There's hidden backdoors put into non-outsourced code. Is it really so much more prevalent a case with outsource code that outsourcing should be avoided?
Can the perp really get away with it with a source revision control system in place, and the proper contract (And a properly designed network/system infrastructure)?
So, you see I'm not attacking a straw man, I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic.
Yes, you are presenting a straw man argument. I never said that a compiler was *MORE* dangerous than an interpreter. I never said it was OK to put a perl/python package on a production server. You will need to put in perl on a production server if your application has perl scripts. You DO NOT need to put in a compiler for a production application to run the application. To have a compiler on a production server means its possible to insert modified binaries. Ergo, its a bad practice to install a compiler on a production server. This is the third time I've needed to point out the obvious to you.
I don't care about what other irrelevancies you choose to bring up. It doesn't matter if bash can be made into an assembler. A compiler language still needs a compiler to produce object code, and that object code cannot be generated on the production server if there is no compiler on the production server. Duh.
My only goal was to point out how ludicrous it is to claim that a compiler on a production system is unsafe, while Perl and Python are OK.
I never claimed that it was OK to have perl or python on a production system. I stated the obvious fact that you cannot run perl without a perl interpreter, but only to make the point that if/when perl can produce compiled binaries, good practices would dictate the removal of the perl interpreter.
"If its okay to put perl on a production system, its okay to put the compiler on it too?" No, its still not. You remove any opportunity to subvert an operational protocol. You can't recompile changes to c/c++ code if there is no compiler on the machine. (duh)
Its not about "proving" a system is safe by removing an compiler, its about reducing any possibility to make unauthorized changes to a production system. If a PC has a web browser that can execute applets, its okay to design Outlook to execute applets? NO, that's the whole point.
It seems my post had the desired effect.
Yes, you are annoying me with your trollish straw man arguments; claiming I argued something that I didn't.
Now, you're emphasizing stability and testing, which I can't fault.
That has always been the crux of my posts. It was what *I* stated in my original post. Learn to read carefully or realize the stupidity of presenting a counter argument to the person who didn't make it.
You can have a sloppy system without a compiler or a well maintained one with a compiler.
So what? Having a compiler on your production machine is still an egregious practice. If you faithfully follow a production/development methodology, you don't leave opportunities to subvert it.
You're absolutely right. We all know that binary code is much more concrete than source. I mean, what can a Perl or Python program do anyway? It's not as if it could write to a filesystem, send signals to processes, or listen for network connections.
Look, any company that wants the convenience of having perl on its machine will have to deal with the consequences of it. Many places will try to limit the ability of perl to do anything for the user by chrooting it, only make it accessible to privileged processes, etc. Abiding by design constraints is just like abiding security constraints. They are not there to make life easier, and making life easier make less pleasant things possible.
Restricting production systems to compiled binaries does not mean the application is secure, anymore than adding a firewall means a network is secure. No compiler makes it harder to introduce security holes, BUT THE REAL REASON is to discourage undocumented kludges and prevent changes to a reliable system without testing those changes.
The only question here is whether your post was a lame attempt at karma whoring, or you're really too dense to understand how a regimented procedure to introduce changes to an application server improves the likelihood of reliablity.
It kills me. My mother is on the lagging end of the computer adoption trend. I'd love to get her to start using email. But how can I explain to her that she's going to have to make work for herself every day, viewing subject titles for legitimate mail that got caught by the filters, and selecting/teaching the baysian filter which email it should have caught, and what email it shouldn't have trashed? And for what, one legitimate email per week?
Any properly designed, high-availability system will not allow components to be modified on what are deemed "production" servers. Any such modifications are supposed to take place on "non-development" servers (whether you call them development or QA servers). Then (after testing) you move the modified binaries into the production server.
This rule is part of a management philosophy that is used to discourage modification of "production" systems without it having been documented and tested before putting it on a machine where an coding error can cost you millions of dollars. This also helps to avoid discovering that the source code does not correspond to the binaries on your production server because some lazy, idiot programmer compiled the changes on the production server and now isn't working at your company anymore.
There is NO reason to install a compiler on a "production" machine under such a regimen. None of the components to the application are supposed to be created or compiled on such a machine. Making such a compiler available to users on such a machine only demonstrates the system designer or management have no clue as to how to implement a reliable system. As for the rhetorical question on adding bash, perl & python, bash is a command shell and is unlikely to be made into a tool that can be used to modify production application components. Perl & python are interpreted languages, and such if the application depended on perl or python, you would have to install them. If/when perl & python can be used to generate binary code, then good system management practices would discourage the placement of perl or python on a "production" server.
Look, some people think its okay to leave around a loaded gun in the house and letting the kids know its location. I agree, the overwhelming majority will not either touch it, or commit a fatal blunder. But that's not the way the law or megacorporations look at "silly" rules.
As for gentoo, any overly cautious (AND COMPETENT) system designer/adminstrator is never going to standardize his systems on gentoo. They do not get the QA & support that a commercial distribution like Red Hat or Suse provides. "It works" or "it works fastest" is not an acceptable standard if it ensures only 99.90000 percent reliability.
Yeah, charting and budgeting time is swell, but it still leaves the problem about *what* to prioritize. i.e. - Create perl scripts to help generate the new report about project X? Or reconfigure all machines to avoid big new worm 0 that's shutting down systems acroos the internet? Or reconstruct email system to deal with recent joejob? Or implement new tool Y which will increase productivity 50%?
Sometimes you can't put off what doesn't look important. Decisions, decisions...
I was impressed too. I popped a recent version of Knoppix (7/24/03?) into my laptop, and it died with a kernel panic in the middle of the boot. Needless to say, its versatility was not what impressed me.
Might there be some relation to the fact that ST:TNG is a fictional television show, and that producers & writers are capable of making errors in execution?
And are we to "pardon" GNU for letting their FTP server 0\/\/n3d? And worse, not regularly backing it up? You keep pardoning every lapse from ubergeekness, and soon, you'll have ANARCHY! ANARCHY, I tell you! The geek sites will be overrun with MSCEs, insisting we don't need more than 640K in our machines! Its our duty to impose natural selection upon the less than geekworthy...
Clear Channel, Fox, et al are making money precisely because the public voluntarily chooses their programming.
Yes, and every year they scratch their heads trying to find an explanation for their rapidly reduced viewer audience. And they point their finger at video games and the Internet (rather than their innocuous drivel they call TV programming). Watch the media conglomerates work to make the Internet a valueless wasteland, much like current TV programming. Perhaps then, you'll start caring about the abuses of a media monopoly. But more likely you'll depend on Fox News to tell you the Internet is bad, watch more TV.
The thing about this is that Fox actually approved/funded/aired these shows in the first place.
I disagree. Its cruel to present really creative product and then just label the originators as failures. I'd prefer to think of TV as incapable of producing quality entertainment, and ignore it, than to enjoy a good start of a series and then wonder if Fox is going to kill it. In fact, I suspect that like Pavlovian indoctrination, it will cause many "quality" programs to be aborted throughout major TV networks, because they will seem to have "something in common" with those failed Fox shows. Also, its preferable for a good idea to be rejected before production, only to be produced later in better conditions. You don't see any movie box office failures given another shot. The same goes for TV shows.
And as many people have pointed out, its Fox's incompetence and/or malice that might have been the real culprit of these shows' failure to capture an audience.
Fox is a business. They need to maximize profits.
But good television is like a good play or movie. Its art; it manifests ideals and presents unique points of view which engage and enrich the viewers. Its what makes Science Fiction such a great genre of literature. Can you imagine Fox Management of today debuting Star Trek or The Twilight Zone? We're seeing good potential shows being aborted before our very eyes.
I'm certainly not suggesting Fox should somehow be regulated from killing shows. But I'll be damned if I'll praise their dedication to short term profit in their decisions to kill obvious quality, but long-term, projects. I want them to suffer the fate of any incompetently run company. Fiscal collapse when their bread & butter products become obsolete, and enough bad quarters so the shareholders sack the managements' loser asses.
Sure, corporations need to maximize profits. Don't you love they way they abandon hybrid powered cars so they can invest in producing gas-guzzling SUVs, all in the name of profit? Move jobs out to Mexico and India, and reduce the quality of product, all in the name of profit? Can you finally realize why some people are disgusted by these corporations?
Thank God for the Age of the CD-R & MPEG. At least now I can enjoy and demonstrate the Fox Channel's incompetence in programming selection. Unlike the forgotten Cupid (ABC), "Homeboys from Outer Space" (UPN), and Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse (CBS).
Oh well, just another shining example of how Fox knows how to cancel the best shows: Now i've lost my family guy AND futurama fix
Geez, lets not forget Dark Angel and Firefly. And I'm betting "Keen Eddie" will soon get the axe. I'm sure they're even more causualties. They're probably repressed memories waiting to explode on my consciousness.
And doesn't an Almighty Deity make them suffer like ABC? (for killing Cupid...)
Blame evolution. Nature, on the communal level, does not favor the timorous. Fret not, the key to the typical woman's reproductive gonads is lots of accumulated possessions...
I'm sure many readers are saying "duh, its the CPU". But actually, on my HP ZE4101 (Athlon XP-M 1500+), it seems to be generated in the area holding the SODIMMs (512MB+128MB). It appears while the CPU has its fan, there is only a metal contact plate to distribute heat from the RAM modules. It also seems that the DIMMs generate more heat than the CPU.
I was concerned that my 512MB SODIMM was defective, but I did order it from Crucial. XP only seems to get flaky when the laptop becomes abnormally warm. Is it possible that somehow heat is being transferred from the CPU to that SODIMM area? Why would DIMMs get so hot when in operation? Would it be a prudent move to get rid of the 128MB SODIMM in order to reduce a heat generator? Are there software tweaks that might reduce the need to feed current to memory?
As to the writer's question, I would think that the key is slow, low power CPU with good heat design. If you have money to spend, I'd recommend looking at a Transmeta CPU off of dynamism.com. Also, you may want to look at exotic notebooks/PDAs running off of ARM chips or other cold CPUs. Perhaps an older powerbook might do the trick. (While the G4s can't compete with heat generation from Intel/AMD CPUs, I do hear they run hot.) Finally, start googlefishing the usenet archives on laptops and heat. There are bound to be notebook users in the same climate you're in that would have an insight.
This is a myth. The U.S. was already in a position to get oil from Iraq if we wanted to ignore the oppression, torture, and murder of their people.
You have to be kidding. The US ignores oppression, torture, and murder of people all over the world. Look at Cambodia, look at East Timor, look at Rwanda. Do you even know what the hell I'm talking about? You really think the oppression of Arabs got us off our asses?
Sure Iraq would SELL us their oil, but it wouldn't be cheap, and the profits would be used to re-arm and develop strategic weapons. Because we decided to do something about their invasion of Kuwait, Iraqi's oil was going to profitable ventures for French and Russian oil companies. Not the US oil companies; that was a motivation for invasion.
Status quo: No upward blips for US Oil companies.
Invade Iraq: US Oil companies get oil at cost, markup it for profit, and US construction companies rebuild Iraq.
Get it now?
Extra credit: Which countries in Europe were against the Invasion? Why? (Hypocrisy cuts both ways.)
When he wouldn't we escalated to the next level paying for the freedom of the Iraqis with the blood of our people despite knowing we would be spat on by the rest of the world.
Talk about myths! The Iraqi people are not free. They are not permitted by US forces to decide who their leaders are, they cannot compell the US forces to leave (lord knows they've asked already), and after the US installs a puppet government, they are not going to be able to cancel the lucrative construction contracts bestowed to GWB's friends at the Iraqis' expense. The blood of American soldiers is being spilled for US corporations. Follow the money. Its human nature to spit on stupid people, particularly when they are dangerous.
And good lefties like yourself believe that the US needs to create peace between Israel and Palestine to deal with this anger, right?
Actually, I believe the US should withdraw its economic and military subsidies to Israel. It furthers Israel's interests, and its economic standard of living, but it doesn't do jack squat for me, except take money from my pocket and encourage murdering beasts to focus their their emnity towards my home. I could tolerate fiscal involvement if it could make a decisive difference in "creating" peaceful resolution. But since I don't believe that's the case, I think we should cease spending money to prop one group of people at our expense. Ironically, my sentiments were closer to George W Bush's position towards the Middle East Peace politics when he first took office. ("Stay out")
Well then did you read today's New York Times?
Is that the same paper reported that Iraq had WMD weapons? The same paper that said that Chavez stepped down in Venezuela? No, and I don't watch Fox News, or think Oliver North is an American hero either.
So, war with Iraq helps make peace between Israel and Palestinians possible. Interesting, huh?
No, I find it interesting that a Palestinian official makes a the statement that Palestinians have lost international and arab support since 9/11 and how it can be twisted to conclude that there is a peace movement in Israel because of the US invasion of Iraq. But some people are better at critical thinking than others.
California wouldn't have to consider these dimwit taxation ideas if it didn't run their state like dimwits. That includes the "three strikes" law and deregulation based on trusting capitalists' good intentions.
Well, we tried giving money away to make friends (Europe after world war two, Egypt, etc.) That didn't work very well either, considering most of them hate us too...
Actually, it worked great. The problem is that we also gave money to people like the Shah of Iran and Suharto (and Israel). And they loved us. Its the poor bastards that had to suffer under those despots because of US military aid that hated us.
The French are the French, but the rest of Europe generally loved us until the 1990's. I think it says much about their loyalty to call friend a nation that that massacres women and children (Mai Lai, Vietnam), assassinates democratically elected leaders (Allende) and installs murderous dictatorships in their place (Pinochet). (And mind you, these are not isolated incidents either.) Hell, our enemy in WWII, Germany, pretty much supported us whenever we asked for it, until Gulf War II.
Has it occured to your tiny intellect that perhaps human beings are capable of a difference of opinion? That maybe they didn't agree to help invade Iraq this time because it was merely an oil grab by the US? That muslims and latinos who get boned in the ass by the US are not going to be our friend?
With much hubris, you state that the key to international success is to make a smoldering crater of any nation that opposes us. Yet somehow, you don't consider the cost to American lives, or our prosperity, or how our living standard has gone to hell. Before the nineties, when did we have to worry about dying in a war, getting on a plane, or having a bomb go off where you live? Or become "disappeared" by the FBI/OHS. Who feels safer now that our boys are getting shot in Iraq, thanks to your philosophy of kick ass and kill, causing a record recuitment drive for Al Queda, and pushing Iran and N. Korea to produce nukes in order to get the US to back off? How is it that living worse than we did in the past is preferable because we can make our enemies more miserable?
The world has disagreed with the US before, Vietnam being the famous example. Their actions were no different than what they did this year. The difference is, as much as LBJ was a hick warmongerer, he wasn't a pinhead like GWB. They recognised the benefit of having allies, even if they didn't always support the US. LBJ and the media didn't retaliate against Europe (or Canada) and didn't invade France for withdrawing from NATO. Nor did they whine like bitches and maintain emnity with allies with spiteful actions. Perhaps, instead of acting like a petulant child, we should act in a manner that adults act when dealing with other people. This includes making nice with people we don't like, not shooting every drug user on the block (because it could be someone else's kid), and moderating our actions after taking a look at the BIG picture. It will put us in a better situation when China decides it needs to kick some ass to get some respect. And trust me, they aren't going to roll over like Iraq.
So, in a choice between my tax dollars going to Pierre or Mustapha so they can piss it away and still hate us, or spend it on nice, shiny galvanized canisters of whoop-ass (which employs a bunch of smart folk in this country to design and build) I know which way I'm going to vote.
Yeah, just make clear you'd sooner piss on Jesus than take his advice.
The thing that has kept the B-52's around for so long is not American pacifism or poverty. Its physics.
What makes the B-52 so effective is that it can carry tons of bombs to target. Its takes exponentially more energy to move that kind of tonnage faster (say supersonic speed). We can't do that. The best we could do (in previous decades) was design faster (supersonic) bombers, but they couldn't carry the same payload for the same distances. Even if we can design a bomber to carry an analogous payload to target at supersonic speeds for the same range, each bomber would be prohibitively expensive to produce. Stealth Strategic Supersonic Bomber? Bahahahahhahahaha...
More likely I think will be a hybrid ICBM missle that would be similar to what was described in the DARPA project. Or mass weapons if the Chinese/West space race gets restarted. The most likely result will be a multibillion dollar weapon system that doesn't work, much like the B-1.
The solution is not a pause button. Gulf War II took over a year to orchestrate. Hell, it takes months to build up a forward force before making an attack. You could see it coming months in advance.
No, this country needs educated, responsible citizens that understand the consequences (political, economic, and lives) of military action, and the will to look to alternate sources of information, now that the US media is owned by a few commercial military conglomerates.
It makes Christ's Second Coming a more likely event.
Slashdot Mirror
(Who cares about that wetback gringo...)
There's hidden backdoors put into non-outsourced code. Is it really so much more prevalent a case with outsource code that outsourcing should be avoided?
Can the perp really get away with it with a source revision control system in place, and the proper contract (And a properly designed network/system infrastructure)?
So, you see I'm not attacking a straw man, I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic.
Yes, you are presenting a straw man argument. I never said that a compiler was *MORE* dangerous than an interpreter. I never said it was OK to put a perl/python package on a production server. You will need to put in perl on a production server if your application has perl scripts. You DO NOT need to put in a compiler for a production application to run the application. To have a compiler on a production server means its possible to insert modified binaries. Ergo, its a bad practice to install a compiler on a production server. This is the third time I've needed to point out the obvious to you.
I don't care about what other irrelevancies you choose to bring up. It doesn't matter if bash can be made into an assembler. A compiler language still needs a compiler to produce object code, and that object code cannot be generated on the production server if there is no compiler on the production server. Duh.
My only goal was to point out how ludicrous it is to claim that a compiler on a production system is unsafe, while Perl and Python are OK.
I never claimed that it was OK to have perl or python on a production system. I stated the obvious fact that you cannot run perl without a perl interpreter, but only to make the point that if/when perl can produce compiled binaries, good practices would dictate the removal of the perl interpreter.
"If its okay to put perl on a production system, its okay to put the compiler on it too?" No, its still not. You remove any opportunity to subvert an operational protocol. You can't recompile changes to c/c++ code if there is no compiler on the machine. (duh)
Its not about "proving" a system is safe by removing an compiler, its about reducing any possibility to make unauthorized changes to a production system. If a PC has a web browser that can execute applets, its okay to design Outlook to execute applets? NO, that's the whole point.
It seems my post had the desired effect.
Yes, you are annoying me with your trollish straw man arguments; claiming I argued something that I didn't.
Now, you're emphasizing stability and testing, which I can't fault.
That has always been the crux of my posts. It was what *I* stated in my original post. Learn to read carefully or realize the stupidity of presenting a counter argument to the person who didn't make it.
You can have a sloppy system without a compiler or a well maintained one with a compiler.
So what? Having a compiler on your production machine is still an egregious practice. If you faithfully follow a production/development methodology, you don't leave opportunities to subvert it.
You're absolutely right. We all know that binary code is much more concrete than source. I mean, what can a Perl or Python program do anyway? It's not as if it could write to a filesystem, send signals to processes, or listen for network connections.
Look, any company that wants the convenience of having perl on its machine will have to deal with the consequences of it. Many places will try to limit the ability of perl to do anything for the user by chrooting it, only make it accessible to privileged processes, etc. Abiding by design constraints is just like abiding security constraints. They are not there to make life easier, and making life easier make less pleasant things possible.
Restricting production systems to compiled binaries does not mean the application is secure, anymore than adding a firewall means a network is secure. No compiler makes it harder to introduce security holes, BUT THE REAL REASON is to discourage undocumented kludges and prevent changes to a reliable system without testing those changes.
The only question here is whether your post was a lame attempt at karma whoring, or you're really too dense to understand how a regimented procedure to introduce changes to an application server improves the likelihood of reliablity.
It kills me. My mother is on the lagging end of the computer adoption trend. I'd love to get her to start using email. But how can I explain to her that she's going to have to make work for herself every day, viewing subject titles for legitimate mail that got caught by the filters, and selecting/teaching the baysian filter which email it should have caught, and what email it shouldn't have trashed? And for what, one legitimate email per week?
Any properly designed, high-availability system will not allow components to be modified on what are deemed "production" servers. Any such modifications are supposed to take place on "non-development" servers (whether you call them development or QA servers). Then (after testing) you move the modified binaries into the production server.
This rule is part of a management philosophy that is used to discourage modification of "production" systems without it having been documented and tested before putting it on a machine where an coding error can cost you millions of dollars. This also helps to avoid discovering that the source code does not correspond to the binaries on your production server because some lazy, idiot programmer compiled the changes on the production server and now isn't working at your company anymore.
There is NO reason to install a compiler on a "production" machine under such a regimen. None of the components to the application are supposed to be created or compiled on such a machine. Making such a compiler available to users on such a machine only demonstrates the system designer or management have no clue as to how to implement a reliable system. As for the rhetorical question on adding bash, perl & python, bash is a command shell and is unlikely to be made into a tool that can be used to modify production application components. Perl & python are interpreted languages, and such if the application depended on perl or python, you would have to install them. If/when perl & python can be used to generate binary code, then good system management practices would discourage the placement of perl or python on a "production" server.
Look, some people think its okay to leave around a loaded gun in the house and letting the kids know its location. I agree, the overwhelming majority will not either touch it, or commit a fatal blunder. But that's not the way the law or megacorporations look at "silly" rules.
As for gentoo, any overly cautious (AND COMPETENT) system designer/adminstrator is never going to standardize his systems on gentoo. They do not get the QA & support that a commercial distribution like Red Hat or Suse provides. "It works" or "it works fastest" is not an acceptable standard if it ensures only 99.90000 percent reliability.
Yeah, charting and budgeting time is swell, but it still leaves the problem about *what* to prioritize. i.e. - Create perl scripts to help generate the new report about project X? Or reconfigure all machines to avoid big new worm 0 that's shutting down systems acroos the internet? Or reconstruct email system to deal with recent joejob? Or implement new tool Y which will increase productivity 50%?
Sometimes you can't put off what doesn't look important. Decisions, decisions...
I was impressed too. I popped a recent version of Knoppix (7/24/03?) into my laptop, and it died with a kernel panic in the middle of the boot. Needless to say, its versatility was not what impressed me.
How much can a stinking teabag of Harrod's Earl Grey cost??? You guys make it sound that it costs more than plutonium.
Might there be some relation to the fact that ST:TNG is a fictional television show, and that producers & writers are capable of making errors in execution?
The answer and question to LtU&E is known, and that I don't like Earl Grey Tea.
And are we to "pardon" GNU for letting their FTP server 0\/\/n3d? And worse, not regularly backing it up? You keep pardoning every lapse from ubergeekness, and soon, you'll have ANARCHY! ANARCHY, I tell you! The geek sites will be overrun with MSCEs, insisting we don't need more than 640K in our machines! Its our duty to impose natural selection upon the less than geekworthy...
who the hell needs more than 266 MHz!!! christ it is so damn fast!!!
Wow, you were pals with Bill Gates???
Yes, and every year they scratch their heads trying to find an explanation for their rapidly reduced viewer audience. And they point their finger at video games and the Internet (rather than their innocuous drivel they call TV programming). Watch the media conglomerates work to make the Internet a valueless wasteland, much like current TV programming. Perhaps then, you'll start caring about the abuses of a media monopoly. But more likely you'll depend on Fox News to tell you the Internet is bad, watch more TV.
The thing about this is that Fox actually approved/funded/aired these shows in the first place.
I disagree. Its cruel to present really creative product and then just label the originators as failures. I'd prefer to think of TV as incapable of producing quality entertainment, and ignore it, than to enjoy a good start of a series and then wonder if Fox is going to kill it. In fact, I suspect that like Pavlovian indoctrination, it will cause many "quality" programs to be aborted throughout major TV networks, because they will seem to have "something in common" with those failed Fox shows. Also, its preferable for a good idea to be rejected before production, only to be produced later in better conditions. You don't see any movie box office failures given another shot. The same goes for TV shows.
And as many people have pointed out, its Fox's incompetence and/or malice that might have been the real culprit of these shows' failure to capture an audience.
Fox is a business. They need to maximize profits.
But good television is like a good play or movie. Its art; it manifests ideals and presents unique points of view which engage and enrich the viewers. Its what makes Science Fiction such a great genre of literature. Can you imagine Fox Management of today debuting Star Trek or The Twilight Zone? We're seeing good potential shows being aborted before our very eyes.
I'm certainly not suggesting Fox should somehow be regulated from killing shows. But I'll be damned if I'll praise their dedication to short term profit in their decisions to kill obvious quality, but long-term, projects. I want them to suffer the fate of any incompetently run company. Fiscal collapse when their bread & butter products become obsolete, and enough bad quarters so the shareholders sack the managements' loser asses.
Sure, corporations need to maximize profits. Don't you love they way they abandon hybrid powered cars so they can invest in producing gas-guzzling SUVs, all in the name of profit? Move jobs out to Mexico and India, and reduce the quality of product, all in the name of profit? Can you finally realize why some people are disgusted by these corporations?
Thank God for the Age of the CD-R & MPEG. At least now I can enjoy and demonstrate the Fox Channel's incompetence in programming selection. Unlike the forgotten Cupid (ABC), "Homeboys from Outer Space" (UPN), and Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse (CBS).
Oh well, just another shining example of how Fox knows how to cancel the best shows: Now i've lost my family guy AND futurama fix
Geez, lets not forget Dark Angel and Firefly. And I'm betting "Keen Eddie" will soon get the axe. I'm sure they're even more causualties. They're probably repressed memories waiting to explode on my consciousness.
And doesn't an Almighty Deity make them suffer like ABC? (for killing Cupid...)
Blame evolution. Nature, on the communal level, does not favor the timorous. Fret not, the key to the typical woman's reproductive gonads is lots of accumulated possessions...
I'm sure many readers are saying "duh, its the CPU". But actually, on my HP ZE4101 (Athlon XP-M 1500+), it seems to be generated in the area holding the SODIMMs (512MB+128MB). It appears while the CPU has its fan, there is only a metal contact plate to distribute heat from the RAM modules. It also seems that the DIMMs generate more heat than the CPU.
I was concerned that my 512MB SODIMM was defective, but I did order it from Crucial. XP only seems to get flaky when the laptop becomes abnormally warm. Is it possible that somehow heat is being transferred from the CPU to that SODIMM area? Why would DIMMs get so hot when in operation? Would it be a prudent move to get rid of the 128MB SODIMM in order to reduce a heat generator? Are there software tweaks that might reduce the need to feed current to memory?
As to the writer's question, I would think that the key is slow, low power CPU with good heat design. If you have money to spend, I'd recommend looking at a Transmeta CPU off of dynamism.com. Also, you may want to look at exotic notebooks/PDAs running off of ARM chips or other cold CPUs. Perhaps an older powerbook might do the trick. (While the G4s can't compete with heat generation from Intel/AMD CPUs, I do hear they run hot.) Finally, start googlefishing the usenet archives on laptops and heat. There are bound to be notebook users in the same climate you're in that would have an insight.
Geez, if they're going to charge US$850K per RV, you'd think they'd shell out an few extra bucks for a spiffier website...
This is a myth. The U.S. was already in a position to get oil from Iraq if we wanted to ignore the oppression, torture, and murder of their people.
You have to be kidding. The US ignores oppression, torture, and murder of people all over the world. Look at Cambodia, look at East Timor, look at Rwanda. Do you even know what the hell I'm talking about? You really think the oppression of Arabs got us off our asses?
Sure Iraq would SELL us their oil, but it wouldn't be cheap, and the profits would be used to re-arm and develop strategic weapons. Because we decided to do something about their invasion of Kuwait, Iraqi's oil was going to profitable ventures for French and Russian oil companies. Not the US oil companies; that was a motivation for invasion.
Status quo: No upward blips for US Oil companies.
Invade Iraq: US Oil companies get oil at cost, markup it for profit, and US construction companies rebuild Iraq.
Get it now?
Extra credit: Which countries in Europe were against the Invasion? Why? (Hypocrisy cuts both ways.)
When he wouldn't we escalated to the next level paying for the freedom of the Iraqis with the blood of our people despite knowing we would be spat on by the rest of the world.
Talk about myths! The Iraqi people are not free. They are not permitted by US forces to decide who their leaders are, they cannot compell the US forces to leave (lord knows they've asked already), and after the US installs a puppet government, they are not going to be able to cancel the lucrative construction contracts bestowed to GWB's friends at the Iraqis' expense. The blood of American soldiers is being spilled for US corporations. Follow the money. Its human nature to spit on stupid people, particularly when they are dangerous.
And good lefties like yourself believe that the US needs to create peace between Israel and Palestine to deal with this anger, right?
Actually, I believe the US should withdraw its economic and military subsidies to Israel. It furthers Israel's interests, and its economic standard of living, but it doesn't do jack squat for me, except take money from my pocket and encourage murdering beasts to focus their their emnity towards my home. I could tolerate fiscal involvement if it could make a decisive difference in "creating" peaceful resolution. But since I don't believe that's the case, I think we should cease spending money to prop one group of people at our expense. Ironically, my sentiments were closer to George W Bush's position towards the Middle East Peace politics when he first took office. ("Stay out")
Well then did you read today's New York Times?
Is that the same paper reported that Iraq had WMD weapons? The same paper that said that Chavez stepped down in Venezuela? No, and I don't watch Fox News, or think Oliver North is an American hero either.
So, war with Iraq helps make peace between Israel and Palestinians possible. Interesting, huh?
No, I find it interesting that a Palestinian official makes a the statement that Palestinians have lost international and arab support since 9/11 and how it can be twisted to conclude that there is a peace movement in Israel because of the US invasion of Iraq. But some people are better at critical thinking than others.
California wouldn't have to consider these dimwit taxation ideas if it didn't run their state like dimwits. That includes the "three strikes" law and deregulation based on trusting capitalists' good intentions.
Well, we tried giving money away to make friends (Europe after world war two, Egypt, etc.) That didn't work very well either, considering most of them hate us too...
Actually, it worked great. The problem is that we also gave money to people like the Shah of Iran and Suharto (and Israel). And they loved us. Its the poor bastards that had to suffer under those despots because of US military aid that hated us.
The French are the French, but the rest of Europe generally loved us until the 1990's. I think it says much about their loyalty to call friend a nation that that massacres women and children (Mai Lai, Vietnam), assassinates democratically elected leaders (Allende) and installs murderous dictatorships in their place (Pinochet). (And mind you, these are not isolated incidents either.) Hell, our enemy in WWII, Germany, pretty much supported us whenever we asked for it, until Gulf War II.
Has it occured to your tiny intellect that perhaps human beings are capable of a difference of opinion? That maybe they didn't agree to help invade Iraq this time because it was merely an oil grab by the US? That muslims and latinos who get boned in the ass by the US are not going to be our friend?
With much hubris, you state that the key to international success is to make a smoldering crater of any nation that opposes us. Yet somehow, you don't consider the cost to American lives, or our prosperity, or how our living standard has gone to hell. Before the nineties, when did we have to worry about dying in a war, getting on a plane, or having a bomb go off where you live? Or become "disappeared" by the FBI/OHS. Who feels safer now that our boys are getting shot in Iraq, thanks to your philosophy of kick ass and kill, causing a record recuitment drive for Al Queda, and pushing Iran and N. Korea to produce nukes in order to get the US to back off? How is it that living worse than we did in the past is preferable because we can make our enemies more miserable?
The world has disagreed with the US before, Vietnam being the famous example. Their actions were no different than what they did this year. The difference is, as much as LBJ was a hick warmongerer, he wasn't a pinhead like GWB. They recognised the benefit of having allies, even if they didn't always support the US. LBJ and the media didn't retaliate against Europe (or Canada) and didn't invade France for withdrawing from NATO. Nor did they whine like bitches and maintain emnity with allies with spiteful actions. Perhaps, instead of acting like a petulant child, we should act in a manner that adults act when dealing with other people. This includes making nice with people we don't like, not shooting every drug user on the block (because it could be someone else's kid), and moderating our actions after taking a look at the BIG picture. It will put us in a better situation when China decides it needs to kick some ass to get some respect. And trust me, they aren't going to roll over like Iraq.
So, in a choice between my tax dollars going to Pierre or Mustapha so they can piss it away and still hate us, or spend it on nice, shiny galvanized canisters of whoop-ass (which employs a bunch of smart folk in this country to design and build) I know which way I'm going to vote.
Yeah, just make clear you'd sooner piss on Jesus than take his advice.
The thing that has kept the B-52's around for so long is not American pacifism or poverty. Its physics.
What makes the B-52 so effective is that it can carry tons of bombs to target. Its takes exponentially more energy to move that kind of tonnage faster (say supersonic speed). We can't do that. The best we could do (in previous decades) was design faster (supersonic) bombers, but they couldn't carry the same payload for the same distances. Even if we can design a bomber to carry an analogous payload to target at supersonic speeds for the same range, each bomber would be prohibitively expensive to produce. Stealth Strategic Supersonic Bomber? Bahahahahhahahaha...
More likely I think will be a hybrid ICBM missle that would be similar to what was described in the DARPA project. Or mass weapons if the Chinese/West space race gets restarted. The most likely result will be a multibillion dollar weapon system that doesn't work, much like the B-1.
The solution is not a pause button. Gulf War II took over a year to orchestrate. Hell, it takes months to build up a forward force before making an attack. You could see it coming months in advance.
No, this country needs educated, responsible citizens that understand the consequences (political, economic, and lives) of military action, and the will to look to alternate sources of information, now that the US media is owned by a few commercial military conglomerates.
It makes Christ's Second Coming a more likely event.