Are you aware that nothing they are doing is against any laws? And IMO it should stay that way. There is no constitutional right to surf the net anonymously.
Incorrect. Native mode IDE addressing has been around for a while now, and it is supported by most OS's now, and it is also supported in ICH5. You can have all 6 IDE devices (4 PATA, 2 SATA) with ICH5 without any address or interrupt conflicts.
I think this chip is just the first step in the transition from PATA to SATA- Intel never goes cold turkey on replacement technologies. It still has both PATA channels, plus the 2 SATA channels. That means you can have up to 6 ATA devices with this chipset.
Thats very unlikely, actually. In fact, I don't know of any integrated peripherals in Intel chipsets that are really on the PCI bus. From a software perspective, it has PCI cfg space addresses, but in reality it is nowhere near the PCI bus. The only bandwidth limitation that you need to worry about is the bandwidth between the southbridge and the northbridge.
How is this anti-competitive? VIA can still compete with Intel- look at how AMD has done with incompatible pinouts.
Intel spends lots of money developing the bus protocols and pin outs, and that is largely responsible for Intel's slight performance edge. I see no reason why they should blindly give that technology away.
Ahh- yes. Chomsky's debate tactic: "I'm right because everybody that disagrees with me is ignorant and being misled by a huge government/media/corporate America conspiracy."
That's a convenient way for Katherine Harris to evade responsibility.
Katherine Harris had nothing to do with the law. You might recall from 6th grade civics that the legislature writes the laws, not the Secretary of State. How you could interpret that as Harris trying to "evade responsibility" is beyond me.
But Palast obtained documents showing that Harris' office had written "Not neccessary" over a list of checks to be performed.
They weren't necessary for what the list was intended for. The list was intended to cast as wide of a net as possible and let the county supervisors sort it out.
This was a deliberate attempt to disenfrashise people of color.
Well, the NAACP, who was brought in to represent these minority voters, disagrees. From page 1 of the settlement, "Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants acted in a purposefully discriminatory manner toward any group."
The NAACP filed suit over the sloppy implementation of the list, but they conceded that Florida had fixed almost everything that they wanted before the suit was filed.
Seriously- Greg Palast is just blowing smoke to satisfy some personal vendetta against Bush. There is nothing to this story of substance.
This series from a reporter that managed to get inside of Iraq is pretty interesting. That link is to part 2 of the daily series. Notice that no matter how critical that guy is about the US, when the bullets start flying, there is no doubt in his mind who the good guys and the bad guys are.
Katherine Harris was both George W's presidentail campaign co-chair and Florida secretary of state in charge of elections ie who was allowed to be on the roll and vote counting. No conflict of interest here?
Every single decision she made followed the law and held up under international scrutiny.
Katherine had anyone "suspected" of commiting a felon removed from the rolls
I assume you got this from the BBC's Greg Palast since he is really the only person that thinks this is a story. A quick look at his webpage will show you how partial he is (he seems to have staked his entire career on undermining the Bush presidency). Now for the real facts:
In 1998, after it was discovered that there was widespread fraud in the Mayoral elections in 1997 (several dead people and convicted felons ended up voting), the Florida Legislature (not Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush) passed a statute designed to prevent that from happening again (that link might not work- looks like the server is down).
The statute called for a statewide list of potential felons to be compiled. This list was passed to the election supervisors in every county.
The county elections supervisors were not even required to use the list at all, but if they did decide to use it, they (the county supervisors, not Catherine Harris) were required to verify the names as actual felons before they were removed from the voter registration. Therefore, if somebody was incorrectly removed from the voter registration, it was the county supervisor's fault.
If somebody was removed from the voter registration based on the list, they were given written notice months before the election with a procedure to dispute the removal
In 1998, Florida Division of Elections Director Ethel Baxter, a democrat, hired the firm Database Technologies to compile this list. The list had around 100,000 names on it.
One of these "supposed felons" was Linda Howell, elections supervisor of Madison County, Florida. The only way to get back on the roll was to agree to fingerprinting. Ie guilty until "proven" innocent.
Once again, nobody was required to use the list (several counties including Madison County didn't use it at all), but if they did use the list, they were required to independently verify the names before any action was taken. The fingerprinting was only required to dispute the removal if the person actually was "verified" by the county supervisor and removed from the voter registration- otherwise they probably never knew they were on the list. With all of his complaining, Mr Palast has only found about a half a dozen people that were incorrectly removed from voter registrations and forced to dispute the removal. So it boils down to this:
An unknown number of innocent people were put on the original list of 100,000 names
Of that unknown number, an unknown number lived in counties that actually used the list
Of that unknown number, an unknown number were actually removed from the voter registration lists by the county election supervisor
Of that unknown number, an unknown number failed to dispute the removal
and of that unknown number, less than 50% turned out to vote anyway (general voter turnout)
There is only anecdotal evidence that any legitimate voter was actually prevented from voting because of this list. Rep Corrine Brown, a democrat, claimed that she saw "2 or 3" black people get incorrectly turned away, but when the media pressed her, she was unable to give any details. So were minority voters specifically targeted? The NAACP, who came in to represent these minorities, stated VERY plainly in this settlement that
chemical and nuclear plants?? SO far to the best of my knowledge, we found *nothing*.
Exactly. That is why UNMOVIC refers to these weapons as 'unaccounted'. For the past 12 years, Iraq has been required to prove the destruction of the weapons that we know they have. In the absense of this proof, we must assume they still have them.
so far pretty much no help has come through to the people of Iraq.
Look at the reasons why, and you will see that the blame for that rests solely on the Iraqi regime.
Your argument is based on a false premise- that the coalition is acting without UN approval. We have 17 resolutions spanning 12 years that were passed under chapter 7 of the charter. These resolutions by definition give UN authorization for the use of force.
If France wants to withdraw its support for the previous resolutions, then why don't they follow the procedure defined in the UN charter and propose a new resolution to that effect? They haven't done that. Instead they seem hell bent on sidestepping their responsibilities under chapter 7 of the charter.
The integrity of the UN is based on its willingness to stand by its own decisions. France's refusal to enforce these resolutions completely undermines the already questionable usefulness of the Security Council.
The fact that everybody wants Iraq to disarm does not give the US a blank check to enforce it through an unauthorized war.
Everybody just didn't start saying "We want Iraq to disarm." The security council passed 17 resolutions under chapter 7 of the charter requiring Iraq to disarm. By definition, chapter 7 resolutions authorize the use of force.
Let me reiterate: the will of any state with veto power in the UN is the will of the UN, by design.
The threat of a veto on the 18th resolution doesnt negate their approval of the prior 17 resolutions.
I'm sorry, but that is one of the dumbest responses I have ever read. It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, but let me try to help.
if you have one apple, and you destroy that apple, how many apples do you have?
Once again, not even France is claiming to know where all of the weapons are. Hans Blix refers to large amounts of anthrax and Vx that are "unaccounted for." True, we know Saddam did use some against Iran (a number that was greatly inflated in the UN declaration, btw). He also used some chemical weapons against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. He also destroyed some banned weapons in the presence of inspectors after the Gulf War. But there are a lot more that we just don't know what happened to them.
To put this in perspective, pre-Gulf War estimates were that Iraq had enough Anthrax to kill everybody on the planet 3 times. It is not trivial to destroy Anthrax, and so if it was destroyed, we should be able to easily verify it.
but they still haven't found any evidence to say that iraq still has any of their weapons
The burden of proof was on Saddam to account for the weapons we know he had. Are you suggesting that amid numerous UN resolutions, intense international scrutiny, and weapons inspections, Saddam decided to secretly destroy these weapons without documenting it?
watching the news last night, i didn't hear any reports of iraq firing any weapons at anyone, even though the air raid sirens went off 3 times in kuwait city.
the bottom line is this. you do not know that iraq has these so-called weapons of mass destruction.
What are you talking about? We know for sure that Saddam had them. Hell, we have even seen him use them! What we don't know, however, is if he destroyed them.
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the UN resolutions and the role that UNMOVIC was supposed to play. The inspectors were not there to play detective and try to find the weapons. They were there to verify, with Iraqi cooperation, that the weapons that we know he had have been destroyed. Nobody, not even Hans Blix or France, is claiming that has happened.
That is the total number of casualties since January 2003, and not just from the current military action.
The word casualty means injuries as well as deaths. They claim to only report deaths, but it looks like they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means.
Why don't they count the number of civilian Iraqi casualties from Saddam's regime as well? That has been the biggest source of pain and death for the Iraqi people over the past 20 years.
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Yes- I have read that article by Greg Palast.
First, ask yourself if the author of that article is really objective when it comes to President Bush. It looks like he has staked his career on undermining the Bush Presidency. Surprizingly enough, he is the only one making these claims- it was never picked up by other "mainstream" media. There is a good reason for this- it is a complete non-story. In fact, Salon.com ran a correction 15 days after that story for some of the untrue things in the article (Catherine Harris did not hire the firm).
I mean the African Americans that brother Jeb Bush struck off the register for having names that *sounded like* convicted felons.
Ok- lets start out with the blatent lies in that statement. Jeb Bush had nothing to do with the story. In 1998, after discovering widespread fraud in the elections where several conviced felons and dead people ended up voting, the Florida Legislature passed a law (yes, the legislative branch makes the laws, not the Governor) that called for the creation of a statewide list of possible felons. That year, Florida Division of Elections Director Ethel Baxter, a democrat, hired the firm Database Technologies to compile the list. The list had around 100,000 names on it.
The Florida statute stated that this list was to be sent to each county elections board as a guideline. The counties were not required to use the list (many chose not to use it at all), but they were required to verify the accuracy of the names on the list if they did decide to use it. Therefore, if a voter was incorrectly struck from the voter registration, by law it is the county supervisor's fault, and not Catherine Harris' or Jeb Bush's fault.
Now, every voter that was removed from the voter registration based on this law was notified months in advance and given a procedure to dispute the removal. Greg Palast was only able to find 5 or 6 people that claim this was the case (they were incorrectly removed, so they had to dispute). Aside from that, there is only anectodal evidence of innocent people actually losing their vote (Rep Corrine Brown, a democrat, claimed that she saw "2 or 3" black people get incorrectly turned away, but when the media pressed her, she was unable to give any details).
So it boils down to this:
An unknown number of innocent people were put on the original list of 100,000 names
Of that unknown number, an unknown number lived in counties that actually used the list
Of that unknown number, an unknown number were actually removed from the voter registration lists by the county election supervisor
Of that unknown number, an unknown number failed to dispute the removal
and of that unknown number, less than 50% turned out to vote anyway (general voter turnout)
Really- there is NOTHING to this story.
So were minority voters specifically targeted? The NAACP, who came in to represent these minorities, stated VERY plainly in this settlement that there is no allegation of discrimination or misconduct in regards to this voter list. They did file suit because of the sloppy implementation of the list, but they admitted that most of the changes that they were seeking were already implemented by the state of Florida by the time the suit was filed.
If innocent people were prevented from voting, that is a tragedy, but it is not the huge scandal that Mr Palast wants it to be. It also has nothing to do with the parent's claim about the US Supreme Court.
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
What election were you watching? The Supreme Court did not "install" the President. Florida Law required the vote to be certified by November 26th- those were the rules going into the "game". Vice President Gore tried to change those rules in the middle of the contest by extending the deadline. The US Supreme Court rightfully ruled that unconstitutional.
With the B2 bomber and JADM precision guided weapons, a bombing raid that took 10,000 troops to support in WWII can now be carried out by 2 people. Technology has eliminated the need for a draft.
yet in terms of per capita consumption, Utah county has the highest rate of cable porn subscription in the nation.
My bullcrap-meter is pegging. I'd like to know how you can make that claim, especially considering how secretive the companies are about their adult entertainment revenues.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm aware.
Are you aware that nothing they are doing is against any laws? And IMO it should stay that way. There is no constitutional right to surf the net anonymously.
a company notorious for trampling people's privacy rights
Exactly which "rights" has doubleclick violated? Do you really want the government to regulate how and when sites can use cookies?
Incorrect. Native mode IDE addressing has been around for a while now, and it is supported by most OS's now, and it is also supported in ICH5. You can have all 6 IDE devices (4 PATA, 2 SATA) with ICH5 without any address or interrupt conflicts.
I think this chip is just the first step in the transition from PATA to SATA- Intel never goes cold turkey on replacement technologies. It still has both PATA channels, plus the 2 SATA channels. That means you can have up to 6 ATA devices with this chipset.
Thats very unlikely, actually. In fact, I don't know of any integrated peripherals in Intel chipsets that are really on the PCI bus. From a software perspective, it has PCI cfg space addresses, but in reality it is nowhere near the PCI bus. The only bandwidth limitation that you need to worry about is the bandwidth between the southbridge and the northbridge.
AFAIR, you can design SATA to have more than one device per channel.
No you can't, and you never will be able to. The design of the protocol makes it impossible.
How is this anti-competitive? VIA can still compete with Intel- look at how AMD has done with incompatible pinouts.
Intel spends lots of money developing the bus protocols and pin outs, and that is largely responsible for Intel's slight performance edge. I see no reason why they should blindly give that technology away.
Ahh- yes. Chomsky's debate tactic:
"I'm right because everybody that disagrees with me is ignorant and being misled by a huge government/media/corporate America conspiracy."
And he wonders why nobody takes him seriously?
That's a convenient way for Katherine Harris to evade responsibility.
Katherine Harris had nothing to do with the law. You might recall from 6th grade civics that the legislature writes the laws, not the Secretary of State. How you could interpret that as Harris trying to "evade responsibility" is beyond me.
But Palast obtained documents showing that Harris' office had written "Not neccessary" over a list of checks to be performed.
They weren't necessary for what the list was intended for. The list was intended to cast as wide of a net as possible and let the county supervisors sort it out.
This was a deliberate attempt to disenfrashise people of color.
Well, the NAACP, who was brought in to represent these minority voters, disagrees. From page 1 of the settlement, "Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants acted in a purposefully discriminatory manner toward any group."
The NAACP filed suit over the sloppy implementation of the list, but they conceded that Florida had fixed almost everything that they wanted before the suit was filed.
Seriously- Greg Palast is just blowing smoke to satisfy some personal vendetta against Bush. There is nothing to this story of substance.
So is this Saudi news site not good enough?
http://www.arabnews.com
This series from a reporter that managed to get inside of Iraq is pretty interesting. That link is to part 2 of the daily series. Notice that no matter how critical that guy is about the US, when the bullets start flying, there is no doubt in his mind who the good guys and the bad guys are.
Katherine Harris was both George W's presidentail campaign co-chair and Florida secretary of state in charge of elections ie who was allowed to be on the roll and vote counting. No conflict of interest here?
Every single decision she made followed the law and held up under international scrutiny.
Katherine had anyone "suspected" of commiting a felon removed from the rolls
I assume you got this from the BBC's Greg Palast since he is really the only person that thinks this is a story. A quick look at his webpage will show you how partial he is (he seems to have staked his entire career on undermining the Bush presidency).
Now for the real facts:
In 1998, Florida Division of Elections Director Ethel Baxter, a democrat, hired the firm Database Technologies to compile this list. The list had around 100,000 names on it.
One of these "supposed felons" was Linda Howell, elections supervisor of Madison County, Florida. The only way to get back on the roll was to agree to fingerprinting. Ie guilty until "proven" innocent.
Once again, nobody was required to use the list (several counties including Madison County didn't use it at all), but if they did use the list, they were required to independently verify the names before any action was taken. The fingerprinting was only required to dispute the removal if the person actually was "verified" by the county supervisor and removed from the voter registration- otherwise they probably never knew they were on the list. With all of his complaining, Mr Palast has only found about a half a dozen people that were incorrectly removed from voter registrations and forced to dispute the removal.
So it boils down to this:
There is only anecdotal evidence that any legitimate voter was actually prevented from voting because of this list. Rep Corrine Brown, a democrat, claimed that she saw "2 or 3" black people get incorrectly turned away, but when the media pressed her, she was unable to give any details.
So were minority voters specifically targeted? The NAACP, who came in to represent these minorities, stated VERY plainly in this settlement that
chemical and nuclear plants?? SO far to the best of my knowledge, we found *nothing*.
Exactly. That is why UNMOVIC refers to these weapons as 'unaccounted'. For the past 12 years, Iraq has been required to prove the destruction of the weapons that we know they have. In the absense of this proof, we must assume they still have them.
so far pretty much no help has come through to the people of Iraq.
Look at the reasons why, and you will see that the blame for that rests solely on the Iraqi regime.
Your argument is based on a false premise- that the coalition is acting without UN approval. We have 17 resolutions spanning 12 years that were passed under chapter 7 of the charter. These resolutions by definition give UN authorization for the use of force.
If France wants to withdraw its support for the previous resolutions, then why don't they follow the procedure defined in the UN charter and propose a new resolution to that effect? They haven't done that. Instead they seem hell bent on sidestepping their responsibilities under chapter 7 of the charter.
The integrity of the UN is based on its willingness to stand by its own decisions. France's refusal to enforce these resolutions completely undermines the already questionable usefulness of the Security Council.
The fact that everybody wants Iraq to disarm does not give the US a blank check to enforce it through an unauthorized war.
Everybody just didn't start saying "We want Iraq to disarm." The security council passed 17 resolutions under chapter 7 of the charter requiring Iraq to disarm. By definition, chapter 7 resolutions authorize the use of force.
Let me reiterate: the will of any state with veto power in the UN is the will of the UN, by design.
The threat of a veto on the 18th resolution doesnt negate their approval of the prior 17 resolutions.
Windows does have 64 bit support for IA64. Just not x86-64.
I'm sorry, but that is one of the dumbest responses I have ever read. It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, but let me try to help.
i d=12760939&method=full&siteid=89488 m N ews&storyID=2423930
if you have one apple, and you destroy that apple, how many apples do you have?
Once again, not even France is claiming to know where all of the weapons are. Hans Blix refers to large amounts of anthrax and Vx that are "unaccounted for." True, we know Saddam did use some against Iran (a number that was greatly inflated in the UN declaration, btw). He also used some chemical weapons against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. He also destroyed some banned weapons in the presence of inspectors after the Gulf War. But there are a lot more that we just don't know what happened to them.
To put this in perspective, pre-Gulf War estimates were that Iraq had enough Anthrax to kill everybody on the planet 3 times. It is not trivial to destroy Anthrax, and so if it was destroyed, we should be able to easily verify it.
but they still haven't found any evidence to say that iraq still has any of their weapons
The burden of proof was on Saddam to account for the weapons we know he had. Are you suggesting that amid numerous UN resolutions, intense international scrutiny, and weapons inspections, Saddam decided to secretly destroy these weapons without documenting it?
watching the news last night, i didn't hear any reports of iraq firing any weapons at anyone, even though the air raid sirens went off 3 times in kuwait city.
Surprise, surprise. He still has banned missiles.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/page.cfm?object
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2870941.st
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=top
the bottom line is this. you do not know that iraq has these so-called weapons of mass destruction.
What are you talking about? We know for sure that Saddam had them. Hell, we have even seen him use them! What we don't know, however, is if he destroyed them.
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the UN resolutions and the role that UNMOVIC was supposed to play. The inspectors were not there to play detective and try to find the weapons. They were there to verify, with Iraqi cooperation, that the weapons that we know he had have been destroyed. Nobody, not even Hans Blix or France, is claiming that has happened.
That is the total number of casualties since January 2003, and not just from the current military action.
The word casualty means injuries as well as deaths. They claim to only report deaths, but it looks like they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means.
Why don't they count the number of civilian Iraqi casualties from Saddam's regime as well? That has been the biggest source of pain and death for the Iraqi people over the past 20 years.
First, ask yourself if the author of that article is really objective when it comes to President Bush. It looks like he has staked his career on undermining the Bush Presidency. Surprizingly enough, he is the only one making these claims- it was never picked up by other "mainstream" media. There is a good reason for this- it is a complete non-story. In fact, Salon.com ran a correction 15 days after that story for some of the untrue things in the article (Catherine Harris did not hire the firm).
I mean the African Americans that brother Jeb Bush struck off the register for having names that *sounded like* convicted felons.
Ok- lets start out with the blatent lies in that statement. Jeb Bush had nothing to do with the story. In 1998, after discovering widespread fraud in the elections where several conviced felons and dead people ended up voting, the Florida Legislature passed a law (yes, the legislative branch makes the laws, not the Governor) that called for the creation of a statewide list of possible felons. That year, Florida Division of Elections Director Ethel Baxter, a democrat, hired the firm Database Technologies to compile the list. The list had around 100,000 names on it.
The Florida statute stated that this list was to be sent to each county elections board as a guideline. The counties were not required to use the list (many chose not to use it at all), but they were required to verify the accuracy of the names on the list if they did decide to use it. Therefore, if a voter was incorrectly struck from the voter registration, by law it is the county supervisor's fault, and not Catherine Harris' or Jeb Bush's fault.
Now, every voter that was removed from the voter registration based on this law was notified months in advance and given a procedure to dispute the removal. Greg Palast was only able to find 5 or 6 people that claim this was the case (they were incorrectly removed, so they had to dispute). Aside from that, there is only anectodal evidence of innocent people actually losing their vote (Rep Corrine Brown, a democrat, claimed that she saw "2 or 3" black people get incorrectly turned away, but when the media pressed her, she was unable to give any details).
So it boils down to this:
An unknown number of innocent people were put on the original list of 100,000 names
Of that unknown number, an unknown number lived in counties that actually used the list
Of that unknown number, an unknown number were actually removed from the voter registration lists by the county election supervisor
Of that unknown number, an unknown number failed to dispute the removal
and of that unknown number, less than 50% turned out to vote anyway (general voter turnout)
Really- there is NOTHING to this story.
So were minority voters specifically targeted? The NAACP, who came in to represent these minorities, stated VERY plainly in this settlement that there is no allegation of discrimination or misconduct in regards to this voter list. They did file suit because of the sloppy implementation of the list, but they admitted that most of the changes that they were seeking were already implemented by the state of Florida by the time the suit was filed.
If innocent people were prevented from voting, that is a tragedy, but it is not the huge scandal that Mr Palast wants it to be. It also has nothing to do with the parent's claim about the US Supreme Court.
What election were you watching? The Supreme Court did not "install" the President. Florida Law required the vote to be certified by November 26th- those were the rules going into the "game". Vice President Gore tried to change those rules in the middle of the contest by extending the deadline. The US Supreme Court rightfully ruled that unconstitutional.
With the B2 bomber and JADM precision guided weapons, a bombing raid that took 10,000 troops to support in WWII can now be carried out by 2 people. Technology has eliminated the need for a draft.
So is forcing a private company to post information that it doesn't want to post your idea of 'freedom'?
The "limiting factor" was AMD's decision to only use 40 bit addresses at first.
yet in terms of per capita consumption, Utah county has the highest rate of cable porn subscription in the nation.
My bullcrap-meter is pegging. I'd like to know how you can make that claim, especially considering how secretive the companies are about their adult entertainment revenues.