What do you think we are doing now? The NSA is just a hodpodge of Northrup, Lockheed, and Boeing, SAIC, and CSC. Oh, wait, you can't check up on this. If you ask they won't tell you, not that it's secret. I would look up the above companies if you don't believe me.
Let me fill you suckers in on a little secret. The NSA is run by the Government. The Government doesn't know the meaning of the words efficient or effective. The only government operations which SEEM efficient are the ones they refuse to tell you anything about.
Realize that much of what is classified is classified to cover someone's ass, and not due to national security concerns. Imagine if your company could classify information it didn't want people to know about, what would they classify? All the bad news, that's what. Notice that any and all bad news coming out of the government is directly from employees to the press, and never EVER from officials or press relations offices.
Now you know that the NSA can't even figure out how to get electricity set up so that they can power their billion dollar computers, meanwhile your company, which you consider to be run by dopes probably, has multiple plans to deal with such issues. The reason for this is simple:
The NSA does not design computers, they just buy them on contract from big companies like IBM or whoever. All they have to do is write a check. This leaves the NSA with the responsibility to plug that computer in, and they have failed at it. And you can take it as a fact that this is the case with almost all government projects. They write a check to a contractor, and then don't have the competence to use what they bought.
Hmm. Which one of Rushdie's freedoms were threatened? His right to speech? Nope, he published several worldwide best selling books.
The radical islamists threatened his safety.
Think about what you are actually saying. You are saying that to have freedom, you must be alive. Therefore, you argue, a threat to life is a threat to freedom.
This is an amazingly aweful argument.
One way to analyze an argument is to change some of the objects around, but so that the logic of the argument stands. If you do this and the argument says something absurd, the implication of the argument is false (not the conclusion, the implication. That is to say that the result of the argument might still be true, but it might be false, and your argument doesn't help us to figure out which one at all because it is bogus.)
So, your argument is that if terrorists threaten your safety, they are threatening your freedom, since you have to be alive to excersize your freedom.
Food poisoning kills many more people per year than terrorism, no matter how you measure it. It is actually orders of magnatude more dangerous, and by dangerous I mean you are more likely to die of food poisoning than terrorist attacks.
Now, food poisioning is very different from terrorism, however, it is simmilar in that it is fairly random whether or not you are affected, and you can't do very much to avoid it, and it tends to affect groups of people all at once.
Now, using your argument, food poisoning is a threat to our freedoms. In fact, food poisong is more than ten times more of a threat to our freedoms than terrorists.
The idea that food poisoning is a threat to our freedoms is clearly absurd, therefore you have failed to show that terrorism is a threat to freedoms.
Now, it is doubly absurd that the government, to protect our 'freedoms' is violating federal law as well as the constitution.
The president has actually tried to hold a US CITIZEN who was arrested on US SOIL without access to a lawyer or a trial, and the president wanted to hold him in a military brig for an indefinite period of time. If you don't consider that a violation of the trust placed in the president, as well as a violation of his oath of office (to defend the constitution and faithfully uphold the laws of the US) then there is something wrong with you. What is wrong with you is that you think that there is some boogyman out there waiting to get you. There isn't.
America has enemies, but this is nothing new and shouldn't suprise you. There are people who want to kill you, and me. This isn't new. Frankly, there isn't any threat to our Nation. The terrorists might be able to kill Americans, but this is not new.
9/11 was not a moment when reality changed suddenly. The terrorists have been trying to get at us for years. On 9/11 they got lucky. Thanks to a combination of inept police work by the FBI and a refusal of the CIA to let anyone know about the terrorists they knew to be in the country, combined with a president who did not hold a single meeting on Al Qaeda at all until AFTER 9/11, even though he was recieving memos like the one titled 'Al Qaeda Determined to Strike Inside US' we didn't catch the terrorists before they attacked. If there were a 9/11 every single year you would still be more likely to die of Food Poisoning.
The terrorists can't 'win', they want to disrupt us and make it uncomfortable for us to continue with the policies they dislike. Even without any response by the US at all the terrorists can't win. They are very few, and they mostly pretty far away from us. All the terrorists in the world could not defeat a single brigade of US infantry. So they certainly aren't a threat like Hitler or the USSR were threats, in that they could destroy us if we didn't meet them with everything we had. The terrorists, if they were allowed to operate completely free and clear, would kill a few thousand Americans a year. This is a tragedy, but not as much of
That is just about the most fucked up analogy I've ever seen.
First of all, "real world browser usage" is some sort of average of what happens when people use browsers on internet connected computers in "the real world", which I guess means "not in a laboratory" or something. Philosophy professors would fall down in seizures if forced to listen to something that poorly defined. "Mexico" is a place. The connection here is well beyond me.
Now, are you saying that the Acid test doesn't effect "real world browser usage"? Because what does affecting "real world browser usage" even mean?
Perhaps you mean that most browser makers don't shoot for acid test compliance, and therefore browser users aren't affected by this. You are wrong, since basically all non-ie browsers are working toward acid test compliance, and khtml/konqueror/safari already pass. So you would be stupid if you thought this, and I'm certainly not calling you a stupid idiot.
Maybe you mean that the CSS tested by the acid test doesn't represent what you actually come across on the web. Now, this is accurate, but it may be a self fulfilling prophesy. Bad CSS support causes simple CSS usage, because people can't trust browsers to correctly render CSS the way it is written if they make it complex. IE has bad CSS support, therefore in "real world browser usage" people don't come across very much complex CSS. You conclude that the Acid test is irrelevant, because it test something that doesn't come up in practice. But as you see, that 'practice' is a result of the very bad CSS support the Acid test is trying to help browser makers correct.
Ok, I can't take any more ignorant comments like this one. Many many places already have underground power lines. So the doomsday explanations of 'months of down time' are bullshit.
Plus a lot of utilities are already underground, dumbshit. Does your natural gas go out for months at a time?
And you're still wrong. And yes, every scientist, who is not directly employed by a company which makes it's money through the selling of fossil fuels, agrees. Although I do not have the time or will to study for several years to be able to decide for myself, I do trust that these scientists, who have nothing to gain or lose, aren't just trying to fuck over the fuel industry. Plus, I don't believe you. If you are so experienced, why not fill us all in with your evidence that there is no global warming? Or if there is, what is the evidence that humans have caused it, and why is that evidence insufficient to convince you?
I might not ever understand the science behind Global Warming. But unlike you, I do not consider the fact that I don't understand something to be a reason to refuse to believe it.
Wait, what's this? You have many years of experience!? Damn, I guess I'll have to ignore all the scientists who have put their reputations on the line asserting that global warming is real, and take your anonymous claim as factual.
Besides, I'm not an armchair progressive, I'm an armchair libertarian. At least I'm not an armchair shill for an industry who fucks over everyone who isn't a shareholder.
Here is a rundown of the Republican's philosophy:
Iraq might have WMD, therefore we have to invade them at great cost, because we need to be absolutely sure that they do not have WMD, which could cause us harm. vs. Global warming might be happening, therefore we have to refuse to do anything at all, even small things, because there isn't absolute proof. Additionally we should restrict scientists who work for the federal government so that they cannot speak to the press about global warming.
Why the different reactions from these two potential threats? There isn't a difference. The reaction in each case is "do what is beneficial to oil companies".
Scientists have proven that carbon dioxide emissions from human actions have caused the temperature of the Earth to increase. They have collected evidence which demonstrates this within the margins they find to be acceptable as proof.
Having proven it to other scientists, it is not their responsibility to now come to your house and prove it to you according to your rules, nor are they obligated to sponsor a cartoon version for your consumption. Every scientist who has studied this topic, and does not work directly for an oil company, has come to the same conclusion. There is more debate among experts about the validity of the proof of the Poincare conjecture than there is about the evidence for global warming.
However, I do not suspect that you will be persuaded by this. You will endlessly try to debate and complain about this, and you will simultaneously avoid actually studying the facts or researching more information.
You are ignorant by choice, and I hope you get full blown aids or melanoma.
I don't think you know the meaning of Beta either.
Beta is pre-release software. All the features are there, it is being polished and bugs are being tracked down. Alpha is the stage where features are added and removed, and functionality may be lacking.
Although these definitions aren't set in stone, and lately beta has been followed by 'gold beta' or 'release candidate' which is what beta used to mean anyway.
This only works as long as the representatives see their interests to be the same as ours. Because we are slowly creating a hereditary ruling class, this is not going to be the case much longer.
Yea, especially since you have exactly 3,141.59... genes.
And the distance from the base of the Great Pyramid is exactly twice the distance times 3/23 - the number of pounds in a dozen African Eliphants minus the sum of them...... you get 666! Therefore, your genes are the antichrist. We should change public policy to better fit with this.
Here's another clue, free of charge:.net was designed to be OS independant. That's why you can run.net applications (once recompiled) on Linux or OSX or whatever.
Wrong..net compiles to bytecode which can be run by any machine which has a bytcode runtime for.net. However, as soon as you use any class from the.net standard library you lose all portability. The library is encumbered..net will only run well on windows unless it is very carefully designed to be cross platform (no winforms etc).
With java you can run on any system with a java runtime, and that includes the entire API not just the bytcode interpreter.
Microsoft doesn't make a Java product, and hasn't for years. Even still, back when there was a choice between the MS Java interpreter and Sun's, I always chose MS'. It was faster, used less memory, and more stable.
...and only ran on windows, and intentionally broke compatability with sun's java. Since java was slow at that time, and had no JIT, this destroyed the only advantage java had. Coincidently, it slowed down adoption of Java, which gave microsoft time to come out with.net which you seem to love so much without knowing anything about.
And asp does have some 'features' which only work with IE. Look it up in between giving Bill Gates back massages.
Right, this tactic would only be used by the childish.
Microsoft would never try to prevent other browsers from using a websites functionality (activeX) or intentionally break websites for people who don't use some specific MS product (ms java). Their web applications always render on whatever browser (asp) and they go out of their way to make their technologies OS independant (.net)
This is a complex issue, and a knee jerk reaction just proved how incapable people are of thinking through the issues.
I've thought long and hard about this, I have thought it through. The government is breaking it's our laws, and is being aided by a corporation which is also breaking our law. It is about to invoke a law which allows the government, in this case, to prevent the government's own lawbreaking from being exposed.
In what universe does the person who stands to lose from a lawsuit also get to be the party which determines whether or not a lawsuit can go forward?
This is the height of irony. The government is using a law to prevent the exposure of the breaking of a law.
Who decides whether or not the government is allowed to do this? That's what I want to know. Do they have to at least convince the judge with more than their claim of national interest? Or can the powers that be just send a loyal friend to tell the judge to drop the case?
In order to build avionics you aren't required to make a system that interoperates with airbuses equipment, jerk.
This situation is more like airbus making the aircraft control radar and the airplanes, and then intentionally making it as hard as they can for other airplanes to show up on the radar system. Then in the event that someone makes a plane that can work with their radar system, they change things around in the next version so that it doesn't work anymore. And maybe they add a little code to detect competing airplane companies and delete them from the radar screen, or make them crash.
People aren't asking Microsoft to buy or use other peoples technology. They are just asking that Microsoft not illegally and intentionally torpedo other software from working with theirs and using their monopoly to do keep others from competing.
The red cones in your eye react more slowly than the other color receptors. Therefore when you are looking at the red led, which is a pure red light surrounded by darkness (not common in nature btw) what you are actually seeing is the vibration due to the crunch momentarily after they happen. Your brain adjusts so that you do not notice the vibration in your vision, except it cannot take into account the slight delay in the red cones. Therefore the red light appears to jump around.
Why is it that every time Bush does something stupid and wrong the chant of 'Clinton Clinton!' starts?
Do republicans really believe that it is a defense of dishonesty to point out dishonesty in others? Or a defense of bad policy to say 'they did it first!'?
I would point out that 2 wrongs don't make a right, but 300 republicans would reply to my post saying 'Clinton did 2 wrongs and they weren't right!!!!!!!!1'.
This is how low the republicans have sunk. They are a national laughingstock and disgrace, and the only thing they are willing to do to repair their image is to talk about crap that happened between 6 and 14 years ago.
However, I can also remember things which happened years ago.
For example, lets look at the Republicans 'Contract with America' and see if they have kept any of the promises which helped catapult them into control in the first place.
Nope, they didn't keep a single promise, and in fact have done much the opposite of what they said.
Meanwhile the republican congress passes more spending, and more pork spending, than ever before in our history, and the republican president has not yet vetoed a single bill, and even invents huge new government programs, larger than any we've started since Johnson's 'great society' debacle. And then they make sure that most of the money in the expensive new program goes to large corporations, who coincidently are the same corporations which donate heavily to republican re-elections, and who employ a disturbing percentage of republican ex-congressman and officials (can someone say quid --several year delay-- pro quo?). Is it a coincidence that during the Clinton years Cheney was CEO Haliburton (who has recieved billions of dollars in no bid contracts, and who still owns about 400,000 options) and Rumsfeld was chairman of Gilead Sciences (makers of tamiflu, the drug known not to be effective against bird flu, which the government just bought 1 billion dollars worth, and who made 1 million dollars due to the increase in stock value due to the governments purchase.)
They have lied to the point where anyone who believes a word they say is an imbecile. There is a hotshot republican being arrested every week, and one pleading out in court every other week. They started a war we are now stuck with, knowing all along their rationale was not sound, and then botched the execution and let the country be taken over by thugs. They steered big contracts to 3rd rate companies (MZM) for cash. Has anyone even counted the number of soldiers who have been wounded, killed or scarred because of the low quality of contracting done by the crony friends of those who are now in power (MZM, Haliburton)?
There is nothing good you can say about republicans. That is why you always want to change the subject to democrats.
I was trying to say that BSD userland could not have been a replacement for GNU userland in the development of linux. Even if it could have been used, it was not used. GNU tar for example is much superior to most other implementations.
It appears that BSD could have been used for the linux kernel. Does anybody know why it wasn't?
Slashdot Mirror
What do you think we are doing now? The NSA is just a hodpodge of Northrup, Lockheed, and Boeing, SAIC, and CSC. Oh, wait, you can't check up on this. If you ask they won't tell you, not that it's secret. I would look up the above companies if you don't believe me.
You uninformed idiot. Perhaps you've never heard of http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/. IBM makes supercomputers, CRAY is a has been.
Oh, and by the way, IBM doesn't even make thinkpads anymore. http://www.lenovo.com/us/en/
So you've managed to make two claims and be wrong twice. I think I'll stick to my guns and say I'm right and you're wrong.
Let me fill you suckers in on a little secret. The NSA is run by the Government. The Government doesn't know the meaning of the words efficient or effective. The only government operations which SEEM efficient are the ones they refuse to tell you anything about.
Realize that much of what is classified is classified to cover someone's ass, and not due to national security concerns. Imagine if your company could classify information it didn't want people to know about, what would they classify? All the bad news, that's what. Notice that any and all bad news coming out of the government is directly from employees to the press, and never EVER from officials or press relations offices.
Now you know that the NSA can't even figure out how to get electricity set up so that they can power their billion dollar computers, meanwhile your company, which you consider to be run by dopes probably, has multiple plans to deal with such issues. The reason for this is simple:
The NSA does not design computers, they just buy them on contract from big companies like IBM or whoever. All they have to do is write a check.
This leaves the NSA with the responsibility to plug that computer in, and they have failed at it. And you can take it as a fact that this is the case with almost all government projects. They write a check to a contractor, and then don't have the competence to use what they bought.
What are you basing this on besides Tom Clancy novels? You idiot. Soo, sooo stupid.
Hmm. Which one of Rushdie's freedoms were threatened? His right to speech? Nope, he published several worldwide best selling books.
The radical islamists threatened his safety.
Think about what you are actually saying. You are saying that to have freedom, you must be alive. Therefore, you argue, a threat to life is a threat to freedom.
This is an amazingly aweful argument.
One way to analyze an argument is to change some of the objects around, but so that the logic of the argument stands. If you do this and the argument says something absurd, the implication of the argument is false (not the conclusion, the implication. That is to say that the result of the argument might still be true, but it might be false, and your argument doesn't help us to figure out which one at all because it is bogus.)
So, your argument is that if terrorists threaten your safety, they are threatening your freedom, since you have to be alive to excersize your freedom.
Food poisoning kills many more people per year than terrorism, no matter how you measure it. It is actually orders of magnatude more dangerous, and by dangerous I mean you are more likely to die of food poisoning than terrorist attacks.
Now, food poisioning is very different from terrorism, however, it is simmilar in that it is fairly random whether or not you are affected, and you can't do very much to avoid it, and it tends to affect groups of people all at once.
Now, using your argument, food poisoning is a threat to our freedoms. In fact, food poisong is more than ten times more of a threat to our freedoms than terrorists.
The idea that food poisoning is a threat to our freedoms is clearly absurd, therefore you have failed to show that terrorism is a threat to freedoms.
Now, it is doubly absurd that the government, to protect our 'freedoms' is violating federal law as well as the constitution.
The president has actually tried to hold a US CITIZEN who was arrested on US SOIL without access to a lawyer or a trial, and the president wanted to hold him in a military brig for an indefinite period of time. If you don't consider that a violation of the trust placed in the president, as well as a violation of his oath of office (to defend the constitution and faithfully uphold the laws of the US) then there is something wrong with you. What is wrong with you is that you think that there is some boogyman out there waiting to get you. There isn't.
America has enemies, but this is nothing new and shouldn't suprise you. There are people who want to kill you, and me. This isn't new. Frankly, there isn't any threat to our Nation. The terrorists might be able to kill Americans, but this is not new.
9/11 was not a moment when reality changed suddenly. The terrorists have been trying to get at us for years. On 9/11 they got lucky. Thanks to a combination of inept police work by the FBI and a refusal of the CIA to let anyone know about the terrorists they knew to be in the country, combined with a president who did not hold a single meeting on Al Qaeda at all until AFTER 9/11, even though he was recieving memos like the one titled 'Al Qaeda Determined to Strike Inside US' we didn't catch the terrorists before they attacked. If there were a 9/11 every single year you would still be more likely to die of Food Poisoning.
The terrorists can't 'win', they want to disrupt us and make it uncomfortable for us to continue with the policies they dislike. Even without any response by the US at all the terrorists can't win. They are very few, and they mostly pretty far away from us. All the terrorists in the world could not defeat a single brigade of US infantry. So they certainly aren't a threat like Hitler or the USSR were threats, in that they could destroy us if we didn't meet them with everything we had. The terrorists, if they were allowed to operate completely free and clear, would kill a few thousand Americans a year. This is a tragedy, but not as much of
That is just about the most fucked up analogy I've ever seen.
First of all, "real world browser usage" is some sort of average of what happens when people use browsers on internet connected computers in "the real world", which I guess means "not in a laboratory" or something. Philosophy professors would fall down in seizures if forced to listen to something that poorly defined. "Mexico" is a place. The connection here is well beyond me.
Now, are you saying that the Acid test doesn't effect "real world browser usage"? Because what does affecting "real world browser usage" even mean?
Perhaps you mean that most browser makers don't shoot for acid test compliance, and therefore browser users aren't affected by this. You are wrong, since basically all non-ie browsers are working toward acid test compliance, and khtml/konqueror/safari already pass. So you would be stupid if you thought this, and I'm certainly not calling you a stupid idiot.
Maybe you mean that the CSS tested by the acid test doesn't represent what you actually come across on the web. Now, this is accurate, but it may be a self fulfilling prophesy. Bad CSS support causes simple CSS usage, because people can't trust browsers to correctly render CSS the way it is written if they make it complex. IE has bad CSS support, therefore in "real world browser usage" people don't come across very much complex CSS. You conclude that the Acid test is irrelevant, because it test something that doesn't come up in practice. But as you see, that 'practice' is a result of the very bad CSS support the Acid test is trying to help browser makers correct.
Jeez, you rednecks need to learn your place.
Ok, I can't take any more ignorant comments like this one. Many many places already have underground power lines. So the doomsday explanations of 'months of down time' are bullshit.
...
Plus a lot of utilities are already underground, dumbshit. Does your natural gas go out for months at a time?
Jesus
"As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may aquire male and female slaves." Leviticus 25:44
"a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!" Psalms 137:9
You've got me pegged! I'm such a hypocrite!
And you're still wrong. And yes, every scientist, who is not directly employed by a company which makes it's money through the selling of fossil fuels, agrees. Although I do not have the time or will to study for several years to be able to decide for myself, I do trust that these scientists, who have nothing to gain or lose, aren't just trying to fuck over the fuel industry. Plus, I don't believe you. If you are so experienced, why not fill us all in with your evidence that there is no global warming? Or if there is, what is the evidence that humans have caused it, and why is that evidence insufficient to convince you?
I might not ever understand the science behind Global Warming. But unlike you, I do not consider the fact that I don't understand something to be a reason to refuse to believe it.
Wait, what's this? You have many years of experience!? Damn, I guess I'll have to ignore all the scientists who have put their reputations on the line asserting that global warming is real, and take your anonymous claim as factual.
Besides, I'm not an armchair progressive, I'm an armchair libertarian. At least I'm not an armchair shill for an industry who fucks over everyone who isn't a shareholder.
Here is a rundown of the Republican's philosophy:
Iraq might have WMD, therefore we have to invade them at great cost, because we need to be absolutely sure that they do not have WMD, which could cause us harm.
vs.
Global warming might be happening, therefore we have to refuse to do anything at all, even small things, because there isn't absolute proof. Additionally we should restrict scientists who work for the federal government so that they cannot speak to the press about global warming.
Why the different reactions from these two potential threats? There isn't a difference. The reaction in each case is "do what is beneficial to oil companies".
To: Guy with selective hearing.
Scientists have proven that carbon dioxide emissions from human actions have caused the temperature of the Earth to increase. They have collected evidence which demonstrates this within the margins they find to be acceptable as proof.
Having proven it to other scientists, it is not their responsibility to now come to your house and prove it to you according to your rules, nor are they obligated to sponsor a cartoon version for your consumption. Every scientist who has studied this topic, and does not work directly for an oil company, has come to the same conclusion. There is more debate among experts about the validity of the proof of the Poincare conjecture than there is about the evidence for global warming.
However, I do not suspect that you will be persuaded by this. You will endlessly try to debate and complain about this, and you will simultaneously avoid actually studying the facts or researching more information.
You are ignorant by choice, and I hope you get full blown aids or melanoma.
Signed,
Another Guy
I don't think you know the meaning of Beta either.
Beta is pre-release software. All the features are there, it is being polished and bugs are being tracked down. Alpha is the stage where features are added and removed, and functionality may be lacking.
Although these definitions aren't set in stone, and lately beta has been followed by 'gold beta' or 'release candidate' which is what beta used to mean anyway.
TFB
If you are dumb enough to pay double taxes when you don't have to then I appriciate your "generosity through stupidity" TM.
This only works as long as the representatives see their interests to be the same as ours. Because we are slowly creating a hereditary ruling class, this is not going to be the case much longer.
Yea, especially since you have exactly 3,141.59... genes.
... you get 666! Therefore, your genes are the antichrist. We should change public policy to better fit with this.
And the distance from the base of the Great Pyramid is exactly twice the distance times 3/23 - the number of pounds in a dozen African Eliphants minus the sum of them...
Linus Torvalds says KDE is much better than Genome.
Wrong.
With java you can run on any system with a java runtime, and that includes the entire API not just the bytcode interpreter.
And asp does have some 'features' which only work with IE. Look it up in between giving Bill Gates back massages.
Right, this tactic would only be used by the childish.
Microsoft would never try to prevent other browsers from using a websites functionality (activeX) or intentionally break websites for people who don't use some specific MS product (ms java). Their web applications always render on whatever browser (asp) and they go out of their way to make their technologies OS independant (.net)
I've thought long and hard about this, I have thought it through. The government is breaking it's our laws, and is being aided by a corporation which is also breaking our law. It is about to invoke a law which allows the government, in this case, to prevent the government's own lawbreaking from being exposed.
In what universe does the person who stands to lose from a lawsuit also get to be the party which determines whether or not a lawsuit can go forward?
This is the height of irony. The government is using a law to prevent the exposure of the breaking of a law.
Who decides whether or not the government is allowed to do this? That's what I want to know. Do they have to at least convince the judge with more than their claim of national interest? Or can the powers that be just send a loyal friend to tell the judge to drop the case?
OHHHH!!! The holier than thou disdain! It buuuuuuurns.
What's it like to be good at making other people feel bad, but nothing else? You must be very unhappy.
In order to build avionics you aren't required to make a system that interoperates with airbuses equipment, jerk.
This situation is more like airbus making the aircraft control radar and the airplanes, and then intentionally making it as hard as they can for other airplanes to show up on the radar system. Then in the event that someone makes a plane that can work with their radar system, they change things around in the next version so that it doesn't work anymore. And maybe they add a little code to detect competing airplane companies and delete them from the radar screen, or make them crash.
People aren't asking Microsoft to buy or use other peoples technology. They are just asking that Microsoft not illegally and intentionally torpedo other software from working with theirs and using their monopoly to do keep others from competing.
That's the answer that was told to me. I'm sorry I upset you so much.
The red cones in your eye react more slowly than the other color receptors. Therefore when you are looking at the red led, which is a pure red light surrounded by darkness (not common in nature btw) what you are actually seeing is the vibration due to the crunch momentarily after they happen. Your brain adjusts so that you do not notice the vibration in your vision, except it cannot take into account the slight delay in the red cones. Therefore the red light appears to jump around.
Why is it that every time Bush does something stupid and wrong the chant of 'Clinton Clinton!' starts?
Do republicans really believe that it is a defense of dishonesty to point out dishonesty in others? Or a defense of bad policy to say 'they did it first!'?
I would point out that 2 wrongs don't make a right, but 300 republicans would reply to my post saying 'Clinton did 2 wrongs and they weren't right!!!!!!!!1'.
This is how low the republicans have sunk. They are a national laughingstock and disgrace, and the only thing they are willing to do to repair their image is to talk about crap that happened between 6 and 14 years ago.
However, I can also remember things which happened years ago.
For example, lets look at the Republicans 'Contract with America' and see if they have kept any of the promises which helped catapult them into control in the first place.
http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
Nope, they didn't keep a single promise, and in fact have done much the opposite of what they said.
Meanwhile the republican congress passes more spending, and more pork spending, than ever before in our history, and the republican president has not yet vetoed a single bill, and even invents huge new government programs, larger than any we've started since Johnson's 'great society' debacle. And then they make sure that most of the money in the expensive new program goes to large corporations, who coincidently are the same corporations which donate heavily to republican re-elections, and who employ a disturbing percentage of republican ex-congressman and officials (can someone say quid --several year delay-- pro quo?). Is it a coincidence that during the Clinton years Cheney was CEO Haliburton (who has recieved billions of dollars in no bid contracts, and who still owns about 400,000 options) and Rumsfeld was chairman of Gilead Sciences (makers of tamiflu, the drug known not to be effective against bird flu, which the government just bought 1 billion dollars worth, and who made 1 million dollars due to the increase in stock value due to the governments purchase.)
They have lied to the point where anyone who believes a word they say is an imbecile. There is a hotshot republican being arrested every week, and one pleading out in court every other week. They started a war we are now stuck with, knowing all along their rationale was not sound, and then botched the execution and let the country be taken over by thugs. They steered big contracts to 3rd rate companies (MZM) for cash. Has anyone even counted the number of soldiers who have been wounded, killed or scarred because of the low quality of contracting done by the crony friends of those who are now in power (MZM, Haliburton)?
There is nothing good you can say about republicans. That is why you always want to change the subject to democrats.
Fair enough.
I was trying to say that BSD userland could not have been a replacement for GNU userland in the development of linux. Even if it could have been used, it was not used. GNU tar for example is much superior to most other implementations.
It appears that BSD could have been used for the linux kernel. Does anybody know why it wasn't?