The problem seems to be that you don't find out about that last $99 until after you get the box home. Which, honestly, if I found out after the fact that I had to shell out an additional 1/3rd of the original cost for software that would make my cool new PC useful, would piss me off.
They should include the $99 in the cost of the PC and allow you one year of free software from the start.
Seriously, the anon-coward's right. For a die-hard atheist you know more about the history of Christian religions in general and Mormons specifically than the white-shirts. What gives? (I'm suspecting a disgruntled Utah native, perhaps the bishops' son or daughter?).
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I live in Utah and you seem to be giving the mo-mo's (yet another euphemism for a Mormon) an unfair shake. Most of the ones I've met are pretty good people. For every one that's so wrapped up in their jammies they seem to have lost all reason (if not oxygen) there are 20 who are nice, mostly normal and intelligent (as you can see by the BYU story, the Mecca of college bound Mormons).
And I'm agnostic if you were tempted to brand me as a Mormon apologist...
"Sarge, I need your credit card so I can get Tech Support to tell me the workaround so I can land the Eye. They already said it's a known problem that will be fixed in the next major revision."
If a Marine called another Marine "Sarge" he probably wouldn't get a chance to call tech support. In the Marine Corps, "Sarge" is derogatory.
And even so, the complaint to tech support would still have to be made from the circa 1950's era radios, and as such would run out of batteries before any useful information could be gleaned.
I'm with you and Michael - I'm a rifleman (no longer serving) in the Corps [Obligatory disagreement with your '*':)]. I had a LOT of fun for those 8 years, learned a lot, basically enjoyed the hell out of it.
Personally I got a kick out of the 'coming soon' titles, and didn't find them offensive at all. Of course, I'm not sensitive about the mess-hall crack because we don't get mess-hall-medals in the corps (*snicker*!).
While I appreciate the respect Zeddicus and Livin4Golf have for the military and those who serve, you guys have got to lighten up a little. There is a lot of mindless BS that goes along with serving - and no one likes to feel like they've sandbagged.
Thank you for keeping the./ standards high - we wouldn't want a story to go by without at least some difference of opinion - KDE vs. Gnome Linux vs. BSD Gates vs. Logic Army vs. Marine Corps....
I say we find out who decided the piggy-back option for passing laws was a good idea and make them do a national tour. Of "Deliverance" live, on stage! Let them have Ned Beatty's part.
New skins for Starcraft - I think we can all agree that no race is as evil as the human/lawyer, so we'll start with the humans:
Marine = PR rep. in a suit. Flame Thrower = Vivendi PR rep. red tie. Ghost = PR rep in reporters clothes. Medic = No such animal in the legal world. Next tree: Vulture =... vulture. Lays contract eggs. Siege tank = Lawyer at a desk - black suit, shoots giant pens that splatter ink. Goliath = Big lawyer, throws briefcase. Wraith = Tinker bell sponsored by Disney. Battlecruiser = Flown by Jack Valenti.
Are you talking about StarOffice 5.2? Because even the 6.0 beta did imports/exports flawlessly for me. I'm talking about the graphics in floating frames with text around the frames - some hooks to IIS won't work, but otherwise, which version are you talking about? Ctimes2
Inaccurate. (I have a feeling this will be redundant, but.. what the hell) The M16 is designed specifically for point targets (aka, people), and have not been fully automatic since the A1 in Viet Nam - they have a "burst" mode which fires 3 rounds per trigger pull, which you should really only use if you're being overrun - it's an inaccurate method of fire without a whole lot of practice. In short, the M16 is precisely used for shooting one person at a time. The SAW, M60 and other fully automatic weapons (machine guns) are used for grazing fire, which is for the specific purpose of creating a wall of lead, used against a large opposing force that is threatening your position (hippies, college students, enemy soldiers, etc.;).
Now that we've cleared that up, the M16 is probably not a very good weapon to use in an airport if they're not using rubber or other soft-rounds. At short ranges, the round will go through your first target and probably into somebody else. At longer ranges (+100 meters I believe) the round 'tumbles', which means it won't necessarily hit point first. It's designed to do this in order to get the round to ricochet off of bones inside the body. It does more damage, increasing your chances of a kill shot. It also has the unfortunate side effect of not always staying in the body, which means there's always a chance you'll hit the person standing next to your target too. So don't stand next to the terrorist.;)
He did a couple of things:
1) He got caught.
2) He advocated a very specific form of violence towards a very specific group of people (the police and world trade something-or-other), AND seemed to be taking steps to carry those acts of violence out.
3) Had very poor HTML skills.
4) (Just as an aside...) A molotov cocktail is specifically mentioned as a weapon to which there is no concealed weapons permit.
Hang him. Or make him eat 300 soft ice-cream fudge sundays. Trust me, after 6 you start to not care about politics anymore...
If you promise to car-jack the first black SUV on 5th ave and main street with a 9 mm handgun at noon, and are then caught standing on 5th ave and main at noon with a 9 mm handgun, your freedom of speech is kind of secondary to the fact that you're a dangerous moron with a gun.
The moron had a molotov cocktail in his car, along with a gas mask and shield, after he stated pretty clearly on his website what he intended to do with it.
The fact is, he promised or at the very least inferred that he was going to commit a violent act. The website is just testimony to that fact, it's not a freedom of speech issue.
There are limits, such as threatening to assassinate the President (which will get you life in prison if you think that is protected by 'freedom of speech'). Freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you want about your government, but the freedom of speech does not grant you the right to threaten the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of your fellow citizens. If you've got a legitimate complaint, use legitimate tactics to be heard. If you're a nut-job, don't expect a lot of people to listen however. And if you still really think this a freedom of speech issue, remember that there are plenty of other bomb making sites left on the net who have not been harrassed. Why? Because they're not nut-jobs.
This dork promised violence to two events and then apparently took steps toward carrying out those promises. He would fall under the nut-job category, so please don't try to make a freedom fighter out of him.
I hate to say it but every study ever done consistently reports that unhappy employees are more productive. While I see clearly what you're getting at, the inference is to give them whatever they want and let them do their jobs.
What [almost] always happens is that the employee becomes complacent and decides what and when they're going to work on what, when.
So in response, I propose the following to each point you made:
1) Managers for IT are most definately supposed to drive the technical direction. They should not micro-manage the process, they should say "this project needs to have this functionality in this form, be extensible and flexible within these guidelines and be done on or before this date" and then let their people do it. And of course the date should be set with input from the team so it's attainable.
2) Way too flexible. If the employee likes to come in at 2, then his schedule should be from 2-10 (or however many hours are required for the given salary). Letting the employee work 'a reasonable amount of time' is unsatisfying for the employee and the company in the long run (feels like he/she isn't a part of the team, they just work there), chaotic to the schedule that others have to work, and creates feelings of favoritism every single time someone else is late, early, or not present. That may be great for the guy that's working it, but a manager will spend 2-4 hours a week every week maintaining relationships. Believe me, I've done this at four different companies, and it's always the same. This is the one area where the manager should be less flexible so your team knows the very basics of what you expect clearly.
3) Absolutely. BUT make sure they have one day a week spent with the rest of the team in a conference room working together (war room style). Builds relationships, knowledge, teamwork, and keeps your project on track. Laptops would be a good idea too.
4) Yep. And let them keep the books.
5)...are there seriously managers that would MAKE someone go to a conference? If so, find a way to get that guy fired.
And finally, what a good manager is about is being a leader - not 'staying out of the way' of anyone. Your job as a manager is to clear the road blocks for your team in order for them to do their jobs, and often that means getting in someone ELSE's way, even if they're on your own team.
As far as the original article goes, you'll be a good manager by treating your people like professionals, and expecting that they are. The life of a manager is balancing the needs of the company to the capabilities of your team. This industry is no different just because there's code involved. Brokers, scientists, accountants, you name it, they're all just people who are good at something (or at least think they are). If anyone gives you advice about the "special requirements" of thier position, they're milking you. Don't get stroked, because quite frankly if they're not giving you 100% on principle alone they're not worth keeping. Unless of course you only expect 90% from yourself.
Ctimes2
Is that the people who clean/work/run businesses are citizens who by definition are "1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation". A "consumer" doesn't even have to be human, it only has to consume goods, services or property.
Looks like Vermont is protecting her citizens, and 'screwing the consumer' (you didn't say it but others did). Good for them I say.
What never ceases to piss me off is the misguided logic that states that whatever is good for a corporation or company is good for the people who work for it or benefit from it (more likely other companies, corporations) and therefor good for the people. Seriously, are we talking about trickle-down freedom here? Because quite frankly, if I lose anymore of my freedom, personal information, or rights to a corporation because it "benefits everyone", I'm going to throw up and join a militia in Montana.
Seriously, c'mon.
First, activists are not terrorists, and that kid's no activist. My brother-in-law is an activist {PETA} and his arguments are intelligent, well researched, more than reasonable, and effective. I haven't given up meat yet, but I've cut down on milk. Thus, someone is listening to him and he's effecting change. That is what activists do.
RTF is nothing more than a dumb ass kid preaching to the disenfranchised (yeah, like that's tough). He has no real concept of anarchy, no understanding of WHY the world works the way it works (no matter how screwed up it gets), and no reasonable solution. So in effect, he's running his position on poor instinct and bad judgement. He effects no change because all he's trying to do is scare people into either buying his position or dying in the chaos of upheaval. I guess it never occured to him that most of the rest of us couldn't give a rats ass about what he thinks ("getting the message out"... what a load. Your message is out, and it sounds like a big steaming pile of crap. Now you're going to try and play the victim card & blame it on the government? Where do you come from?).
Then, he's got the balls, audacidity or insanity to claim the agencies involved used a lot of hardware - no shit sherlock. You ran a website that advocated voilence, vandalism, and had BOMB making instructions on your site. Gangs are dangerous and have guns. You have politicol motivation, half a brain (1/2 more than most local gangs), and a dangerous message with instructions on how others can perform those acts too. Plus, you broke the LAW... you... IDIOT! You bet they're coming heavily armed.
And by the way, the definition of terrorism is, and I quote "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons". How 'bout that. You're a fledgling terrorist according to the very definition of the word. Good luck to him and for the FBI, keep up the good work.
If any of you feel any sympathy for this guy, you need to evaluate whether or not that's because you agree with him or just hate the feds, because that's one *'d up kid. And I'll bet the thousands of other sites that host the same kind of information (anarchists cookbook, etc.) don't advocate or act upon an idiological soapbox, which is why this kid was nabbed.
Boss-man? Is that you?! I thought you had conferences every week at 11 am?! son-of-a...
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for not knee jerking my groin for saying so.:)
ctimes2
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
Your post, is, in fact, also a rib tickler. Do you have some contrived notion that we don't do the same thing because we're democratic and allow you to sue the government? Please. The abuses in America (historical and _current_) are on easily on par with the greatest villians in China, Iran, etc. Good Hell Okpool, the 'acceptable casualties' (civilians that have nothing to do with the conflict per se) in Afganistan outnumber those Americans and others who died on Sept. 11th. Justice? Please... This is a campaign by us to let the entire world know that we are not to be fucked with, no matter which oppresive regime we are supporting, no matter how many guns we sold their enemies, no matter how many BOMBS we drop on them, no matter how much CORRUPTION WE, the UNITED STATES bring to them, WE are not to be fucked with. Laughable...
I'll tell you something though, we're being asked to go about our daily lives and go back to business as usual because if the general population found out what we've been up to in the middle east they'd shit themselves silly out of anger, fear and disgust. Instead of turning a blind eye and 'letting the government do it's job', we should as a country be asking our leaders to explain WHY we were attacked - I don't mean ask 'why were we attacked?' I mean ask 'Why were we selling guns to the taliban and anti-taliban at the same time at huge mark-ups?', 'Why were we giving mis-information to both sides that we knew would make them fight each other?', 'Why are we keeping a host of American soldiers (of which I'm one by the way) in countries that are not only on "opkools" list of bad people, but countries that have no intention of being democratic?', 'Why were we paying millions to an oppressive regime, the taliban, to destroy drugs as a public service to a country (China) we don't like?'. There's some pretty good fucking reasons we keep getting attacked, a lot of our leaders know why, or have an idea but don't want to ask. They sure as hell don't want you to know about it though, and do you know why? Because it doesn't make any sense. Half the time it's for "favors".
Don't flip out on me here everyone, I'm not suggesting that we 'deserved it', or asked for it by any means. I'm saying there are a lot of people who know we aren't promoting democracy around the world because it's not feasable in the near term. So our policy is pretty much "keep them as close to dirt farmers as we can until they come around to our way of thinking". That's pissing people off. We were bombed in Kansas by one of our own because he and his buddies were pissed off at the government for some reason. Does anyone really know what those reasons were? Did it change anything? Because we didn't look very closely (as a nation) at what his gripes were (ligitimate or not) does anyone doubt that it will happen again?
Wake up is right. Champions of Freedom we may be during sweeps week, but the rest of the year we just go about our business let the government do it's job.
I had a similar dilema when I ran into smoothwall (management, etc). I restored an old pentium 133 with a 64 meg hard drive (yes, meg) and it hasn't failed yet.
My mother's getting one as soon as I can spare another hard drive to restore another old box.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem seems to be that you don't find out about that last $99 until after you get the box home. Which, honestly, if I found out after the fact that I had to shell out an additional 1/3rd of the original cost for software that would make my cool new PC useful, would piss me off.
They should include the $99 in the cost of the PC and allow you one year of free software from the start.
That must be why I washed out...
forced tithing (paycheck withholding; mandatory in Utah
eh... what?
See... you could have had a few points there that we might have listened too, then you went and blew it on a lie.
Seriously, the anon-coward's right. For a die-hard atheist you know more about the history of Christian religions in general and Mormons specifically than the white-shirts. What gives? (I'm suspecting a disgruntled Utah native, perhaps the bishops' son or daughter?).
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I live in Utah and you seem to be giving the mo-mo's (yet another euphemism for a Mormon) an unfair shake. Most of the ones I've met are pretty good people. For every one that's so wrapped up in their jammies they seem to have lost all reason (if not oxygen) there are 20 who are nice, mostly normal and intelligent (as you can see by the BYU story, the Mecca of college bound Mormons).
And I'm agnostic if you were tempted to brand me as a Mormon apologist...
either kind.
"Sarge, I need your credit card so I can get Tech Support to tell me the workaround so I can land the Eye. They already said it's a known problem that will be fixed in the next major revision."
If a Marine called another Marine "Sarge" he probably wouldn't get a chance to call tech support. In the Marine Corps, "Sarge" is derogatory.
And even so, the complaint to tech support would still have to be made from the circa 1950's era radios, and as such would run out of batteries before any useful information could be gleaned.
I'm with you and Michael - I'm a rifleman (no longer serving) in the Corps [Obligatory disagreement with your '*' :)]. I had a LOT of fun for those 8 years, learned a lot, basically enjoyed the hell out of it.
Personally I got a kick out of the 'coming soon' titles, and didn't find them offensive at all. Of course, I'm not sensitive about the mess-hall crack because we don't get mess-hall-medals in the corps (*snicker*!).
While I appreciate the respect Zeddicus and Livin4Golf have for the military and those who serve, you guys have got to lighten up a little. There is a lot of mindless BS that goes along with serving - and no one likes to feel like they've sandbagged.
Ctimes2
Thank you for keeping the ./ standards high - we wouldn't want a story to go by without at least some difference of opinion -
KDE vs. Gnome
Linux vs. BSD
Gates vs. Logic
Army vs. Marine Corps....
;)
Ooh Rah!
Ah the beloved "Piggy-back" bill.
I say we find out who decided the piggy-back option for passing laws was a good idea and make them do a national tour. Of "Deliverance" live, on stage! Let them have Ned Beatty's part.
Geek.
:)
New skins for Starcraft - I think we can all agree that no race is as evil as the human/lawyer, so we'll start with the humans:
... vulture. Lays contract eggs.
Marine = PR rep. in a suit.
Flame Thrower = Vivendi PR rep. red tie.
Ghost = PR rep in reporters clothes.
Medic = No such animal in the legal world.
Next tree:
Vulture =
Siege tank = Lawyer at a desk - black suit, shoots giant pens that splatter ink.
Goliath = Big lawyer, throws briefcase.
Wraith = Tinker bell sponsored by Disney.
Battlecruiser = Flown by Jack Valenti.
The nuke = A paperstorm.
Who wants the defense?
Are you talking about StarOffice 5.2? Because even the 6.0 beta did imports/exports flawlessly for me. I'm talking about the graphics in floating frames with text around the frames - some hooks to IIS won't work, but otherwise, which version are you talking about?
Ctimes2
Inaccurate. (I have a feeling this will be redundant, but.. what the hell) ;).
;)
The M16 is designed specifically for point targets (aka, people), and have not been fully automatic since the A1 in Viet Nam - they have a "burst" mode which fires 3 rounds per trigger pull, which you should really only use if you're being overrun - it's an inaccurate method of fire without a whole lot of practice. In short, the M16 is precisely used for shooting one person at a time.
The SAW, M60 and other fully automatic weapons (machine guns) are used for grazing fire, which is for the specific purpose of creating a wall of lead, used against a large opposing force that is threatening your position (hippies, college students, enemy soldiers, etc.
Now that we've cleared that up, the M16 is probably not a very good weapon to use in an airport if they're not using rubber or other soft-rounds. At short ranges, the round will go through your first target and probably into somebody else. At longer ranges (+100 meters I believe) the round 'tumbles', which means it won't necessarily hit point first. It's designed to do this in order to get the round to ricochet off of bones inside the body. It does more damage, increasing your chances of a kill shot. It also has the unfortunate side effect of not always staying in the body, which means there's always a chance you'll hit the person standing next to your target too. So don't stand next to the terrorist.
He did a couple of things:
1) He got caught.
2) He advocated a very specific form of violence towards a very specific group of people (the police and world trade something-or-other), AND seemed to be taking steps to carry those acts of violence out.
3) Had very poor HTML skills.
4) (Just as an aside...) A molotov cocktail is specifically mentioned as a weapon to which there is no concealed weapons permit.
Hang him. Or make him eat 300 soft ice-cream fudge sundays. Trust me, after 6 you start to not care about politics anymore...
Ctimes2
If you promise to car-jack the first black SUV on 5th ave and main street with a 9 mm handgun at noon, and are then caught standing on 5th ave and main at noon with a 9 mm handgun, your freedom of speech is kind of secondary to the fact that you're a dangerous moron with a gun.
The moron had a molotov cocktail in his car, along with a gas mask and shield, after he stated pretty clearly on his website what he intended to do with it.
The fact is, he promised or at the very least inferred that he was going to commit a violent act. The website is just testimony to that fact, it's not a freedom of speech issue.
Ctimes2
There are limits, such as threatening to assassinate the President (which will get you life in prison if you think that is protected by 'freedom of speech'). Freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you want about your government, but the freedom of speech does not grant you the right to threaten the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of your fellow citizens. If you've got a legitimate complaint, use legitimate tactics to be heard. If you're a nut-job, don't expect a lot of people to listen however. And if you still really think this a freedom of speech issue, remember that there are plenty of other bomb making sites left on the net who have not been harrassed. Why? Because they're not nut-jobs.
This dork promised violence to two events and then apparently took steps toward carrying out those promises. He would fall under the nut-job category, so please don't try to make a freedom fighter out of him.
I hate to say it but every study ever done consistently reports that unhappy employees are more productive. While I see clearly what you're getting at, the inference is to give them whatever they want and let them do their jobs.
...are there seriously managers that would MAKE someone go to a conference? If so, find a way to get that guy fired.
What [almost] always happens is that the employee becomes complacent and decides what and when they're going to work on what, when.
So in response, I propose the following to each point you made:
1) Managers for IT are most definately supposed to drive the technical direction. They should not micro-manage the process, they should say "this project needs to have this functionality in this form, be extensible and flexible within these guidelines and be done on or before this date" and then let their people do it. And of course the date should be set with input from the team so it's attainable.
2) Way too flexible. If the employee likes to come in at 2, then his schedule should be from 2-10 (or however many hours are required for the given salary). Letting the employee work 'a reasonable amount of time' is unsatisfying for the employee and the company in the long run (feels like he/she isn't a part of the team, they just work there), chaotic to the schedule that others have to work, and creates feelings of favoritism every single time someone else is late, early, or not present. That may be great for the guy that's working it, but a manager will spend 2-4 hours a week every week maintaining relationships. Believe me, I've done this at four different companies, and it's always the same. This is the one area where the manager should be less flexible so your team knows the very basics of what you expect clearly.
3) Absolutely. BUT make sure they have one day a week spent with the rest of the team in a conference room working together (war room style). Builds relationships, knowledge, teamwork, and keeps your project on track. Laptops would be a good idea too.
4) Yep. And let them keep the books.
5)
And finally, what a good manager is about is being a leader - not 'staying out of the way' of anyone. Your job as a manager is to clear the road blocks for your team in order for them to do their jobs, and often that means getting in someone ELSE's way, even if they're on your own team.
As far as the original article goes, you'll be a good manager by treating your people like professionals, and expecting that they are. The life of a manager is balancing the needs of the company to the capabilities of your team. This industry is no different just because there's code involved. Brokers, scientists, accountants, you name it, they're all just people who are good at something (or at least think they are). If anyone gives you advice about the "special requirements" of thier position, they're milking you. Don't get stroked, because quite frankly if they're not giving you 100% on principle alone they're not worth keeping. Unless of course you only expect 90% from yourself.
Ctimes2
Is that the people who clean/work/run businesses are citizens who by definition are "1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation". A "consumer" doesn't even have to be human, it only has to consume goods, services or property.
Looks like Vermont is protecting her citizens, and 'screwing the consumer' (you didn't say it but others did). Good for them I say.
What never ceases to piss me off is the misguided logic that states that whatever is good for a corporation or company is good for the people who work for it or benefit from it (more likely other companies, corporations) and therefor good for the people. Seriously, are we talking about trickle-down freedom here? Because quite frankly, if I lose anymore of my freedom, personal information, or rights to a corporation because it "benefits everyone", I'm going to throw up and join a militia in Montana.
Ctimes2
As an abducted prize heifer I am appaled by... mmmmm... hay...
That's because it's a little hard to put a price tag on the potential of a person that is destroyed when they've been molested.
Seriously, c'mon.
First, activists are not terrorists, and that kid's no activist. My brother-in-law is an activist {PETA} and his arguments are intelligent, well researched, more than reasonable, and effective. I haven't given up meat yet, but I've cut down on milk. Thus, someone is listening to him and he's effecting change. That is what activists do.
RTF is nothing more than a dumb ass kid preaching to the disenfranchised (yeah, like that's tough). He has no real concept of anarchy, no understanding of WHY the world works the way it works (no matter how screwed up it gets), and no reasonable solution. So in effect, he's running his position on poor instinct and bad judgement. He effects no change because all he's trying to do is scare people into either buying his position or dying in the chaos of upheaval. I guess it never occured to him that most of the rest of us couldn't give a rats ass about what he thinks ("getting the message out"... what a load. Your message is out, and it sounds like a big steaming pile of crap. Now you're going to try and play the victim card & blame it on the government? Where do you come from?).
Then, he's got the balls, audacidity or insanity to claim the agencies involved used a lot of hardware - no shit sherlock. You ran a website that advocated voilence, vandalism, and had BOMB making instructions on your site. Gangs are dangerous and have guns. You have politicol motivation, half a brain (1/2 more than most local gangs), and a dangerous message with instructions on how others can perform those acts too. Plus, you broke the LAW... you... IDIOT! You bet they're coming heavily armed.
And by the way, the definition of terrorism is, and I quote "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons". How 'bout that. You're a fledgling terrorist according to the very definition of the word. Good luck to him and for the FBI, keep up the good work.
If any of you feel any sympathy for this guy, you need to evaluate whether or not that's because you agree with him or just hate the feds, because that's one *'d up kid. And I'll bet the thousands of other sites that host the same kind of information (anarchists cookbook, etc.) don't advocate or act upon an idiological soapbox, which is why this kid was nabbed.
/rant. sorry.
Boss-man? Is that you?! I thought you had conferences every week at 11 am?! son-of-a...
Thank you for not knee jerking my groin for saying so. :)
ctimes2
Your post, is, in fact, also a rib tickler. Do you have some contrived notion that we don't do the same thing because we're democratic and allow you to sue the government? Please. The abuses in America (historical and _current_) are on easily on par with the greatest villians in China, Iran, etc. Good Hell Okpool, the 'acceptable casualties' (civilians that have nothing to do with the conflict per se) in Afganistan outnumber those Americans and others who died on Sept. 11th. Justice? Please... This is a campaign by us to let the entire world know that we are not to be fucked with, no matter which oppresive regime we are supporting, no matter how many guns we sold their enemies, no matter how many BOMBS we drop on them, no matter how much CORRUPTION WE, the UNITED STATES bring to them, WE are not to be fucked with. Laughable...
I'll tell you something though, we're being asked to go about our daily lives and go back to business as usual because if the general population found out what we've been up to in the middle east they'd shit themselves silly out of anger, fear and disgust. Instead of turning a blind eye and 'letting the government do it's job', we should as a country be asking our leaders to explain WHY we were attacked - I don't mean ask 'why were we attacked?' I mean ask 'Why were we selling guns to the taliban and anti-taliban at the same time at huge mark-ups?', 'Why were we giving mis-information to both sides that we knew would make them fight each other?', 'Why are we keeping a host of American soldiers (of which I'm one by the way) in countries that are not only on "opkools" list of bad people, but countries that have no intention of being democratic?', 'Why were we paying millions to an oppressive regime, the taliban, to destroy drugs as a public service to a country (China) we don't like?'. There's some pretty good fucking reasons we keep getting attacked, a lot of our leaders know why, or have an idea but don't want to ask. They sure as hell don't want you to know about it though, and do you know why? Because it doesn't make any sense. Half the time it's for "favors".
Don't flip out on me here everyone, I'm not suggesting that we 'deserved it', or asked for it by any means. I'm saying there are a lot of people who know we aren't promoting democracy around the world because it's not feasable in the near term. So our policy is pretty much "keep them as close to dirt farmers as we can until they come around to our way of thinking". That's pissing people off. We were bombed in Kansas by one of our own because he and his buddies were pissed off at the government for some reason. Does anyone really know what those reasons were? Did it change anything? Because we didn't look very closely (as a nation) at what his gripes were (ligitimate or not) does anyone doubt that it will happen again?
Wake up is right. Champions of Freedom we may be during sweeps week, but the rest of the year we just go about our business let the government do it's job.
I had a similar dilema when I ran into smoothwall (management, etc). I restored an old pentium 133 with a 64 meg hard drive (yes, meg) and it hasn't failed yet.
My mother's getting one as soon as I can spare another hard drive to restore another old box.
Nice work Smoothwall. And nice response! LOL!
Ctimes2