Perhaps it's possible that people give a shit about the world around them, but don't want their employer to enforce if/how/when they contribute to that world? I get a very nasty feeling from mixing my private ethics with an employer who is paying me to do a job.
Just my opinion - but you could be missing out on some good people with a policy like that.
I wouldn't advocate usign Access in a lot of situations, but I used to work for a company that used Access a lot and it can really be a quick way to develop a system that gets the job done well. With the speed of LAN's today network overhead was never a problem, and you can separate the front end from the data cutting down on traffic.
Having said that I much prefer MS-SQL and Oracle for most systems, but cost is a big factor and sometimes you can't justtify spending several thousand just for a DB.
No, the GUI just makes it easy enough that people who don't really know how to do it can, and some people abuse that. But people that do know how to do it can still design a proper database using Access, there's nothing about a GUI that stops that.
Not. Part of the agreement was that the U.S. would maintain a dialogue with N.K regarding future economic and diplomatic concerns. When GWB came into office, he unilaterally ceased all high level diplomatic communication with N.K., in clear breach of the agreed framework
Gee, maybe that was because they were developing nuclear weapons the whole time and we knew it?
1. You'll have to show me where in the EULA it states that the EULA can be changed by MS at any point they want for the version of the software that you accepted the EULA for. If that were the case, I could rewrite the entire EULA for them by simply saying "This agreement between you and Microsoft is not an agreement, and Mircosoft may change the terms of this non-agreement at any time" or something like that. Instead, the EULA I agreed to says this (regarding the version of the product that you have on your machine - upgrades can include amendments to the EULA, which you will have to agree to): 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT (including any addendum or agreement to this EULA which is included with the product) are the entire agreement between you and Microsoft relating to the product and the support services (if any) and they supercede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals, and representations with respect to the product or any other subject matter covered by this EULA. To the extent the terms of any MS policies or programs for support services conflict with the terms of this EULA, the terms of this EULA shall control.
Seems like when I click "I agree", it's pretty binding for that version of the software.
And your original point that you could not get your money back is completely wrong, as stated in the EULA you can get your money back if you do not agree to the terms of the EULA by returning it to the place of purchase.
2. Once again, I think you are dancing around the issue. As a developer, my "usage" of software certainly includes how I am able to distribute sofware. I don't just mess around with software on my machine for the hell of it, usually when I do something it's for a purpose, and usually that purpose is to help other people with software solutions. Being able to do whatever I want with software is totally pointless if other people can't benefit from my work on any terms agreed between me and those people.
3. Whatever. You can call it what you want, but I, as well as more developers and users than on any other platform have enjoyed a relationship with Microsoft, certainly not perfect, but completely acceptable. If it weren't, I would simply switch, as would every other intelligent individual, because as much as you would like to claim that people are hopelessly locked in, it's software and not crack, and if there were greater advantages other places I would and will go there.
1. If you're that concerned about these types of things, such as if you're purchasing for a large company where it matters, give MS a call tell them you'd love to buy their fine product if you could only see the EULA first. I'm pretty sure they'd email you a copy of it. If I'm wrong, then yes that's pretty bad, somehow I doubt it.
2. If you want to be that nitpicky - then the same problem applies to the GPL. For example, say I develop a utility for my company's internal use, and then they decide they want to sell it to another company without disclosing the source, they couldn't eh? People like to say the GPL doesn't limit you, that it's the copyright law that limits you from redistributing it, but the fact remains that software that is under the GPL is still not 100% free, and it doesn't really matter to me what is restricting my use.
3. Only roughly 80-90% of computer users. Unforunately we just haven't "got it" yet and switched to linux. I'm still waiting for that hard raping MS is gonna give to me, since they're out to screw their customers. Unfortunately they just haven't given it to me yet.
Maybe I'm confused, but from what you're saying, if I paid for the Open Source software I can do whatever I want, and blatantly disregard the GPL? I mean, after all, I can expect fair value and not what you say I get, right?
Is the war with Iraq about oil when all is said and done? The anti-war movement seems to think so. I am not so sure. Unless the peace movement has discovered telepathy, I doubt that it's in any better position to divine the hidden thoughts or secret motivations of George Bush and Tony Blair than I am. Arguing about unstated motives, therefore, is a waste of time - claims cannot be proven or disproven.
Is it so difficult to imagine that both Bush and Blair sincerely believe - rightly or wrongly - that a well-armed Iraq poses an intolerable danger to the civilized world? If access to oil were of concern to them, one might have expected members of their administrations to hint as much. After all, the Thatcher and Bush "senior" administrations were quite open about the role that oil played in justifying the first go-around in Kuwait. Polls in the United States revealed at the time, moreover, that the public responded favourably to the argument. Why the supposed reticence now?
Regardless, it's difficult to know exactly what's being alleged when one is confronted by the slogan "No Blood for Oil!"
If the argument is that war is primarily being executed to ensure global access to Iraqi oil reserves, then it flounders upon misunderstanding. The only thing preventing Iraqi oil from entering the world market in force is the partial U.N. embargo on Iraqi exports. Surely if access to Iraqi oil were the issue, it would have occurred to Bush and Blair that removing the embargo is about 100 billion dollars cheaper - and less politically risky - than going to war.
If the argument is that war is being undertaken to grab Iraqi reserves, flood the market with oil, bust the OPEC cartel, and provide cheap energy to western consumers, then war would be a dagger pointed at the heart of big oil companies. That's because low prices equal low profits. But if the market were flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, it would also wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends.
Accordingly, it's impossible to square this story with the allegation that President Bush is a puppet of the oil industry. If oil company "fat cats" were calling the shots - as is often alleged by the protesters - President Bush would almost certainly not go to war. He would instead embrace the Franco-German-Russian plan of muscular but indefinite inspections. Because keeping the world on the precipice of uncertainty regarding conflict is the best guarantee that oil prices, (and thus, oil profits,) will remain at current levels.
If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established? Do the protestors think that this high-profile public commitment is a bald-faced lie? If outright ownership of oil is the real goal of this war, then I'm forced to wonder why the U.S. didn't seize the Kuwaiti fields more than 10 years ago.
If the argument is that this war is aimed at installing a pro-American regime more inclined to grant oil contracts to American and British rather than French and Russian oil firms, then it invites a similar charge that France and Russia are against war, primarily to protect their cosy economic relationships with the existing Iraqi regime. Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war.
Moreover, the profit opportunities afforded by Iraqi development
Didn't you know? Today is the day the editor's basically say "we don't give a shit about you", post these stories all day, watch people complain, and then laugh and comment on how they can't believe people get angry because we know they're going to do it.
Hey, I guess it's their site. I'd be pissed if I actually had a paid subscription.
My old boss told me a story about a big bank that was using SQL server, and they were having a problem and couldn't figure it out. Apparently it got so bad that one of the head people of the bank called Microsoft and actually got Bill Gates on the phone. Shortly after, the main guy from the SQL server group and a team of engineers was on a plane to help solve the problem.
Maybe it's not a true story, but I think that in order to get to the place Microsoft is at, you have to do a little listening to your customers.
If enough big clients complain about this, I'm sure Microsoft will react.
I don't value my Karma so much that I need an edge on all the other posters. And for the Slashdot effect, I just wait till it's over. It's not like the news here is so important that a few hours makes a difference.
Now I would subscribe for things like better editing, or story moderation, but this isn't that big of a deal to me.
What really is it you don't like about the windows interface, that Macs do so well? You read all these "macs are just so more usable" posts here but their's never and details to back them up. Maybe you can help me
...but I do feel as though there are some obvious discrepencies and hypocrisies to be found in what we are told, if we just have the nerve to look. I'm not privy to any privileged information, but I don't just parrot what the mainstream media tells me without investigation of the topic.
Oh I have the nerve to look and I have, I just haven't found any solid evidence that there's a motive other than disarming Saddam. None of the anti-war rhetoric concerning our motives seems very plausible to me, especially when there seems to be an extremely convincing case as to why there should be action. Occam's Razor. Even you don't really have a coherent theory as stated, you have some things that "maybe if you had to guess" are the motives. And I'm not parroting anybody, I've weighed the facts as reported by a myriad of sources and made up my own mind. In fact I was skeptical at first, but over time I've changed my view.
If I had to guess, it does seem the most likely to me that the chief motivating factor is strategic; partly for the natural resources, partly to help push the stated Wolfowitz doctrine (you know, our Deputy Secrety of Defense?) of repressing any other nations from being able to position themselves as a competitor to the United States.
If it were for oil, wouldn't it just be easier to try to purchase that oil? You think Bush is really so evil he would rather kill US & Iraqi soldiers and civilians and risk other terrorist threats just for oil, when we could probably just lift sanctions and purchase it? Also let's remember Ari Fleisher and others have stated that Iraq will keep their oil, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Why didn't we just keep their oil the first time? As far as your Wolfowitz policy, I'm not extremely famaliar with it, but from your info - who are we scared is going to be on a level playing field with the US - Iraq? Why the hell would we really care unless they started amassing an army that could give us a challenge? You'll have to spell that out for me.
And Israel's defiance of UN resolutions, possession of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons!), and propensity to invade neighboring countries doesn't apply to this same logic? Of course not, they are on "our side." It's a clear double-standard. It's evidence of an unstated agenda, but you don't seem willing to recognize that.
First let me say that I think that situation is very messy and there's no good solution. But whether you or I like it, Israel is our ally, and you tend to look past the actions of you allies. Also, I'm unaware of Israel using chem or bio weapons, if I'm wrong please correct me. But saying that, I don't understand how the fact that Israel is our ally is in any way proof that we have other motives than disarming Saddam. First off, we don't really have any reason to fear Israel, so of course we'll deal with them differently. It's not a cookie cutter situation, the same way we shouldn't necesarliy be banging heads with North Korea, yet. I think you're connecting things which are not connected.
How has Iraq provoked war against the United States in the last twelve years? You can't point to an invasion of a neighboring country over a decade ago as a casus belli.
They provoked us because they did invade another country, and then we and other nations defeated them. As part of the agreement for a cease fire, they were to disarm, and to this day they have not. If you think they have you're disagreeing with the entire world. Everybody agrees that they need to disarm, that's why everybody is calling for inspections. The difference is we're putting our foot down and saying enough of this bullshit - disarm now, or else.
I look at it like I'm in a room with some people. One of them has a gun and has killed another person in the room, and beaten other people with his gun. One person says put the gun down down, or I'm going to attack you. The gunman refuses to put the gun down over and over again, in fact he pretends he doesn't even have a gun even though we all know he does. All the other people in the room are content to just ask "please, please, put it down", but at this point it's just obvious he's not going to.
Or does this right to pre-emptive aggression only apply to the United States?
I think the world is a fucked up place with fucked up people, and basically all you can do is what is in your best interest first, and then hope and help for the rest. If other nations adopt this poicy, yes, that's their right. It would be great if we could all be peaceful, but the idealistic part of me went away a long time ago.
And you don't think you're manipulated? You've got your finger on the pulse of truth or something? Get over yourself. I supposed it's a big oil conspiracy, right? If you think that the United States is interested in deposing brutal dictators, you need to brush up on your recent US history. Why does the United States support Saudi Arabia? Why has the United States backed military coups and dictatorships in Venezuela and Pakistan?
Nobody said we should attack all brutal dictators. And I never said the US foreign policty was always right. However, if you have a brutal dictator like Saddam who has weapons, has used them, has invaded other countries, who to this very day continues to defy the UN, and has a personal beef with you, then you have a situation where force might just be necesary.
Even if this hypocrisy wasn't self-evident, this is a war of aggression, a first strike, an unprovoked war. Do you feel comfortable with your government setting that precedent?
I don't see how you call this unprovoked. It was provoked 12 years ago, and every day in between. Hell they still shoot at our planes. Iraq has been in violation for 12 years. You're damn right I feel comfortable in this situation. I'd feel uncomfortable if we didn't do anyting, and let Saddam do his thing.
The world is starting to view Bush as a pretty serious threat to world peace, at this point.
Actually a lot of the world supports our position.
Alarming how easily the population can be manipulated through fear.
It's very easy to chalk it all up to the American public being manipulated, but you have to remember that there are a lot of very smart people that have weighed the evidence and decided enough is enough.
I find it amazing that anti-war people don't see the case for action. What kind of a brutal dictator would you have to be before force is justified?
Actually it would be more like an asteroid that already destroyed another planet, and is still coming in our general direction, but most of the world is content to say "Let's just see if it hits us."
As strange as it may sound to you, the answer is "no", they can't act like their competitors. Microsoft, as a "proven molopoly" has lost the ability to act as freely as its rivals. The question of whether they can provide competitive products and services within the limitations (such as they are) of the antitrust decision is another mattter.
I do realize that there will be things that are different between them and their competitors, but don't those things have to be specifically ordered by a judge, or is there a general ruleset that monopolists have to follow, and if so what is it? My point is, every time MS does anything it's "another example of Microsoft illegally abusing their monopoly status." The way people talk it's as if Microsft should just close shop because anything else is unfair to the rest of the world.
Notice the company wasn't broken up and forced out of business, and I don't remember seeing a judgement saying they couldn't offer certifications to high school students. I'm not sure if your point is that people are allowed to complain about microsoft because they are a monopoly (which I'd grant, I understand people's frustraion), or that MS isn't allowed to offer certficiations because of the monopoly - maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt that's the case.
Good for you, good for your kids, but why do you think learning MS systems would give them the "-most-"opportunities? Is it "because -everyone- uses MS"?
Hrmm. Think on that one.
I did think about it, and I still have the same answer. Maybe you can enlighten me. If 90% of the world uses MS, and you have a solid working knowldege of the OS and common applications, then that gives you an advantage. If 90% of the world used Linux I'd say teach kids Linux. Why would you teach a computing platform that you have a small chance of using in real world business?
Also I know of the "teach kids fundamentals, not speficic products" argument, but I say it's best to teach them fundamentals and specifics. Explain to them what the computer is doing, and let them know that there are other platforms, but certainly teach them how to use the system they'll probably have to use.
So what does that mean, that they can't still operate like a competitive company? They aren't allowed to market their products or attract new customers or developers?
To use your colorful example, they are criminals that have been through the court system and have been given their punishment, which was basically a strong warning.
Hell yes I would want my kids to learn MS, since that will give them the most opportunities when they have to get a job.
Well if the person was dumbfounded at the concept of a search tree that's one thing, but just because they aren't famaliar with one initially doesn't mean they can't learn quickly. If you told me you needed a search tree I'd go find one of the 45 million examples they have on the internet in VBA and use it, but I couldn't do one from scratch.
Of course, if you're a VBA programmer search trees aren't really used that often in my experience. VBA is more for high level automation, databases and things like that.
My first certification was in Developing Apps with MS Access & VBA, and while it wasn't extremely intense in code, there definitely was some. You had to know DAO and things like that, string functions. Basically stuff you would need to develop apps using VBA and Access, not basic computer science stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it's possible that people give a shit about the world around them, but don't want their employer to enforce if/how/when they contribute to that world? I get a very nasty feeling from mixing my private ethics with an employer who is paying me to do a job.
Just my opinion - but you could be missing out on some good people with a policy like that.
right, but in this case they are using their power to dominate the market they already have a monopoly in, not a new one.
I wouldn't advocate usign Access in a lot of situations, but I used to work for a company that used Access a lot and it can really be a quick way to develop a system that gets the job done well. With the speed of LAN's today network overhead was never a problem, and you can separate the front end from the data cutting down on traffic.
Having said that I much prefer MS-SQL and Oracle for most systems, but cost is a big factor and sometimes you can't justtify spending several thousand just for a DB.
No, the GUI just makes it easy enough that people who don't really know how to do it can, and some people abuse that. But people that do know how to do it can still design a proper database using Access, there's nothing about a GUI that stops that.
Disease wants to be free
IIS administration
The other things:
So yes, you can do these things, as well as anything else provided by a COM object.
Not. Part of the agreement was that the U.S. would maintain a dialogue with N.K regarding future economic and diplomatic concerns. When GWB came into office, he unilaterally ceased all high level diplomatic communication with N.K., in clear breach of the agreed framework
Gee, maybe that was because they were developing nuclear weapons the whole time and we knew it?
We canadians actually value life....150,000 people is a fucking lot, do not belittle them.
Which is why you should be glad we dropped the bomb instead of waging a land war, because many more people would have died.
1. You'll have to show me where in the EULA it states that the EULA can be changed by MS at any point they want for the version of the software that you accepted the EULA for. If that were the case, I could rewrite the entire EULA for them by simply saying "This agreement between you and Microsoft is not an agreement, and Mircosoft may change the terms of this non-agreement at any time" or something like that. Instead, the EULA I agreed to says this (regarding the version of the product that you have on your machine - upgrades can include amendments to the EULA, which you will have to agree to):
18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT (including any addendum or agreement to this EULA which is included with the product) are the entire agreement between you and Microsoft relating to the product and the support services (if any) and they supercede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals, and representations with respect to the product or any other subject matter covered by this EULA. To the extent the terms of any MS policies or programs for support services conflict with the terms of this EULA, the terms of this EULA shall control.
Seems like when I click "I agree", it's pretty binding for that version of the software.
And your original point that you could not get your money back is completely wrong, as stated in the EULA you can get your money back if you do not agree to the terms of the EULA by returning it to the place of purchase.
2. Once again, I think you are dancing around the issue. As a developer, my "usage" of software certainly includes how I am able to distribute sofware. I don't just mess around with software on my machine for the hell of it, usually when I do something it's for a purpose, and usually that purpose is to help other people with software solutions. Being able to do whatever I want with software is totally pointless if other people can't benefit from my work on any terms agreed between me and those people.
3. Whatever. You can call it what you want, but I, as well as more developers and users than on any other platform have enjoyed a relationship with Microsoft, certainly not perfect, but completely acceptable. If it weren't, I would simply switch, as would every other intelligent individual, because as much as you would like to claim that people are hopelessly locked in, it's software and not crack, and if there were greater advantages other places I would and will go there.
1. If you're that concerned about these types of things, such as if you're purchasing for a large company where it matters, give MS a call tell them you'd love to buy their fine product if you could only see the EULA first. I'm pretty sure they'd email you a copy of it. If I'm wrong, then yes that's pretty bad, somehow I doubt it.
2. If you want to be that nitpicky - then the same problem applies to the GPL. For example, say I develop a utility for my company's internal use, and then they decide they want to sell it to another company without disclosing the source, they couldn't eh? People like to say the GPL doesn't limit you, that it's the copyright law that limits you from redistributing it, but the fact remains that software that is under the GPL is still not 100% free, and it doesn't really matter to me what is restricting my use.
3. Only roughly 80-90% of computer users. Unforunately we just haven't "got it" yet and switched to linux. I'm still waiting for that hard raping MS is gonna give to me, since they're out to screw their customers. Unfortunately they just haven't given it to me yet.
What kind of a moron buys a system knowing he has a certain set of requirements and doesn't evaluate whether a product meets those requirements first?
Maybe I'm confused, but from what you're saying, if I paid for the Open Source software I can do whatever I want, and blatantly disregard the GPL? I mean, after all, I can expect fair value and not what you say I get, right?
From the BBC
Is the war with Iraq about oil when all is said and done? The anti-war movement seems to think so. I am not so sure.
Unless the peace movement has discovered telepathy, I doubt that it's in any better position to divine the hidden thoughts or secret motivations of George Bush and Tony Blair than I am. Arguing about unstated motives, therefore, is a waste of time - claims cannot be proven or disproven.
Is it so difficult to imagine that both Bush and Blair sincerely believe - rightly or wrongly - that a well-armed Iraq poses an intolerable danger to the civilized world? If access to oil were of concern to them, one might have expected members of their administrations to hint as much. After all, the Thatcher and Bush "senior" administrations were quite open about the role that oil played in justifying the first go-around in Kuwait. Polls in the United States revealed at the time, moreover, that the public responded favourably to the argument. Why the supposed reticence now?
Regardless, it's difficult to know exactly what's being alleged when one is confronted by the slogan "No Blood for Oil!"
If the argument is that war is primarily being executed to ensure global access to Iraqi oil reserves, then it flounders upon misunderstanding. The only thing preventing Iraqi oil from entering the world market in force is the partial U.N. embargo on Iraqi exports. Surely if access to Iraqi oil were the issue, it would have occurred to Bush and Blair that removing the embargo is about 100 billion dollars cheaper - and less politically risky - than going to war.
If the argument is that war is being undertaken to grab Iraqi reserves, flood the market with oil, bust the OPEC cartel, and provide cheap energy to western consumers, then war would be a dagger pointed at the heart of big oil companies. That's because low prices equal low profits. But if the market were flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, it would also wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends.
Accordingly, it's impossible to square this story with the allegation that President Bush is a puppet of the oil industry. If oil company "fat cats" were calling the shots - as is often alleged by the protesters - President Bush would almost certainly not go to war. He would instead embrace the Franco-German-Russian plan of muscular but indefinite inspections. Because keeping the world on the precipice of uncertainty regarding conflict is the best guarantee that oil prices, (and thus, oil profits,) will remain at current levels.
If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established? Do the protestors think that this high-profile public commitment is a bald-faced lie? If outright ownership of oil is the real goal of this war, then I'm forced to wonder why the U.S. didn't seize the Kuwaiti fields more than 10 years ago.
If the argument is that this war is aimed at installing a pro-American regime more inclined to grant oil contracts to American and British rather than French and Russian oil firms, then it invites a similar charge that France and Russia are against war, primarily to protect their cosy economic relationships with the existing Iraqi regime. Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war.
Moreover, the profit opportunities afforded by Iraqi development
Didn't you know? Today is the day the editor's basically say "we don't give a shit about you", post these stories all day, watch people complain, and then laugh and comment on how they can't believe people get angry because we know they're going to do it.
Hey, I guess it's their site. I'd be pissed if I actually had a paid subscription.
My old boss told me a story about a big bank that was using SQL server, and they were having a problem and couldn't figure it out. Apparently it got so bad that one of the head people of the bank called Microsoft and actually got Bill Gates on the phone. Shortly after, the main guy from the SQL server group and a team of engineers was on a plane to help solve the problem.
Maybe it's not a true story, but I think that in order to get to the place Microsoft is at, you have to do a little listening to your customers.
If enough big clients complain about this, I'm sure Microsoft will react.
I don't value my Karma so much that I need an edge on all the other posters. And for the Slashdot effect, I just wait till it's over. It's not like the news here is so important that a few hours makes a difference.
Now I would subscribe for things like better editing, or story moderation, but this isn't that big of a deal to me.
What really is it you don't like about the windows interface, that Macs do so well? You read all these "macs are just so more usable" posts here but their's never and details to back them up. Maybe you can help me
...but I do feel as though there are some obvious discrepencies and hypocrisies to be found in what we are told, if we just have the nerve to look. I'm not privy to any privileged information, but I don't just parrot what the mainstream media tells me without investigation of the topic.
Oh I have the nerve to look and I have, I just haven't found any solid evidence that there's a motive other than disarming Saddam. None of the anti-war rhetoric concerning our motives seems very plausible to me, especially when there seems to be an extremely convincing case as to why there should be action. Occam's Razor. Even you don't really have a coherent theory as stated, you have some things that "maybe if you had to guess" are the motives. And I'm not parroting anybody, I've weighed the facts as reported by a myriad of sources and made up my own mind. In fact I was skeptical at first, but over time I've changed my view.
If I had to guess, it does seem the most likely to me that the chief motivating factor is strategic; partly for the natural resources, partly to help push the stated Wolfowitz doctrine (you know, our Deputy Secrety of Defense?) of repressing any other nations from being able to position themselves as a competitor to the United States.
If it were for oil, wouldn't it just be easier to try to purchase that oil? You think Bush is really so evil he would rather kill US & Iraqi soldiers and civilians and risk other terrorist threats just for oil, when we could probably just lift sanctions and purchase it? Also let's remember Ari Fleisher and others have stated that Iraq will keep their oil, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Why didn't we just keep their oil the first time? As far as your Wolfowitz policy, I'm not extremely famaliar with it, but from your info - who are we scared is going to be on a level playing field with the US - Iraq? Why the hell would we really care unless they started amassing an army that could give us a challenge? You'll have to spell that out for me.
And Israel's defiance of UN resolutions, possession of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons!), and propensity to invade neighboring countries doesn't apply to this same logic? Of course not, they are on "our side."
It's a clear double-standard. It's evidence of an unstated agenda, but you don't seem willing to recognize that.
First let me say that I think that situation is very messy and there's no good solution. But whether you or I like it, Israel is our ally, and you tend to look past the actions of you allies. Also, I'm unaware of Israel using chem or bio weapons, if I'm wrong please correct me. But saying that, I don't understand how the fact that Israel is our ally is in any way proof that we have other motives than disarming Saddam. First off, we don't really have any reason to fear Israel, so of course we'll deal with them differently. It's not a cookie cutter situation, the same way we shouldn't necesarliy be banging heads with North Korea, yet. I think you're connecting things which are not connected.
How has Iraq provoked war against the United States in the last twelve years? You can't point to an invasion of a neighboring country over a decade ago as a casus belli.
They provoked us because they did invade another country, and then we and other nations defeated them. As part of the agreement for a cease fire, they were to disarm, and to this day they have not. If you think they have you're disagreeing with the entire world. Everybody agrees that they need to disarm, that's why everybody is calling for inspections. The difference is we're putting our foot down and saying enough of this bullshit - disarm now, or else.
I look at it like I'm in a room with some people. One of them has a gun and has killed another person in the room, and beaten other people with his gun. One person says put the gun down down, or I'm going to attack you. The gunman refuses to put the gun down over and over again, in fact he pretends he doesn't even have a gun even though we all know he does. All the other people in the room are content to just ask "please, please, put it down", but at this point it's just obvious he's not going to.
Or does this right to pre-emptive aggression only apply to the United States?
I think the world is a fucked up place with fucked up people, and basically all you can do is what is in your best interest first, and then hope and help for the rest. If other nations adopt this poicy, yes, that's their right. It would be great if we could all be peaceful, but the idealistic part of me went away a long time ago.
And you don't think you're manipulated? You've got your finger on the pulse of truth or something? Get over yourself. I supposed it's a big oil conspiracy, right?
If you think that the United States is interested in deposing brutal dictators, you need to brush up on your recent US history.
Why does the United States support Saudi Arabia?
Why has the United States backed military coups and dictatorships in Venezuela and Pakistan?
Nobody said we should attack all brutal dictators. And I never said the US foreign policty was always right. However, if you have a brutal dictator like Saddam who has weapons, has used them, has invaded other countries, who to this very day continues to defy the UN, and has a personal beef with you, then you have a situation where force might just be necesary.
Even if this hypocrisy wasn't self-evident, this is a war of aggression, a first strike, an unprovoked war. Do you feel comfortable with your government setting that precedent?
I don't see how you call this unprovoked. It was provoked 12 years ago, and every day in between. Hell they still shoot at our planes. Iraq has been in violation for 12 years. You're damn right I feel comfortable in this situation. I'd feel uncomfortable if we didn't do anyting, and let Saddam do his thing.
The world is starting to view Bush as a pretty serious threat to world peace, at this point.
Actually a lot of the world supports our position.
Alarming how easily the population can be manipulated through fear.
It's very easy to chalk it all up to the American public being manipulated, but you have to remember that there are a lot of very smart people that have weighed the evidence and decided enough is enough.
I find it amazing that anti-war people don't see the case for action. What kind of a brutal dictator would you have to be before force is justified?
Actually it would be more like an asteroid that already destroyed another planet, and is still coming in our general direction, but most of the world is content to say "Let's just see if it hits us."
As strange as it may sound to you, the answer is "no", they can't act like their competitors. Microsoft, as a "proven molopoly" has lost the ability to act as freely as its rivals. The question of whether they can provide competitive products and services within the limitations (such as they are) of the antitrust decision
is another mattter.
I do realize that there will be things that are different between them and their competitors, but don't those things have to be specifically ordered by a judge, or is there a general ruleset that monopolists have to follow, and if so what is it? My point is, every time MS does anything it's "another example of Microsoft illegally abusing their monopoly status." The way people talk it's as if Microsft should just close shop because anything else is unfair to the rest of the world.
Notice the company wasn't broken up and forced out of business, and I don't remember seeing a judgement saying they couldn't offer certifications to high school students. I'm not sure if your point is that people are allowed to complain about microsoft because they are a monopoly (which I'd grant, I understand people's frustraion), or that MS isn't allowed to offer certficiations because of the monopoly - maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt that's the case.
Good for you, good for your kids, but why do you think learning MS systems would give them the "-most-"opportunities? Is it "because -everyone- uses MS"?
Hrmm. Think on that one.
I did think about it, and I still have the same answer. Maybe you can enlighten me. If 90% of the world uses MS, and you have a solid working knowldege of the OS and common applications, then that gives you an advantage. If 90% of the world used Linux I'd say teach kids Linux. Why would you teach a computing platform that you have a small chance of using in real world business?
Also I know of the "teach kids fundamentals, not speficic products" argument, but I say it's best to teach them fundamentals and specifics. Explain to them what the computer is doing, and let them know that there are other platforms, but certainly teach them how to use the system they'll probably have to use.
So what does that mean, that they can't still operate like a competitive company? They aren't allowed to market their products or attract new customers or developers?
To use your colorful example, they are criminals that have been through the court system and have been given their punishment, which was basically a strong warning.
Hell yes I would want my kids to learn MS, since that will give them the most opportunities when they have to get a job.
Well if the person was dumbfounded at the concept of a search tree that's one thing, but just because they aren't famaliar with one initially doesn't mean they can't learn quickly. If you told me you needed a search tree I'd go find one of the 45 million examples they have on the internet in VBA and use it, but I couldn't do one from scratch.
Of course, if you're a VBA programmer search trees aren't really used that often in my experience. VBA is more for high level automation, databases and things like that.
My first certification was in Developing Apps with MS Access & VBA, and while it wasn't extremely intense in code, there definitely was some. You had to know DAO and things like that, string functions. Basically stuff you would need to develop apps using VBA and Access, not basic computer science stuff.
What language do you have to program in to be considered a professional developer?