No see, you've got me wrong. I'm a centrist. I hate Ashcroft, I'm not religious. I hate many of Bush's policies, but not all. I wouldn't have minded seeing Kerry win, but I also don't think it's the end of the world.
My perspective isn't that safety is more important than freedom. My perspective is that you need both. I think the Partiot Act had some bad parts in it, but it didn't turn out to be the end of civil our liberties that people expected (and here's where I'm sure we'll disagree.) What I don't understand is how you don't think there should not have been any changes following 9/11.
My ground is that in a single attack, 3000 innocent civilians were killed, and that is a problem which needs to be addressed. I don't give a shit about how many shark attacks there are in the world. I think you'll find most people would agree with me there, but of course, it's our perspective that's broken.
This would be a conversation like on crossfire. It's not worth either of our effort.
So the obvious goal, then, is to give the Iraqi's the freedom they now have with the security they once had.
I know it's not an easy task, but I think the true judgement will be 5 - 10 years from now. If the problems of today still exist, then it will have been a faiure.
So let me ask you what your policy would be after 9/11? Do nothing? "Sure hope that doesn't happen again." Now don't get me wrong, I understand all the people who don't like the Patriot Act etc., and think you have good points, but I also feel that some things obviously needed to be changed.
That wasn't the litmus test. It was U.N Resolution 1441 which was approved by all members of the council.
Some tidbits:
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material
Note that the requirement of the cease fire was that a full detailed disclosure of all weapons programs (which did exist, as proven by the U.N Inspectors). Hans Blix up until they left still would say that Iraq was cooperating on location checks, but that they wouldn't give any new information about their programs.
Well I'd assume that a lot more people setting up Apache are going to know more about security than your average IIS admin, as opposed to an IIS admin that know's how to lock down the system.
That, and the old MS approach of ship it with everything turned on (a policy they've reversed via Server 2003) didn't help things much.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps woill be emboldened tommorrow." - President Bill Clinton 1998
"Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Secretary of State Madeline Albright, 1998,br> "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." - Senator Tom Dashle, 1998
"There is no doubt that...Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of allicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Senator Bob Graham, December 2001
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Former Vice President Al Gore, 2002
"I share this administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." - Richard Gephardt, September 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." - Senator Edward Kennedy, September 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Fomrer Vice President Al Gore, September 2002 br> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Queda members, though there is apparently no evidence in his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." Senator Hillary Clinton, October 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadlt arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senator John Kerry, October 2003
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build his chemical and biological warfare capability. intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." Senator Robert Byrd, October, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He already used them against his neighbors and his own people and is trying to build more. We know that he
I've never used PHP, but I've read some code understand it's bascially similar to ASP (yes, many differences.) It's bare bones, top down programming. Since developing in ASP.NET I've cringed every time I have to go back to ASP.
Web controls are great. If the ones MS provide don't do it for you, there's a myriad of third party tools available. The code-behind paradigm is great. Debugging in ASP.NET is straight from the heavens. You should check out DotNetNuke, it's an open source.NET alternaive to PHPNuke.
There's just way to many things to praise about ASP.NET compared to ASP, but to answer your question, yes,.NET has been a vast improvement for me.
P.S - upon rereading your post you probably know lots of these things, but I just wanted to say that there are those of us who are converted:)
An honest question from a MS platform developer - Does Evolution expose it's object model to allow third party devs to use Evloution as a app development platform?
I can use all Outlook features from their object model. If it's in the Outlook UI, I can get to it from the API. This is such an important feature. Sure, in the past, people have exploited it and there's been security problems. But the benefits we've gained from being able to automate ALL office apps, time and time again, is what really makes MS Office a powerful too. I haven't researched Evolution, but it's hard to imagine they have the same level of consistency of object models across OSS office apps as MS does.
Once again, just an honest question. I'm a MS solution provider who knows heard a bit about the benefits of Linux etc., , and I'm just wondering how well Evolution communicates with other OSS office programs.
MS's integration is a very powerful feature. Sorry if this sounds a bit incoherent, somebody spiked my O'Dules with real beer.
Where was the cooperation from Iraq that U.N resolution 1441 demanded?
Where are the weapons? We don't know. We know they were there, that is a fact. Bill Clinton evens says that when he left office there was uncertainty about Iraq's weapons programs, and he favored regime change.
Why didn't Saddam just comply with 1441? Why did US and U.K soldiers have to patrol the no fly zone and get shot at by Iraqi missles, Why did we have to sanction Iraq? Would it be a good idea to let Saddam operate freely in the world market? Why did the U.N pass around 15 resolutions against Iraq?
Nope, there were no problems there before. Better we just stick our heads in the sand.
Actually, I'm not 100% percent on this, but I believe at Tech-Ed last year I heard a guy talking about doing some HTML parsing in the Kernel itself, for speed purposes. I don't know if they were talking about Win2k3, Longhorn, but I think it was for IIS. I remember how he talked about how careful they had to be because it was, or was going to be in the Kernel.
Take with grain of salt, too long ago for my memory.
Wow, that's a nice recreation of VB6, or maybe VBA. I know people here like to blast the idea of putting a scripting engine in your Email, SpreadSheet, or other office program, but it really allows you to do some amazing stuff.
I've personally automated every Office app except Powerpoint, and every time it was because a client asked for it, and was better off having it.
Boy, Germany, Japan, and South Korea are doing horribly right now. Was it pretty at first? Hell no, but the end result was well worth the temporary pain.
Look past today, look at the possiblities for the future. The alternative was to let the Iraqis suffer under Saddam. Try to refute that point.
Or just watch Al-jazeera all the time, to get fair and balanced view.
They do use windows, just for the stuff it's good at. My buddy was a Win2k email/network admin at CENTCOM (if that's what it was called, can't remember.) I also remember hearing something about using MS chat software. Now I don't think they used windows in their weapons guidance systems, but I doubt they used Linux either.
Slashdot Mirror
The end of the Bond Film, he hooks up with the Olsen twins and pleasures them to the point that the climax energy completely neutralizes the wave.
MOD PARENT UP
Okay, not flaming, just a point - generics of drugs that who researched/invented in the first place?
That's the Mythical Man Month
Well that's becuase the writers of the non trivial application require admin access for their poorly coded applications. That's not MS's fault.
Absolutely hilarious! I'd never been exposed to that flavor of humor before, thanks for the laugh.
No see, you've got me wrong. I'm a centrist. I hate Ashcroft, I'm not religious. I hate many of Bush's policies, but not all. I wouldn't have minded seeing Kerry win, but I also don't think it's the end of the world.
My perspective isn't that safety is more important than freedom. My perspective is that you need both. I think the Partiot Act had some bad parts in it, but it didn't turn out to be the end of civil our liberties that people expected (and here's where I'm sure we'll disagree.) What I don't understand is how you don't think there should not have been any changes following 9/11.
My ground is that in a single attack, 3000 innocent civilians were killed, and that is a problem which needs to be addressed. I don't give a shit about how many shark attacks there are in the world. I think you'll find most people would agree with me there, but of course, it's our perspective that's broken.
This would be a conversation like on crossfire. It's not worth either of our effort.
Well, we don't have enough common ground to make a conversation worthwhile, though I agree we should make the ports more secure.
So the obvious goal, then, is to give the Iraqi's the freedom they now have with the security they once had.
I know it's not an easy task, but I think the true judgement will be 5 - 10 years from now. If the problems of today still exist, then it will have been a faiure.
So let me ask you what your policy would be after 9/11? Do nothing? "Sure hope that doesn't happen again." Now don't get me wrong, I understand all the people who don't like the Patriot Act etc., and think you have good points, but I also feel that some things obviously needed to be changed.
That wasn't the litmus test. It was U.N Resolution 1441 which was approved by all members of the council.
Some tidbits:
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material
Note that the requirement of the cease fire was that a full detailed disclosure of all weapons programs (which did exist, as proven by the U.N Inspectors). Hans Blix up until they left still would say that Iraq was cooperating on location checks, but that they wouldn't give any new information about their programs.
Well I'd assume that a lot more people setting up Apache are going to know more about security than your average IIS admin, as opposed to an IIS admin that know's how to lock down the system.
That, and the old MS approach of ship it with everything turned on (a policy they've reversed via Server 2003) didn't help things much.
Not arguing, just making some points.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps woill be emboldened tommorrow." - President Bill Clinton 1998
,br> "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." - Senator Tom Dashle, 1998
"Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Secretary of State Madeline Albright, 1998
"There is no doubt that...Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of allicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Senator Bob Graham, December 2001
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Former Vice President Al Gore, 2002
"I share this administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." - Richard Gephardt, September 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." - Senator Edward Kennedy, September 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Fomrer Vice President Al Gore, September 2002 br> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Queda members, though there is apparently no evidence in his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." Senator Hillary Clinton, October 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadlt arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senator John Kerry, October 2003
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build his chemical and biological warfare capability. intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." Senator Robert Byrd, October, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He already used them against his neighbors and his own people and is trying to build more. We know that he
I've never used PHP, but I've read some code understand it's bascially similar to ASP (yes, many differences.) It's bare bones, top down programming. Since developing in ASP.NET I've cringed every time I have to go back to ASP.
.NET alternaive to PHPNuke.
.NET has been a vast improvement for me.
Web controls are great. If the ones MS provide don't do it for you, there's a myriad of third party tools available. The code-behind paradigm is great. Debugging in ASP.NET is straight from the heavens. You should check out DotNetNuke, it's an open source
There's just way to many things to praise about ASP.NET compared to ASP, but to answer your question, yes,
P.S - upon rereading your post you probably know lots of these things, but I just wanted to say that there are those of us who are converted:)
An honest question from a MS platform developer - Does Evolution expose it's object model to allow third party devs to use Evloution as a app development platform?
I can use all Outlook features from their object model. If it's in the Outlook UI, I can get to it from the API. This is such an important feature. Sure, in the past, people have exploited it and there's been security problems. But the benefits we've gained from being able to automate ALL office apps, time and time again, is what really makes MS Office a powerful too. I haven't researched Evolution, but it's hard to imagine they have the same level of consistency of object models across OSS office apps as MS does.
Once again, just an honest question. I'm a MS solution provider who knows heard a bit about the benefits of Linux etc., , and I'm just wondering how well Evolution communicates with other OSS office programs.
MS's integration is a very powerful feature. Sorry if this sounds a bit incoherent, somebody spiked my O'Dules with real beer.
Hope to hear from somebody!
Yahoo News has a free RSS service
Where was the cooperation from Iraq that U.N resolution 1441 demanded?
Where are the weapons? We don't know. We know they were there, that is a fact. Bill Clinton evens says that when he left office there was uncertainty about Iraq's weapons programs, and he favored regime change.
Why didn't Saddam just comply with 1441? Why did US and U.K soldiers have to patrol the no fly zone and get shot at by Iraqi missles, Why did we have to sanction Iraq? Would it be a good idea to let Saddam operate freely in the world market? Why did the U.N pass around 15 resolutions against Iraq?
Nope, there were no problems there before. Better we just stick our heads in the sand.
Actually, I'm not 100% percent on this, but I believe at Tech-Ed last year I heard a guy talking about doing some HTML parsing in the Kernel itself, for speed purposes. I don't know if they were talking about Win2k3, Longhorn, but I think it was for IIS. I remember how he talked about how careful they had to be because it was, or was going to be in the Kernel.
Take with grain of salt, too long ago for my memory.
I'd seriously defend VB.NET if you really wanted me to.
Well if the guy says you can't learn proper programming if you've learned basic, then he's categorically wrong on that point.
Wow, that's a nice recreation of VB6, or maybe VBA. I know people here like to blast the idea of putting a scripting engine in your Email, SpreadSheet, or other office program, but it really allows you to do some amazing stuff.
I've personally automated every Office app except Powerpoint, and every time it was because a client asked for it, and was better off having it.
Boy, Germany, Japan, and South Korea are doing horribly right now. Was it pretty at first? Hell no, but the end result was well worth the temporary pain.
Look past today, look at the possiblities for the future. The alternative was to let the Iraqis suffer under Saddam. Try to refute that point.
Or just watch Al-jazeera all the time, to get fair and balanced view.
And Saddam brought this upon the Iraqis.
"I'm going to stop wearing pants because I don't like peach pie."
That post, and specifically that quote just made my day. Thanks.
They do use windows, just for the stuff it's good at. My buddy was a Win2k email/network admin at CENTCOM (if that's what it was called, can't remember.) I also remember hearing something about using MS chat software. Now I don't think they used windows in their weapons guidance systems, but I doubt they used Linux either.