enough to NOT put their documents on this machine knowing it was mismanaged.
Or, now that I've put on my tinfoil hat, the Democrats purposely hired an incompetent administration who purposely put the "hole" in the system so the Democrats could read Republican documents... but the Republicans spotted it and stopped using the system while the Democrats didn't.
Or, maybe this is just being blown all out of proportion because the Boston Globe is known for it's liberal bias and would do anything, even risk their journalistic integrity (not that it means anything nowadays), to remove the Republicans from the White House in favor of it's homeboy John Kerry (the would-be irishman).
Forget about making a Linux distro for this, everything you want to do is available within OpenBSD 3.4 and it's pf software. Basic packet filtering, NAT, user quotas and general bandwidth managment. OpenBSD 3.4 also comes with BIND9 and ISC's DHCP daemon for serving up IP addresses. Best of all, you can do it for the cost of a $100 PC you pick up at the local computer show (say a pentium pro or an earlier pentium II).
And as an ammendment, the truth is, the only people who LOSE in competition is the guy who thought he had the only game in town. (aka Warren N. Lieberfarb)
The worst thing that could happen would be another Betamax/VHS-type war. In that case, 'Everyone is a loser, particularly Hollywood studios, the retailer community and, most importantly, the consumer,' says Warren N. Lieberfarb, developer of the original DVD format."
Is he saying competition is bad? Only in a socialist government is this true. Competition is always better. Why? Because in the case of VHS/Betamax, the cheaper solution reigned supreme. Why not have both solutions (or all 3 or 4 or whatever) exist and let consumers decide which they want. Complaining about your overpriced CDs and DVDs? Maybe that's because there is no competition to drive the prices down. Think of that? Nah...
Apple has all kinds of keen stuff for holiday gifts. I just bought for myself a 15" G4 Powerbook. Other ideas include an iPod (w/ engraving for that personalized touch), new 20" eMac, or even a DP G5.
Of course, you may not like Apple stuff, that's too bad, but if you do not, you can try Best Buy or Thinkgeek for some cool stuff.
Hey, I don't use a mac because it is more secure than windows necessarily. I use a mac because I enjoy the UNIX-like abilities of it, it's nice GUI and the quality of the hardware (and support for that hardware).
Does the author claim superiority after arguing one, miniscule point, in the large scheme of things?
This is still the best method to "slow down" spammers. Having a listener on port 25 on un unadvertised box waiting for a connection from some random person, knowing this to be a relay checker and/or spammer, then holding onto the connection forever. This is what LaBrea does, but LaBrea does it on a larger scale, for entire subnets w/ open IP addresses, and any port.
If I buy a boxed AMD processor with a heatsink, then I shouldn't need to buy another heatsink, or special "silver compound" or do ANYTHING special. The CPU should go in, with the heatsink provided, and work at the CPU clock rate advertised without any problems. What you're saying is that I need to take "special" steps to ensure my stock CPU running at the stock clock speed, core voltage, etc runs normally and lasts longer than 9 months. That's bullshit.
I'll stick with Intel.... I've had Intel machines running just about 24/7 for 7-8 years without any issues, even when the heatsink fan busted, the processor didnt croak like AMDs do even with fully functioning fans.
Is that AMD chips burn out 3x faster than Intel chips. So when you put dollar for dollar over a three year period, you find that the celeron chips are not any more expensive and much more reliable.
This is from my own personal experience and why I have gone back to Intel from AMD. I found that I was replacing my AMD motherboards and chips too often. In the end, "you get what you pay for".
Buying AMD is like buying a tricycle with a V8... sure it's fast... and it's cheaper than the nearest competitor... but once you hit a brick wall, you're dead.
Yeah and when the US planned to move an Air Force base from Germany to Poland, the locals were upset. They'd lose 50,000 well paying jobs that support the meer 15,000 US troops stationed in the area. And with Germany's economy in the shitter already, this wouldn't have helped! This has forced Germany to BEG to the US to keep the base there!
Today, the definition of UNIX (R) takes the form of the worldwide Single UNIX Specification integrating X/Open Company's XPG4, IEEE's POSIX Standards and ISO C. Through continual evolution, the Single UNIX Specification is the defacto and dejure standard definition for the UNIX system application programming interfaces.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that there is no real reason to get rid of Bush, yet the Demo'rats will continue to attack him wherever they can.
And it's understandable, this is politics. However, like most fanatics, they only hear one side of the story and anyone who brings up other facts or ideas are either liars or "fox news watchers". When ideas don't go their way, they will attack personally, as they have with Bush and as they will with anyone who opposed their view points.
This is not a quest to better a country, it's a quest to remove Bush from the White House at all costs because they hate Bush.
What they were keen to show pictures of was Bush playing dress up on an aircraft carrier, at least until Democrats said that playing soldier made the issue of his being AWOL during his national guard service fair game. After that story finaly made the mainstream media the footage looked more like 'Dukakis in tank' than 'Top Gun'.
Except the AWOL aligations were false, and the White House proved otherwise. This was a blatent attempt of the Democrats to portray John Kerry as the "war hero" while Bush as a deserter. The attempt failed miserably. In fact, Bush spent more time training to be a pilot than Kerry spent in Vietnam.
Another picture we were allowed to see was Bush presenting a fake turkey to adoring troops. The fact that the photo-op meant that most of the troops on the base were required to have 'meals ready to eat' for their christmas dinner must have gone down really well. Visiting the troops might have appeared more sincere if Bush had taken the time to attend just one funeral of one of the soldiers killed in his war.
If you had actually paid more attention, the use of the 'plastic turkey' was just a joke... of course, the picture was taken out of context and you liberal fools picked up on it. Secondly, Bush has attempted the funerals of many soldiers, but he cannot attend them all. He has also visited injured troops in hospitals, and actually went to Iraq to visit them (remember the turkey incident?)
I hope that the GOP keeps on hammering Dick Clarke for several more weeks. The troops in Iraq must love hearing why they are stuck there rather than finishing the job they wanted to finish in Afghanistan.
Actually, most of the troops within Iraq understand and agree with the mission given to them. I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for. It's too bad that you, sitting at home in front of your computer afforded to you by men who have died for their country to keep you from having to deal with such people as Saddam Hussein, can criticize and "assume" the thoughts of the troops in Iraq.
And yes, the troops love hearing how Bill Clinton and Dick Clarke failed to deal with Iraq in 1997 as Clinton had planned. Clinton had his finger on the trigger in 97, but felt he needed to please the French who had billions invested in Iraq already. The failure in Iraq is Clinton's fault and the troops know this.
Remember also, under Mr. Clarke, 5 seperate terrorist attacks took place, most of them under Clinton. Also, Clarke never criticized Iraq, only 9/11 and the actions of the administration before 9/11. However, the White House has also released several documents, recordings and emails showing how Clarke said otherwise.
Here's the fact: Clarke has a book to sell, he did not get the job he wanted within the Bush White House, and his career was ruined by his inability to do his job during the Clinton White House. So, you keep believing his side of the story, because it's a real novel.
Oh and I am sure that every member of the US armed services just loves the way that Halliburton has been granted multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts by Halliburton ex-CEO Cheney.
Halliburton is chosen for most of these kinds of things because they are the only company large enough, with enough people in the Middle East, who could do it quickly and efficiently. These "contracts" were also signed by the Army, not Mr. Cheney. And then Halliburton screwed up, the U.S. gov't kicked them off the contract and got someone else. Your tin foil hat theory doesn't hold ground.
What's to say the search warrant wasn't for all the equipment?
Yes, the government can take anything it wants when it has a search warrant for that item. It is also required to return it to you within a reasonable amount of time.
Would you argue that the police could not take someone's car because they have ample evidence it was used in a murder and had gotten a search warrant based on that evidence?
Likewise, would you argue that police could not take a computer they have enough evidence to prove that machine was used for illegal Denial of Service activities, child porn, or anything else?
If you feel that law enforcement should be stripped of their ability to enforce the law (whether murder or Denial of Service), then maybe you need to move to a third world country where this is the case.
FYI, This is a "Clinton Recession" and not a "Bush Recession".
Some facts that you may have overlooked:
1) The "dot-com" burst occured when Clinton was still President. In fact, it ocurred nearly 1 year before Bush was elected.
2) Eight months after Bush got in office, 9/11 happened. As we all know, and what has been acknolwedged by Usama Bin Laden, he himself was responsible for 9/11. If Clinton had taken Yemen's offer in the 90's to get Bin Laden, 9/11 may not have happened therefore the "bad luck" you speak of wouldn't be an issue.
Now some other things you may want to consider:
1) NO PRESIDENT has direct influence on the economy, and any influence that he does have is minor. Therefore, the 4% you speak of was not Clinton's doing.
2) The DJIA is about the same as it was when Clinton left office
3) The unemployment rate today is LESS than the average throughout the 1990s (ya know, when Clinton was there)
4) Every economist is saying the economy is improving. Sure jobs aren't being created as fast as they were in, let's say, 1998-1999, but economists all agree the economy is healing itself in the LONG TERM by increasing efficiency among the current workforce.
5) The tax cuts you are complaining about contributed to all of this. This is not a "fluke" by any stretch.
And regarding the deficit:
1) Before Republicans took control of both the House and Senate during the Clinton years, Democrats had a firm hold on BOTH houses. The deficits existed because of Democratic spending during the 40 years before Republicans took over. It's Congress that defines the budget, not the president (he meerly recommends and approves).
2) Once Gingrich became speaker, he started the "contract with America" in which he gave tax cuts while cutting spending. This was vetoed by Mr Clinton twice before being passed. After it was passed, the economy boomed, which lead to the late-90's great 4% per-year-average growth figure you speak of.
3) The budget became balanced under Gingrich's "contract with America". Clinton just signed the bill, but had almost no input into the bill.
4) When the President proposed tax cuts, he said we'd be back in the black again by 2010. So, I do not know how you consider that in 2014 we'll still have a $400 billion dollar deficit.
5) The cost of Iraq is MERE CRUMBS compared to what is spent on other things. Also, the occupation of Iraq is going to be only about 10% of the cost of the occupation of Japan following WWII (in inflation-adjusted numbers) AND is a smaller amount of GDP than the cost of occupation of Japan.
Tax raises are not inevitable, unless you elect a Democrat. Reagan's supply-side economics proved that huge growth can occur by cutting taxes. In 1981-2, he cut taxes and by 1986 there was an 8.25% increase over 1980 of federal revenue, in 1987 a 16% increase over 1980, in 1988 a 20.7% increase over 1980, and up through 1990 when there was a 28% increase over 1980. This was supported by the creation of 19 million jobs.
Bush is using the SAME policy, and we will see SIMILAR results in 5-8 years just as we did under Reagan.
You are correct, although you're too much of a coward to receive affirmation. I was wrong in stating "from the previous year", when I should have said "in the following decade".
In 1981, the TOTAL federal revenue was approximately $1 trillion. As you noted, the tax cuts occured in 1982. By the time the 1980s were gone, the tax cuts raised approximately $1.2 trillion dollars in revenue in the 1980s. (You can go Here (specifically look at the chart). This was a direct result of the tax cuts.
You may also want to check out this page which is labeled 'economics 101'. Some interesting facts:
1) These additional federal tax revenues contributed to the reduction of the federal deficit from 6.3% of GDP in l983 to 2.9% in l989
2) From l982 to l989, l9 million net new jobs were created in the United States (more than the number of jobs created in Europe and Japan combined), two-thirds of them high or middle paying, resulting in the lowest unemployment rate in l6 years.
3) Real family income increased every year from l983 through l990 in every income group (from the poorest fifth of households to the richest fifth).
4) 86% of the tax filers in the poorest fifth of families in l980 moved out of that bottom quintile by l988 (l6% moved all the way to the top fifth of income earners).
Also of interest is this site which talks about the Reagan cuts. Interesting enough is the chart which shows that the tax burdon increased for the highest wage earners while decreasing for the lowest wage earners. And a quote, " The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988."
Those supply-side economics... wow, such a terrible thing. Worked twice before and yet you refuse to learn from history.
Well, that's just hogwash. Pure conjecture, but I would expect that from someone who follows NPR, the radio station run by college professors and grad students. You know what they say about teaching, right? Those who can't do... teach.
Anyway...
As stated multiple times already in this story, borrowing and spending is a better way to do business.
For example, if a small business has $15,000 in the bank, it may be better for them to keep that capital on hand and BORROW $15,000 (using the $15,000 they have as collateral), thus keeping the money AND making the necessary improvements.
Companies, and the government, has done this for years. Apple is a good example of how to borrow money instead of spending cash on hand. Investment in business now means MORE money down the line, and guess what, it works for government too. Good examples would be the tax cuts by JFK and the tax cuts by Reagan. To be specific, the tax cuts instituted by Reagan was followed by an increase of collected income taxes by 99.1%. (Yes, that is almost TWICE as much as the previous year). This proves that investment now means higher returns down the line.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Or what kind of second rate education you received, but this has been known for a while. The USSR had several regions of the moon covered by robots.
Oh and yes, my "American education" didn't "censor" this info as yours supposedly has. Maybe it was your "American ignorance" or "American laziness" which prevented you from retaining this information when it was actually taught to you.
Anyway, in OTHER news, Russia Also Conquered Mars 30 years ago.
That's not actually warez.... it's all the MP3's I downloaded off of Napster.
To think if I only made $53k out of college, I'd be taking a 50% paycut.
Good thing I didn't waste my time and energy on a useless college education.
From their website:
ICANN then contracts out services to corporations for manage the DNS registrations. Currently, VeriSign controls
But what the ruling says is that if you DID know the guy was stocking up fertilizer, it's still OK to help the guy!
OK, so maybe there are sections of the Patriot Act that are truly unconstitutional, but I do not think this is one of them.
What part of the Constitution gives someone the right to assist any other person/group/organization? The freedom of speech? I think that's stretching it. But OK, but what if you were to give them something? That's not protected under the freedom of speech.
And if it's unconstitutional, then why is it OK to give them "good" advise and not "bad" advise. What determines what is "good" and what is "bad"... wouldn't the first ammendment be the first ammendment no matter whether it's good or bad?
But of course, this was the 9th District Court, and they haven't made a constitutional law decision that was actually based on the constitution in some time. Basically, the 9th just gave the OK for rogue organizations within the U.S. to give Al Qaida strategic information about oh... nuclear plants or chemical plants... without the risk of penalty.
Good job 9th!
Well, this bug would seem to affect all members on the shared computer system, yet the Boston Globe only biasly charges Republicans with computer fraud?
If this bug was known, as the story would suggest, wouldn't Democrats have done the same... or is the "Party of Lawyers", as Newt Gingrish would say, suddenly obedient, quiet choir boys? I think not!
Or, maybe the Republicans were smart enough to NOT put their documents on this machine knowing it was mismanaged.
Or, now that I've put on my tinfoil hat, the Democrats purposely hired an incompetent administration who purposely put the "hole" in the system so the Democrats could read Republican documents... but the Republicans spotted it and stopped using the system while the Democrats didn't.
Or, maybe this is just being blown all out of proportion because the Boston Globe is known for it's liberal bias and would do anything, even risk their journalistic integrity (not that it means anything nowadays), to remove the Republicans from the White House in favor of it's homeboy John Kerry (the would-be irishman).
Forget about making a Linux distro for this, everything you want to do is available within OpenBSD 3.4 and it's pf software. Basic packet filtering, NAT, user quotas and general bandwidth managment. OpenBSD 3.4 also comes with BIND9 and ISC's DHCP daemon for serving up IP addresses. Best of all, you can do it for the cost of a $100 PC you pick up at the local computer show (say a pentium pro or an earlier pentium II).
And as an ammendment, the truth is, the only people who LOSE in competition is the guy who thought he had the only game in town. (aka Warren N. Lieberfarb)
The worst thing that could happen would be another Betamax/VHS-type war. In that case, 'Everyone is a loser, particularly Hollywood studios, the retailer community and, most importantly, the consumer,' says Warren N. Lieberfarb, developer of the original DVD format."
Is he saying competition is bad? Only in a socialist government is this true. Competition is always better. Why? Because in the case of VHS/Betamax, the cheaper solution reigned supreme. Why not have both solutions (or all 3 or 4 or whatever) exist and let consumers decide which they want. Complaining about your overpriced CDs and DVDs? Maybe that's because there is no competition to drive the prices down. Think of that? Nah...
Apple has all kinds of keen stuff for holiday gifts. I just bought for myself a 15" G4 Powerbook. Other ideas include an iPod (w/ engraving for that personalized touch), new 20" eMac, or even a DP G5.
Of course, you may not like Apple stuff, that's too bad, but if you do not, you can try Best Buy or Thinkgeek for some cool stuff.
Hey, I don't use a mac because it is more secure than windows necessarily. I use a mac because I enjoy the UNIX-like abilities of it, it's nice GUI and the quality of the hardware (and support for that hardware).
Does the author claim superiority after arguing one, miniscule point, in the large scheme of things?
Due to high costs of energy this holiday season, the lump of coal in your stocking has been replaced by a Slashdot subscription.
This is still the best method to "slow down" spammers. Having a listener on port 25 on un unadvertised box waiting for a connection from some random person, knowing this to be a relay checker and/or spammer, then holding onto the connection forever. This is what LaBrea does, but LaBrea does it on a larger scale, for entire subnets w/ open IP addresses, and any port.
If I buy a boxed AMD processor with a heatsink, then I shouldn't need to buy another heatsink, or special "silver compound" or do ANYTHING special. The CPU should go in, with the heatsink provided, and work at the CPU clock rate advertised without any problems. What you're saying is that I need to take "special" steps to ensure my stock CPU running at the stock clock speed, core voltage, etc runs normally and lasts longer than 9 months. That's bullshit.
I'll stick with Intel.... I've had Intel machines running just about 24/7 for 7-8 years without any issues, even when the heatsink fan busted, the processor didnt croak like AMDs do even with fully functioning fans.
This isnt flaimbait or troll....
Why is it that people only look at performance statistics of CPUs and not the reliability?
Would you do this for a car?
Would you buy a furnace for your house based on how well it heated your home but not how reliable it was? Or an air conditioner for cooling?
Hopefully not! So why would you do it with a CPU?
Is that AMD chips burn out 3x faster than Intel chips. So when you put dollar for dollar over a three year period, you find that the celeron chips are not any more expensive and much more reliable.
This is from my own personal experience and why I have gone back to Intel from AMD. I found that I was replacing my AMD motherboards and chips too often. In the end, "you get what you pay for".
Buying AMD is like buying a tricycle with a V8... sure it's fast... and it's cheaper than the nearest competitor... but once you hit a brick wall, you're dead.
Yeah and when the US planned to move an Air Force base from Germany to Poland, the locals were upset. They'd lose 50,000 well paying jobs that support the meer 15,000 US troops stationed in the area. And with Germany's economy in the shitter already, this wouldn't have helped! This has forced Germany to BEG to the US to keep the base there!
This is UNIX
A small portion of the text:
Today, the definition of UNIX (R) takes the form of the worldwide Single UNIX Specification integrating X/Open Company's XPG4, IEEE's POSIX Standards and ISO C. Through continual evolution, the Single UNIX Specification is the defacto and dejure standard definition for the UNIX system application programming interfaces.