Want to move an electricity meter a few feet to the left?
So, since you have to do some paperwork to move a electricity-meter in France, it somehow proves that you don't have property there?
You DON'T have "all the essential freedoms a person can have".
yes I do. I have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to move. I also have immunity from physical assaults. And I'm free to buy, own and manage property. And (if I were so inclined) I could get married with a member of same sex (can't do that in USA). I can also own guns, and I have the freedom to vote for whoever I want to.
Back to topic: Bureaucracy is always a problem. And it exists everywhere (yes, even in the USA). I think France is just about the worst example of rigid bureaucracy, but France is not the only country with lots of red tape.
America's bourgeois nature (life, liberty, and property ownership) is what sets it apart from the European model where power is held at the top and it trickles down to its subordinated 'chattel' population.
I'm from Europe. And I must say that finding out that I'm part of "subordinated chattel population" is certainly news to me!
I think there are two possibilities:
a) Their brainwashing is excellent since I haven't figured this out yet, despite living here 27 years. b) You are just talking out of your ass.
Have you ever been to Europe? For a longer period of time? Do you even own a passport? What is your source of "news"? Rush Limbaugh and Fox News?
So, Americas "borgeuos nature" (which includes stuff like life, liberty and property ownership) sets it apart from Europe (which presumably doesn't have those things). Funny, I'm alive so I obviously have life. I have all the essential freedoms a person can have. And I sure as hell own my car, my house, my television, my computer etc. etc. etc. so I obviously have property!
Knowning all that, I'm placing my bets on the B-option.
I would like to consider myself a technology-freak. I love gizmos, I love technology.... Yet I don't have Gmail! Nope, nada, zilch! How can this be?
Re:Does it work properly/completely with Opera yet
on
Gmail Adds Features
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that you'd suddenly be shutting out the vast majority of users - those using IE.
No you would not. IE-users could use the service just like they have used it before. It just happens that Mozilla/Firefox-users would get additional improvements and benefits that are not available to IE. IE-people would not be "shut out", since they never had that functionality in the first place and since the service would still be more than usable for them.
Really? Every time I have compared KDE and Gnome on a lowend computer (300-500MHz 128-256MB RAM) the result have been the same. Gnome was way faster than KDE.
Well, 3.2 was a big step forward when it comes to KDE. I have occasioanlly heard people claim that Gnome is faster, but I have heard even more claims saying KDE is faster. So I disagree with you assumption that "Gnome was always faster than KDE".
FWIW: I have KDE 3.2.2 installed on my old 300Mhz P2-laptop with 320MB of RAM and it's usable just fine. Of course it's slower than something like Fluxbox or XFCE would be, but it's definitely usable. I did try Gnome on it as well, and while it booted few seconds faster than KDE did, it wasn't one bit faster than KDE was during actual usage. In fact, it was slower at times.
Iraq refused to cooperate with the UN inspections and various items were unaccounted for.
Does that mean they had WMD's? Is shoddy bookkeeping good enough reason to go to war?
Let the inspectors do their jobs? Who are you kidding? Go take a look at some of the Iraq - UN timelines on the web and ask yourself why did the UN wait so long to do anything about Iraq's refusal to comply with UN demands? Eleven years after Gulf War 1, Iraq still wasn't complying with the UN, yet the UN did nothing.
Before the war the inspections were being carried out like they should. the inspectors were happy on how they were progressing.
"U.N. inspectors withdrew from Iraq a year ago, shortly before the U.S.-led invasion of the country. After the war, the United States deployed its own team under Kay and refused to allow U.N. inspectors to return. Kay's team concluded that Iraq did not have stockpiles banned weapons as alleged by President Bush in making his case for war.
"During the period under review, no official information was available to UNMOVIC on either the work of, or the results of, the investigations of the United States-led Iraq Survey Group in Iraq. Nor has the (U.S.) survey group requested any information from UNMOVIC," the U.N. report said.
It sets out Kay's findings that it was unlikely large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons were deployed in Iraq after 1994, but makes no comment on them."
How many political prisioners were killed in Iraq while they continued to defy and hold back UN inspections?
How many thousands died because of the embargo?
The Iraq administration was evil. The only question in regard to this issue is should the US/UN step in when countries are systematically murdering those who oppose the government. If yes, then the WMD issue is immaterial.
Well, US openly supports terrorism, should they be invaded as well? Or how about removing democratic leaders and replacing them with military dictators? Or doing business with dictators that replaced democratic government in a coup?
Why was Iraqi administration "evil", whereas US administration is not?
An unmentioned strategic reason is demographics. In 15-20 years world demographics are going to shift severely. Middle Eastern countries will become a much bigger players on the world stage (Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc). These countries aren't exactly known for promoting world peace.
Since USA has been involved in armed conflicts more often than any other country during this century, I think they are not the ones who should be preacing about "world peace"
What happens to world/US security when these countries are much stronger militarily?
Ah, I see. Since they MIGHT at some point in the future potentially threaten USA, they must be invaded now? I guess Finland could at some point in the future potentially threaten the USA somehow, should Finland be invaded as well?
Actually, no country in its right mind would use WMDs on forces that are within its borders.
Iraq had already used WMD's against it's own citizens who were withing their borders. So I fail to see why they couldn't do it this time.
Once again, you're using faulty logic. The US found Saddam through tips that they were given by people in the country who wanted Saddam found
And is there anything preventing them from getting tips regarding the alleged WMD-program? like I said, finding such a program should be order of magnitude easier than finding one man in a underground hideout somewhere in wilderness. More people would know about it, hiding the program would be more difficult than hiding one man.
They've been questioning "Dr. Anthrax" and "Dr. Nuclear" or whatever her name is, and they're coming up with very little (that we know of). They have no reason to tell what they were doing, since telling will only convict them under international law.
Well, they are already quilty in they eyes of their captors. What do they have to lose?
This was, in my opinion, one of the biggest reasons to go to war...the inspectors weren't being allowed to DO their jobs.
They WERE doing their jobs. Before the war things were progressing smoothly with the inspectors going on like they should have. Of course, that was a big no-no for the US administration since it could have meant peaceful resolution to the situation, and that was not OK. They had to have their war. They had to remove Saddam, they had to install their puppet-regime.
They had been kicked out of the country before without completing their job, ergo the question became what was Saddam hiding?
AFAIK, they were kicked out because Iraqis were afraid that CIA used the inspections as an intelligence-gathering tool. And, according to Rolf Ekeus (Head of the inspections at that time), those concern were valid, CIA was involved.
Other time the inspectors left the country was when USA told them to leave due to imminent military action against Iraq (Operation Desert Fox).
Before Bush even took office, Sadam kick them out. Then let them in. Then stalled, and played some games. At some point, you cease to allow a government which has failed to comply with the terms of its surrender, to continue to exits.
But the inspections were working before the invasion. Can you really use actions that took place long before as an excuse for a war, espesially since the matter had been resolved already?
And, at one point, USA asked the inspectors to leave due to immiment military action (Operation Desert Fox). Funnily enough, that incident is usally described as "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" in the USA, when it fact it was USA that asked them to leave.
All governments involved agree that he had the weapons.
Uh, no they didn't. He did posess such weapons earlier, but they were destroyed after the first Gulf war.
He failed to provide evidence of their disposition, and the inspectors acknowledge that they neither found nor destroyed even a large percent of what was admitted, and believed by the inspectors, to exist.
Inspectors did not believe that they existed. They had no evidence one way or the other. They were there trying to make sure they were destroyed. Unfortunately USA did not let them finish the job.
Let's review the facts shall we? USA claimed that Iraq had WMD's. Iraq claimed it had no WMD's. USA had no real evidence to support their claims. Iraq had evidence to support their claims with some omissions. There were inspectors on the ground determining the validity of the claims made by USA and Iraq.
Where was the need to invade? And since no WMD's have been found, it seems that Iraq was right and USA was wrong. So how exactly was the war (and killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians) justified? Iraq was telling the truth it seems.
He hid them, and we can't find them.
So, if no WMD's are found, it just proved that Saddam hid them REALLY well? It does not prove that there are no WMD's? If US Forces are able to find one man in a hole in the ground in some remote location, surely they can find those WMD's?
And how do you prove a negative? According to you, if no WMD's are found, it only proves that they are really well hidden. How do you prove that there are no WMD's? It seems to me that Iraq had no way to convince people like you that they had no WMD's. You just wanted to have your little war, no matter what.
So, where are those WMD's? Why was USA in such a rush to invade Iraq? If Iraq has WMD's, why weren't they used to save the country from USA's invasion (you know, that's the whole point of having them)? why haven't they been discovered? Hell, US forces were able to find Saddam from a hole in the ground in some remote location, yet they can't find those vast arsenals of WMD's and/or extensive WMD-program with scientists, documents and facilities?
It seems to me that there are no WMD's nor is there a WMD-program. So what about the un-accounted WMD's then? The whole disarmanent-process was a complicated affair that involved lots of people and thousands upon thousands of pages of documents. There are bound to be errors. Were there errors in Iraq's documentation? Propably. But that does not change the fact that no WMD's have been found.
Were errors in documents sufficient reason to invade a sovereign nation and kill 10.000 - 37.000 civilians (depending on whose numbers you accept) instead of waiting and letting the inspectors to do their job? It seems to me that US just wanted to have their little war.
DUDE: It's all a goddamn fake. Like Lenin said, look for the person who will benefit. And you will, uh, you know, you'll, uh, you know what I'm trying to say--
DONNY: I am the Walrus.
WALTER: That fucking bitch!
DUDE: Yeah.
DONNY: I am the Walrus.
WALTER: Shut the fuck up, Donny! V.I. Lenin! Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!
DONNY: What the fuck is he talking about?
WALTER: That's fucking exactly what happened, Dude! That makes me fucking SICK!
DUDE: Yeah, well, what do you care, Walter?
DONNY: Yeah Dude, why is Walter so pissed off?
WALTER: Those rich fucks! This whole fuckin thing-- I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this fucking strumpet--
DUDE: I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.
That reminds me of the time when some Finnish units went to Norway for joint exercises with Norwegians and Americans. Exercise was about warfare in arctic conditions. Well, as it happened, only the Finns and the Norwegians carried out the combat-training as intented. The American troops just stayed in their tents and tried to stay alive.
The thing about KDE is that if there is a mistake it will be fixed.
Few years ago a security-hole was discovered in Konqueror. In fact, the same hole was discovered in Windows as well, by the same people. They announced both holes in the same time. How fast were patches available from KDE-folks and Microsoft after the announcement of the hole?
Let's look at yours: you build your own machines, plural, and they last a long time?
Yep
How many can you possibly have built to know this?
How many machines do I have to build to know that machines built by me work for a long time? I don't know. I do know that the machines I have built so far have lasted for quite some time.
How can that be, if they last so very long? How old are you?;-)
27. I have built 4 machines for myself in the last 10 years) and few machines for friends/family. First machine war around 10 years ago, and, AFAIK, it's still being used every day today. Not alot of machines, I know. But it does show that x86-machines can last for a long time.
"faster in the experience of most end users", but faster on the same hardware. This trend is unheard of among contemporary desktop operating systems."
Well, I have noticed the same behavior on my KDE-desktop, so it's not unheard of;).
Although Wil Wheaton's scenes were cut, but his name still appears in the end credits.
His part was cut?!?!??! I saw his name in the end-credits, and I watch the movie several tiems trying to find him! And now, years later, I find out that his part was in fact cut!
And all these years I thought I was blind and/or idiot for not finding him! Damn you all! Damn you to hell!
Maybe not, but it's been a long time since you could buy an x86 machine that lasted as long.
Sure you can. Well, I build my own machines and they last for a long time. And I have seen name-brand machines that are old, and still keep on working.
It just seems to me that people remember the Macs that last for a long time, but forget the ones that fail sooner. And when it comes to x86, they remember the ones that failed soon, and forget the ones that keep on working after years and years of use.
I guess it's because of the perception of the two: Macs are the expensive hi-end machines, whereas x86 is the cheap and crappy computer.
Yeah I know: it really sucks to have Apple force me to have all that quality when I buy a computer from them.
You mean like chipping paint on Titanium Powerbooks, "Windtunnel" PowerMac G4's, logic-board failures on iBooks, failing lid-latches on Powerbooks, cracks on the Cube, overheating 12" PowerBooks etc. etc. etc.
Apple makes very nice machines, but they are not the Holy Grail of quality.
and we needed to surround Iran to put pressure on them as well (again, to get their people to do the job instead of us).
What should the people of Iran do? Kick their rulers out? If you look at history, it becomes quite apparent why they dislike the USA. Before the current regime, they were ruled by US-backed military dictator (Shah). Now, he was as brutal as dictators usually are. He was kicked out by a popular coup, and the Shah fled to USA.
Considering that, I think they have valid reasons to hate USA.
"But what about their support for terrorism?" I hear you ask. Well, how is it different from US-led "School of the Americas"?
"What about their nuclear-program?". How is it different from Pakistans, Israels or Indias nuclear-program (that seems to be OK with USA)?
Someone in Slahdot made an excellent comment few weeks ago. It went something like this: Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil", right? Iraq was also in that group, and look what happened to it. USA has also reserved itself a right to do "pre-emptive strikes" against potential enemies (like what happened in Iraq).
So Iran finds itself in a group of nations that could face invasion by US forces. Espesially now that they have US Army to their east and in the west. What options do they have?
- Do nothing. Wait and see whether same thing happens to you, as happened to Iraq and Afganistan.
- Prapare for the attack. Re-arm your army, try to aquire new weapons.
- Do whatever USA wants you to do
What do those options mean? Well, the first one doesn't change the status quo. They would still be in the "Axis of Evil", and they could be invaded. If they tried to protect themselves (the second option) Bush could say "Look, I was right! Iran/North-Korea/Syria, is arming itself as fast as they can, and they are trying to get nukes! This clearly proves that they are evil!". Third option would mean giving up some of their sovereignity (spelling?) and become an US-led puppet-state.
really, the whole "Axis of Evil" is a self-fulfilling prophecy that was just about the worst thing Bush could have done. Want to make sure that "rogue states" start saber-rattling and arming themselves? threaten them with imminent invasion, that should do the trick!
Microsoft argues that open source freezes innovation, and Krumholtz says that commercial software alone spurs economic growth and creates jobs.
Anyone with a half a brain will realize one simple fact: There are lots and lots of companies that USE software. But there are relatively few companies that CREATE software. Therefore, free software (both free as in beer and in speech) would benefit overwhelming majority of companies, since they don't earn their living from writing software. And since there are quite a few companies making money from creating and selling open source-software, that MS-argument simply doesn't hold.
Only companies that would be harmed by Open Source, are those that have placed all their money on creating and selling proprietary software. And right now Microsoft seems to be only company that has done that.
Well, IL (an unknown company at the time) made some big claims about their product. But the whole operation was shrouded in mystery and no-one seemed to know what was going on. So [H] did some investigating, and found out some "interesting" stuff. End result was that IL sued them.
Why did [H] write an article about IL? because they made huge claims and people were interested, that's why.
what kind of data have would you have to give and with which information would it be connected?
Why would I have to concern myself with that? Well, to amuse you: I propably wouldn't have to give any kind of data, it would be collected automatically. What data, and connected with what other data? Propably what I bought, when and where. If someone knows that I bought a pair of socks at the local supermarket, big deal.
who would decide which advertisment is the right one for you?
Irrelevant. At worst, I would get ads for products that do not interest me. And that's different from way things are right now.... How?
Or are you afraid that my advertising-needs will be decided by.... *gasp`* The Big Brother? Well, if He can give me better ads I get right now, go right ahead!
where would the information be stored and for how long?
As long as it's needed. I wont lose any sleep because of it.
who would be in control of all of this and what would his objectives be?
Yeah, what if Dr. Evil finds out that I rather eat at Burger King than Mickey D's? He could use that data for World Domination (tm)!
Seriously: if you are so concerned about this, pay everything with cash. Is someone forcing you to use those terrible traceable credit-cards?
No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that even if they had other motives besides then one they advertise, I wouldn't automatically be against it. It CAN be used to make the park-going experience that much nicer. Whether they advertise that fact or not, is irrelevant. As far as the park-goers are concerned, the immediate tangible benefit they get from the tags is that they can find others of their group. And that's the feature they are advertising.
If they can make the park more pleasant with the tags, so much the better!
Slashdot Mirror
Finland, as a matter of fact.
So, since you have to do some paperwork to move a electricity-meter in France, it somehow proves that you don't have property there?
yes I do. I have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to move. I also have immunity from physical assaults. And I'm free to buy, own and manage property. And (if I were so inclined) I could get married with a member of same sex (can't do that in USA). I can also own guns, and I have the freedom to vote for whoever I want to.
Back to topic: Bureaucracy is always a problem. And it exists everywhere (yes, even in the USA). I think France is just about the worst example of rigid bureaucracy, but France is not the only country with lots of red tape.
I'm from Europe. And I must say that finding out that I'm part of "subordinated chattel population" is certainly news to me!
I think there are two possibilities:
a) Their brainwashing is excellent since I haven't figured this out yet, despite living here 27 years.
b) You are just talking out of your ass.
Have you ever been to Europe? For a longer period of time? Do you even own a passport? What is your source of "news"? Rush Limbaugh and Fox News?
So, Americas "borgeuos nature" (which includes stuff like life, liberty and property ownership) sets it apart from Europe (which presumably doesn't have those things). Funny, I'm alive so I obviously have life. I have all the essential freedoms a person can have. And I sure as hell own my car, my house, my television, my computer etc. etc. etc. so I obviously have property!
Knowning all that, I'm placing my bets on the B-option.
I would like to consider myself a technology-freak. I love gizmos, I love technology.... Yet I don't have Gmail! Nope, nada, zilch! How can this be?
No you would not. IE-users could use the service just like they have used it before. It just happens that Mozilla/Firefox-users would get additional improvements and benefits that are not available to IE. IE-people would not be "shut out", since they never had that functionality in the first place and since the service would still be more than usable for them.
Well, 3.2 was a big step forward when it comes to KDE. I have occasioanlly heard people claim that Gnome is faster, but I have heard even more claims saying KDE is faster. So I disagree with you assumption that "Gnome was always faster than KDE".
FWIW: I have KDE 3.2.2 installed on my old 300Mhz P2-laptop with 320MB of RAM and it's usable just fine. Of course it's slower than something like Fluxbox or XFCE would be, but it's definitely usable. I did try Gnome on it as well, and while it booted few seconds faster than KDE did, it wasn't one bit faster than KDE was during actual usage. In fact, it was slower at times.
Does that mean they had WMD's? Is shoddy bookkeeping good enough reason to go to war?
Before the war the inspections were being carried out like they should. the inspectors were happy on how they were progressing.
And, acoording to the inspectors: Iraq war wasn't justified.
And, according to the inspectors, it was USA that was "not cooperating":
How many thousands died because of the embargo?
Well, US openly supports terrorism, should they be invaded as well? Or how about removing democratic leaders and replacing them with military dictators? Or doing business with dictators that replaced democratic government in a coup?
Why was Iraqi administration "evil", whereas US administration is not?
Since USA has been involved in armed conflicts more often than any other country during this century, I think they are not the ones who should be preacing about "world peace"
Ah, I see. Since they MIGHT at some point in the future potentially threaten USA, they must be invaded now? I guess Finland could at some point in the future potentially threaten the USA somehow, should Finland be invaded as well?
Iraq had already used WMD's against it's own citizens who were withing their borders. So I fail to see why they couldn't do it this time.
And is there anything preventing them from getting tips regarding the alleged WMD-program? like I said, finding such a program should be order of magnitude easier than finding one man in a underground hideout somewhere in wilderness. More people would know about it, hiding the program would be more difficult than hiding one man.
Well, they are already quilty in they eyes of their captors. What do they have to lose?
They WERE doing their jobs. Before the war things were progressing smoothly with the inspectors going on like they should have. Of course, that was a big no-no for the US administration since it could have meant peaceful resolution to the situation, and that was not OK. They had to have their war. They had to remove Saddam, they had to install their puppet-regime.
AFAIK, they were kicked out because Iraqis were afraid that CIA used the inspections as an intelligence-gathering tool. And, according to Rolf Ekeus (Head of the inspections at that time), those concern were valid, CIA was involved.
Other time the inspectors left the country was when USA told them to leave due to imminent military action against Iraq (Operation Desert Fox).
But the inspections were working before the invasion. Can you really use actions that took place long before as an excuse for a war, espesially since the matter had been resolved already?
And, at one point, USA asked the inspectors to leave due to immiment military action (Operation Desert Fox). Funnily enough, that incident is usally described as "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" in the USA, when it fact it was USA that asked them to leave.
Uh, no they didn't. He did posess such weapons earlier, but they were destroyed after the first Gulf war.
Inspectors did not believe that they existed. They had no evidence one way or the other. They were there trying to make sure they were destroyed. Unfortunately USA did not let them finish the job.
Let's review the facts shall we? USA claimed that Iraq had WMD's. Iraq claimed it had no WMD's. USA had no real evidence to support their claims. Iraq had evidence to support their claims with some omissions. There were inspectors on the ground determining the validity of the claims made by USA and Iraq.
Where was the need to invade? And since no WMD's have been found, it seems that Iraq was right and USA was wrong. So how exactly was the war (and killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians) justified? Iraq was telling the truth it seems.
So, if no WMD's are found, it just proved that Saddam hid them REALLY well? It does not prove that there are no WMD's? If US Forces are able to find one man in a hole in the ground in some remote location, surely they can find those WMD's?
And how do you prove a negative? According to you, if no WMD's are found, it only proves that they are really well hidden. How do you prove that there are no WMD's? It seems to me that Iraq had no way to convince people like you that they had no WMD's. You just wanted to have your little war, no matter what.
So, where are those WMD's? Why was USA in such a rush to invade Iraq? If Iraq has WMD's, why weren't they used to save the country from USA's invasion (you know, that's the whole point of having them)? why haven't they been discovered? Hell, US forces were able to find Saddam from a hole in the ground in some remote location, yet they can't find those vast arsenals of WMD's and/or extensive WMD-program with scientists, documents and facilities?
It seems to me that there are no WMD's nor is there a WMD-program. So what about the un-accounted WMD's then? The whole disarmanent-process was a complicated affair that involved lots of people and thousands upon thousands of pages of documents. There are bound to be errors. Were there errors in Iraq's documentation? Propably. But that does not change the fact that no WMD's have been found.
Were errors in documents sufficient reason to invade a sovereign nation and kill 10.000 - 37.000 civilians (depending on whose numbers you accept) instead of waiting and letting the inspectors to do their job? It seems to me that US just wanted to have their little war.
DUDE: It's all a goddamn fake. Like Lenin said, look for the person who will benefit. And you will, uh, you know, you'll, uh, you know what I'm trying to say--
DONNY: I am the Walrus.
WALTER: That fucking bitch!
DUDE: Yeah.
DONNY: I am the Walrus.
WALTER: Shut the fuck up, Donny! V.I. Lenin! Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!
DONNY: What the fuck is he talking about?
WALTER: That's fucking exactly what happened, Dude! That makes me fucking SICK!
DUDE: Yeah, well, what do you care, Walter?
DONNY: Yeah Dude, why is Walter so pissed off?
WALTER: Those rich fucks! This whole fuckin thing-- I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this fucking strumpet--
DUDE: I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.
I think "fucking strumpet" refers to Yoko Ono.
Stalin was left wing (in the traditional sense), did he support free speech, real democracy and did he respect other people?
Obviously, you need to learn about Political Compass
That reminds me of the time when some Finnish units went to Norway for joint exercises with Norwegians and Americans. Exercise was about warfare in arctic conditions. Well, as it happened, only the Finns and the Norwegians carried out the combat-training as intented. The American troops just stayed in their tents and tried to stay alive.
Few years ago a security-hole was discovered in Konqueror. In fact, the same hole was discovered in Windows as well, by the same people. They announced both holes in the same time. How fast were patches available from KDE-folks and Microsoft after the announcement of the hole?
KDE: 2 hours
Microsoft: about 30 days
Among others: Harlan Ellison, Neil Gaiman and David Gerrold.
full list. Of course, JMS wrote most of it, but not all.
1) Go to space
2) Land on the Moon
3) Go back to Earth
There, I finished planning-phase of my personal lunar-mission. Really, it's not that hard.
I wonder that is the fourth step "Profit!"?
Yep
How many machines do I have to build to know that machines built by me work for a long time? I don't know. I do know that the machines I have built so far have lasted for quite some time.
27. I have built 4 machines for myself in the last 10 years) and few machines for friends/family. First machine war around 10 years ago, and, AFAIK, it's still being used every day today. Not alot of machines, I know. But it does show that x86-machines can last for a long time.
Well, I have noticed the same behavior on my KDE-desktop, so it's not unheard of
His part was cut?!?!??! I saw his name in the end-credits, and I watch the movie several tiems trying to find him! And now, years later, I find out that his part was in fact cut!
And all these years I thought I was blind and/or idiot for not finding him! Damn you all! Damn you to hell!
I already countered your Apple == Quality-argument here ;)
Sure you can. Well, I build my own machines and they last for a long time. And I have seen name-brand machines that are old, and still keep on working.
It just seems to me that people remember the Macs that last for a long time, but forget the ones that fail sooner. And when it comes to x86, they remember the ones that failed soon, and forget the ones that keep on working after years and years of use.
I guess it's because of the perception of the two: Macs are the expensive hi-end machines, whereas x86 is the cheap and crappy computer.
You mean like chipping paint on Titanium Powerbooks, "Windtunnel" PowerMac G4's, logic-board failures on iBooks, failing lid-latches on Powerbooks, cracks on the Cube, overheating 12" PowerBooks etc. etc. etc.
Apple makes very nice machines, but they are not the Holy Grail of quality.
What should the people of Iran do? Kick their rulers out? If you look at history, it becomes quite apparent why they dislike the USA. Before the current regime, they were ruled by US-backed military dictator (Shah). Now, he was as brutal as dictators usually are. He was kicked out by a popular coup, and the Shah fled to USA.
Considering that, I think they have valid reasons to hate USA.
"But what about their support for terrorism?" I hear you ask. Well, how is it different from US-led "School of the Americas"?
"What about their nuclear-program?". How is it different from Pakistans, Israels or Indias nuclear-program (that seems to be OK with USA)?
Someone in Slahdot made an excellent comment few weeks ago. It went something like this: Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil", right? Iraq was also in that group, and look what happened to it. USA has also reserved itself a right to do "pre-emptive strikes" against potential enemies (like what happened in Iraq).
So Iran finds itself in a group of nations that could face invasion by US forces. Espesially now that they have US Army to their east and in the west. What options do they have?
- Do nothing. Wait and see whether same thing happens to you, as happened to Iraq and Afganistan.
- Prapare for the attack. Re-arm your army, try to aquire new weapons.
- Do whatever USA wants you to do
What do those options mean? Well, the first one doesn't change the status quo. They would still be in the "Axis of Evil", and they could be invaded. If they tried to protect themselves (the second option) Bush could say "Look, I was right! Iran/North-Korea/Syria, is arming itself as fast as they can, and they are trying to get nukes! This clearly proves that they are evil!". Third option would mean giving up some of their sovereignity (spelling?) and become an US-led puppet-state.
really, the whole "Axis of Evil" is a self-fulfilling prophecy that was just about the worst thing Bush could have done. Want to make sure that "rogue states" start saber-rattling and arming themselves? threaten them with imminent invasion, that should do the trick!
Anyone with a half a brain will realize one simple fact: There are lots and lots of companies that USE software. But there are relatively few companies that CREATE software. Therefore, free software (both free as in beer and in speech) would benefit overwhelming majority of companies, since they don't earn their living from writing software. And since there are quite a few companies making money from creating and selling open source-software, that MS-argument simply doesn't hold.
Only companies that would be harmed by Open Source, are those that have placed all their money on creating and selling proprietary software. And right now Microsoft seems to be only company that has done that.
Well, IL (an unknown company at the time) made some big claims about their product. But the whole operation was shrouded in mystery and no-one seemed to know what was going on. So [H] did some investigating, and found out some "interesting" stuff. End result was that IL sued them.
Why did [H] write an article about IL? because they made huge claims and people were interested, that's why.
Why would I have to concern myself with that? Well, to amuse you: I propably wouldn't have to give any kind of data, it would be collected automatically. What data, and connected with what other data? Propably what I bought, when and where. If someone knows that I bought a pair of socks at the local supermarket, big deal.
Irrelevant. At worst, I would get ads for products that do not interest me. And that's different from way things are right now.... How?
Or are you afraid that my advertising-needs will be decided by.... *gasp`* The Big Brother? Well, if He can give me better ads I get right now, go right ahead!
As long as it's needed. I wont lose any sleep because of it.
Yeah, what if Dr. Evil finds out that I rather eat at Burger King than Mickey D's? He could use that data for World Domination (tm)!
Seriously: if you are so concerned about this, pay everything with cash. Is someone forcing you to use those terrible traceable credit-cards?
No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that even if they had other motives besides then one they advertise, I wouldn't automatically be against it. It CAN be used to make the park-going experience that much nicer. Whether they advertise that fact or not, is irrelevant. As far as the park-goers are concerned, the immediate tangible benefit they get from the tags is that they can find others of their group. And that's the feature they are advertising.
If they can make the park more pleasant with the tags, so much the better!