One could argue, and I will, that internet speak is just like shorthand. Shorthand was used long ago (well think 1800-1900's) in letters to abbreviate things to make letter writing easier and quicker for people. Nowadays we have what you described which is really no different.
After all, despite you writing it like that any native english speaker would have little trouble understnading what you wrote, even if they had never seen internet shorthand before. People are still able to write effectively, for the most part, otherwise they just use shorthand when on the internet talking socially. Or, outside america, for text messaging. I cannot believe how many people here in europe text each other instead of calling and the dialect if you will that has grown out of this.
Personally I can't stand it but I understand why it is done and don't begrudge a person just because they do it. Well unless they do the whole I p0wnz0r j00 fagg0rtz!111 crap .:)
... see with deep freeze it doesn't matter. I don't have to lock the systems down and I won't lock the systems down. The computers are bought with student money. Ergo, the students decide how they should be able to use them, and they want the most functionality possible. So they get full rights, well power user in win2k/xp, except to shut down antivirus (so they can't throw a virus on the machine or other nasty program).
The problem is people are so used to locking everything away from the user (because of problems that the user causes) that they cannot fathom just giving all rights to a user since it doesn't matter with DF -- you can just reboot the machine.
Once again you miss the point.. as do most people. I don't want kiosk mode. I don't want limited file permission. I want the user to have root privleges basically. These systems are bought with student money (student technology fees) and they should be able to use them for whatever their little hearts desire.
I don't want to lock the systems down in any way shape or form (well about the only thing they can't do is shut off antivirus). I want to let the students do whatever the hell they feel like to the sytem. Rm -rf / for all I care. Or install any program they want. That's where deep freeze comes in handy. You can deltree *.* and reboot the system and everything is back to where it was.
First off I've never ever ever ever seen deep freeze crash a system. We use it on well over 270 public computers (different manufactures + OS') and i've *never* seen deep freeze crash. Something was wrong with your setup is all I can guess.
Also, I don't want to lock up a computer. I want to give the end users as much ability to change/install/customize the computer as possible. I want students to be able to install whatever they want, etc, etc. Deep freeze allows that and allows me to not have to worry about locking stuff down.
LVM snapshot would be the best way. THe other two wouldn't allow complete functionality for the enduser (install or change the system however they wanted since it's RO partially).
Yeah really deep freeze is best in a homogenous computer enviroment where you don't need to install a lot of software often. Baring that, it is quite easy if you have it on a domain and use windows sms or other type to install stuff remotely at like 4am (you can set deep freeze to reboot unfrozen during the middle of the nite, for instance, to do windows updates). Otherwise, yeah it's a big pain in the ass.
Yeah for linux desktops this would be a great idea since, currently, there really is no solution equivalent to deep freeze for windows/mac os X. Brielfy, deep freeze is a godsend that basically creates a static image that you can do whatever the hell you want to and all changes are gone at reboot. It's absoultely fantastic if you are administering a lab or lots of public computers as it allows you to not have to lock up a computer at all and still not worry about anybody messing the sytem up. Saves so many headaches and students love it since they get a full computer they can install/change however they want while I don't have to worry about crappy security programs or kiosk modes.
This cd would give the same sort of functionality to Linux based labs that has been missing. Of course, personally, I would like to see some sort of open source deep freeze program but.. what the heck. Close enough;).
Yeah but who is going to pay for the increased track usage? As it is no track maint. is spiralling out of control, cost wise. Now you want to, say, double the traffic on the lines?
Yeah i've heard that manchester - liverpool lime street is one of the absolute worst routes available. And no, i've never tried to take it. I usually go north to scotland or south to manchester (from lancasteR) so I don't really have to deal with the high density routes. Although the 3 times I've gone to london i've never had a problem.
Yeah the track is the big problem from what I understand. It looks like the government put off repairs on the tracks and then sold them leaving virgin and others with enormous track upgrades and repairs needed. Then you have the problem that your are shoving too many trains too quickly on the available tracks and the maint. cycle increases plus the tracks that most need ot be expanded/replaced are those routes that give the train companies the most money and you can see why british rail is having a problem.
Maybe i'm not lucky.. it's possible it's just because I mainly take trains in the north of england to scotland or down to manchester and rarely deal with the higher density routes around london and the rest. Still, all 3 times I have been to london the most I was delayed was 3 minutes and one time I got there 10 minutes *ahead* of schedule.
No, I haven't tried trains in the rest of europe, just in GB.
I've been riding the trains in the UK for the past 6 months ish and I don't understand what people's problem with them is. If they are delayed it is almost never more than 10 minutes and if it is greater than 10 minutes it's usually due to something weird like lightning hitting the tracks or some other thing. 9 times out of 10 your train is never delayed and you don't run into problems.
To me, as an american, the trains are fan-fucking-tastic. American mass transportation systems can't come close to the ease and convience that the British get from the train system. Personally, I love it. Get on whatever train you want come back on whatever train you want at any time. It's great.
Now, for me, I want wireless and I want it now;). The 4 hour train ride to London would be much much much easier to deal with if I could have my precious intarweb with me.
Yeah, exactly cheap PC's. Gateway used to be fairly widely used in the business market until their quality went downhill and tech support was outsourced to god knows where. We used to have our pc's (100+ a year) from gateway until 2 years ago when we switched to a company more focused on business clients that didn't force you to jump through the hoops that gateway does.
Which begs the question of who the hell is going to buy these servers? I didn't even know gateway made any to be honest; I can't imagine buying any corporate type computer from gateway especially a server.
Allright, you win =). Indeed, it appears, after going back through the ol history books, that while the last 50 years hasn't seen any big major wars it has seen plenty of small localized wars.
The difference being that places such as Europe and North/South america tend to have not had any so it looks like there hasn't been that many. While in the previous 150 years (1800-1945) Europe was nearly constantly at war with each other. Indeed, Europe has basically been at war with itself for that last 1400 years ever since the fall of the Roman empire up until the present.
I still believe that the UN has had something to do with the lack of major wars in the last 50 years however, if for nothing else than giving a common forum for discussing and implementing diplomacy. As well as, perhaps more importantly, making diplomacy more legitimate for solving conflicts than war. Man, I should've including that in my original post. Of course, after like 50 responses to my posts you tend to think of all sorts of things;).
During the cold war the UN many, many times served to negotiate differences between the world superpowers, especially with regards to incidents in the middle east and africa. You also overestimate the unwillingness of either the US or the Soviets to go to war. Both countries during the 1950's and early 60's fully believed that a limited nuclear war would be an acceptable policy.
Negotiated and enforced peace treaties include Cyprus, many Israeli peace treaties, Somalia/Eritera, former yugoslavia, North Korea/South Korea, and many others I'm forgetting.
Economic sanctions have helped cause the end of apartheid in South Africa, lessoned human righs abuses in China, forced a number of countries to lesson human rights abuses, etc, etc.
WHO has eradicated smallpox and saved millions upon millions of lives with its various vaccinations that it provides to the third world. Among hundreds of other worthwhile things. WHO was not responsible for somalia food supplies.
Yeah, saddam ignored the UN... got him pretty far didn't it? The UN is, indeed, only as powerful as the US and the other security council nations decide it to be. Obviously, we prefer not to get involved in major wars -- for the most part. With regards to North Korea I wouldn't expect them to continue to develop nuclear weapons much longer because China is getting fed up with it. If china cuts their support lifeline the country, which is barely holding on, will really start to collapse.
Most of those you listed are not wars of conquest. The US actions in afghanistan/iraq are, obstensibly, not occupation forces. The gov't will, in theory, be turned over to the elected rulers. Us invasions of Panama, etc were also not wars of conquest.
N. Vietnam/S. Vietnam and Korea were both civil wars. Iraq/Iran was a religous war and USSR/Afghanistan was not a war of conquest but a war to prop up the socialists in that country.
While the great white fleet was indeed an important declaration of US military power the UK had a worldwide fleet since the 1700's and the spansih had one in the 1500's. Indeed, most european countries were powerful enough to have a worldwide reach with regards to their navies in the 16 adn 17th centuries.
Plenty. You have regional disputes or civil wars (over checnya for example). You have religous wars, Iran/Iraq, you have ethnic wars, yugoslavia. There are many examples. Soviet invasion of hungary was to perserve the communist dicatatorship there as was afghanistan.
Vietnam's invasion of cambodia was to allow it to invade and secure supplies lines to S. Vietnam -- an example of a civil war turning into a regional conflict.
Lots, and lots of different reasons humans decide to go to war.
Yes, european union which includes like Sweden, Norway, Poland, etc, etc. Not the big economic powerhouses of western europe -- i.e. UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Benelux, etc. The traditional focus when people say "europe."
Russia invading afghanistan wasn't much of a war of conquest, but your other are quite valid. Indeed, I had somehow forgotten about Isreal and its 3 wars;). You could've also added Somalia - Eriterea (sp?).You'll also note that most of those wars are largely in the middle east where UN power has the least effect.
My point remains that if you look at any similar 50 year period in the world the amount of wars of conquest etc will be higher than they have been since WWII.
Aggregate total population of western europe, counting France, Germany, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Spain is around 270 million. The US has 300 million people. Better yet, the US is growing way, way faster than Western Europe. Indeed, France is actually losing population.
The combined economy of all of *europe* is slightly larger than the US'. While Europe, in general, does tend to have a higher general unemployment than the US its standard of living is about equal. Military wise, their armies are comparable to the US', and in some cases bigger, but their navies and air forces fall short. Their militaries aren't really weaker than ours, they just aren't designed to go fight wars in other places.
Japan realized there was no "win" before WWII yet still went to war. The emperor himself realized that the war would result in a loss by Japan.
I think you are giving too much credit to people, US documents released under the freedom of information act point out that the US was quite willing to risk a limited nuclear exchange during much of the 1950's and 60's. While Nuke weapons certainly contributed to the peace between the major superpowers they wren't alone responsible for it.
Maintain whatever you want, but the US wasn't a superpower until after WW2. America was pretty isolationist between the world wars.
Not true at all. The US as isolationist only with regards to Europe, and then not really. We participated in the Washington Naval Treaty and other treaties with europe throughout the time between the wars. The US also agressively persued our policies in the far east (which lead us to confrontation with Japan).
The US was a superpower after WWI, indeed before WWI, because of her economic might. With regards to your other points, no the UN couldn't really do anything if the US or China went to war but it does reduce the liklihood of such an event occurring by giving a forum for discussing issues that might lead to war as well as allowing other world powers to convince them otherwise. Yeah, the US did what it wanted in the middle east but the rest of the world put considerable pressure on the US -- through the UN I might add -- to not go to war.
The UN has prevented war simply by giving diplomacy a outlet and allowing for world wide discussion of issues. This, combined with the possiblity of military action from the world's superpower, has lead to the near extinction of wars of conquest. Name me more than 5 in the last 50 years -- you won't be able to. Their authority is backed by the world, if the world doesn't care then the UN won't care.
At any rate, the UN hasn't "caused messes" for the US to clean up. It has, indeed, been much the other way around. UN has rubberstamped many US operations that lead to bigger messes indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
One could argue, and I will, that internet speak is just like shorthand. Shorthand was used long ago (well think 1800-1900's) in letters to abbreviate things to make letter writing easier and quicker for people. Nowadays we have what you described which is really no different.
:)
After all, despite you writing it like that any native english speaker would have little trouble understnading what you wrote, even if they had never seen internet shorthand before. People are still able to write effectively, for the most part, otherwise they just use shorthand when on the internet talking socially. Or, outside america, for text messaging. I cannot believe how many people here in europe text each other instead of calling and the dialect if you will that has grown out of this.
Personally I can't stand it but I understand why it is done and don't begrudge a person just because they do it. Well unless they do the whole I p0wnz0r j00 fagg0rtz!111 crap .
... see with deep freeze it doesn't matter. I don't have to lock the systems down and I won't lock the systems down. The computers are bought with student money. Ergo, the students decide how they should be able to use them, and they want the most functionality possible. So they get full rights, well power user in win2k/xp, except to shut down antivirus (so they can't throw a virus on the machine or other nasty program).
The problem is people are so used to locking everything away from the user (because of problems that the user causes) that they cannot fathom just giving all rights to a user since it doesn't matter with DF -- you can just reboot the machine.
Once again you miss the point.. as do most people. I don't want kiosk mode. I don't want limited file permission. I want the user to have root privleges basically. These systems are bought with student money (student technology fees) and they should be able to use them for whatever their little hearts desire.
I don't want to lock the systems down in any way shape or form (well about the only thing they can't do is shut off antivirus). I want to let the students do whatever the hell they feel like to the sytem. Rm -rf / for all I care. Or install any program they want. That's where deep freeze comes in handy. You can deltree *.* and reboot the system and everything is back to where it was.
First off I've never ever ever ever seen deep freeze crash a system. We use it on well over 270 public computers (different manufactures + OS') and i've *never* seen deep freeze crash. Something was wrong with your setup is all I can guess.
Also, I don't want to lock up a computer. I want to give the end users as much ability to change/install/customize the computer as possible. I want students to be able to install whatever they want, etc, etc. Deep freeze allows that and allows me to not have to worry about locking stuff down.
LVM snapshot would be the best way. THe other two wouldn't allow complete functionality for the enduser (install or change the system however they wanted since it's RO partially).
Yeah really deep freeze is best in a homogenous computer enviroment where you don't need to install a lot of software often. Baring that, it is quite easy if you have it on a domain and use windows sms or other type to install stuff remotely at like 4am (you can set deep freeze to reboot unfrozen during the middle of the nite, for instance, to do windows updates). Otherwise, yeah it's a big pain in the ass.
Yeah for linux desktops this would be a great idea since, currently, there really is no solution equivalent to deep freeze for windows/mac os X. Brielfy, deep freeze is a godsend that basically creates a static image that you can do whatever the hell you want to and all changes are gone at reboot. It's absoultely fantastic if you are administering a lab or lots of public computers as it allows you to not have to lock up a computer at all and still not worry about anybody messing the sytem up. Saves so many headaches and students love it since they get a full computer they can install/change however they want while I don't have to worry about crappy security programs or kiosk modes.
;).
This cd would give the same sort of functionality to Linux based labs that has been missing. Of course, personally, I would like to see some sort of open source deep freeze program but.. what the heck. Close enough
Yeah but who is going to pay for the increased track usage? As it is no track maint. is spiralling out of control, cost wise. Now you want to, say, double the traffic on the lines?
Yeah i've heard that manchester - liverpool lime street is one of the absolute worst routes available. And no, i've never tried to take it. I usually go north to scotland or south to manchester (from lancasteR) so I don't really have to deal with the high density routes. Although the 3 times I've gone to london i've never had a problem.
Yeah the track is the big problem from what I understand. It looks like the government put off repairs on the tracks and then sold them leaving virgin and others with enormous track upgrades and repairs needed. Then you have the problem that your are shoving too many trains too quickly on the available tracks and the maint. cycle increases plus the tracks that most need ot be expanded/replaced are those routes that give the train companies the most money and you can see why british rail is having a problem.
;).
I still think they are fine though
Maybe i'm not lucky.. it's possible it's just because I mainly take trains in the north of england to scotland or down to manchester and rarely deal with the higher density routes around london and the rest. Still, all 3 times I have been to london the most I was delayed was 3 minutes and one time I got there 10 minutes *ahead* of schedule.
No, I haven't tried trains in the rest of europe, just in GB.
I've been riding the trains in the UK for the past 6 months ish and I don't understand what people's problem with them is. If they are delayed it is almost never more than 10 minutes and if it is greater than 10 minutes it's usually due to something weird like lightning hitting the tracks or some other thing. 9 times out of 10 your train is never delayed and you don't run into problems.
;). The 4 hour train ride to London would be much much much easier to deal with if I could have my precious intarweb with me.
To me, as an american, the trains are fan-fucking-tastic. American mass transportation systems can't come close to the ease and convience that the British get from the train system. Personally, I love it. Get on whatever train you want come back on whatever train you want at any time. It's great.
Now, for me, I want wireless and I want it now
Yeah, exactly cheap PC's. Gateway used to be fairly widely used in the business market until their quality went downhill and tech support was outsourced to god knows where. We used to have our pc's (100+ a year) from gateway until 2 years ago when we switched to a company more focused on business clients that didn't force you to jump through the hoops that gateway does.
Which begs the question of who the hell is going to buy these servers? I didn't even know gateway made any to be honest; I can't imagine buying any corporate type computer from gateway especially a server.
Allright, you win =). Indeed, it appears, after going back through the ol history books, that while the last 50 years hasn't seen any big major wars it has seen plenty of small localized wars.
;).
The difference being that places such as Europe and North/South america tend to have not had any so it looks like there hasn't been that many. While in the previous 150 years (1800-1945) Europe was nearly constantly at war with each other. Indeed, Europe has basically been at war with itself for that last 1400 years ever since the fall of the Roman empire up until the present.
I still believe that the UN has had something to do with the lack of major wars in the last 50 years however, if for nothing else than giving a common forum for discussing and implementing diplomacy. As well as, perhaps more importantly, making diplomacy more legitimate for solving conflicts than war. Man, I should've including that in my original post. Of course, after like 50 responses to my posts you tend to think of all sorts of things
During the cold war the UN many, many times served to negotiate differences between the world superpowers, especially with regards to incidents in the middle east and africa. You also overestimate the unwillingness of either the US or the Soviets to go to war. Both countries during the 1950's and early 60's fully believed that a limited nuclear war would be an acceptable policy.
Negotiated and enforced peace treaties include Cyprus, many Israeli peace treaties, Somalia/Eritera, former yugoslavia, North Korea/South Korea, and many others I'm forgetting.
Economic sanctions have helped cause the end of apartheid in South Africa, lessoned human righs abuses in China, forced a number of countries to lesson human rights abuses, etc, etc.
WHO has eradicated smallpox and saved millions upon millions of lives with its various vaccinations that it provides to the third world. Among hundreds of other worthwhile things. WHO was not responsible for somalia food supplies.
Yeah, saddam ignored the UN... got him pretty far didn't it? The UN is, indeed, only as powerful as the US and the other security council nations decide it to be. Obviously, we prefer not to get involved in major wars -- for the most part. With regards to North Korea I wouldn't expect them to continue to develop nuclear weapons much longer because China is getting fed up with it. If china cuts their support lifeline the country, which is barely holding on, will really start to collapse.
Most of those you listed are not wars of conquest. The US actions in afghanistan/iraq are, obstensibly, not occupation forces. The gov't will, in theory, be turned over to the elected rulers. Us invasions of Panama, etc were also not wars of conquest.
N. Vietnam/S. Vietnam and Korea were both civil wars. Iraq/Iran was a religous war and USSR/Afghanistan was not a war of conquest but a war to prop up the socialists in that country.
While the great white fleet was indeed an important declaration of US military power the UK had a worldwide fleet since the 1700's and the spansih had one in the 1500's. Indeed, most european countries were powerful enough to have a worldwide reach with regards to their navies in the 16 adn 17th centuries.
Plenty. You have regional disputes or civil wars (over checnya for example). You have religous wars, Iran/Iraq, you have ethnic wars, yugoslavia. There are many examples. Soviet invasion of hungary was to perserve the communist dicatatorship there as was afghanistan.
Vietnam's invasion of cambodia was to allow it to invade and secure supplies lines to S. Vietnam -- an example of a civil war turning into a regional conflict.
Lots, and lots of different reasons humans decide to go to war.
Yes, european union which includes like Sweden, Norway, Poland, etc, etc. Not the big economic powerhouses of western europe -- i.e. UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Benelux, etc. The traditional focus when people say "europe."
I didn't say wars, I said Wars of Conquest. very different.
Russia invading afghanistan wasn't much of a war of conquest, but your other are quite valid. Indeed, I had somehow forgotten about Isreal and its 3 wars ;). You could've also added Somalia - Eriterea (sp?).You'll also note that most of those wars are largely in the middle east where UN power has the least effect.
My point remains that if you look at any similar 50 year period in the world the amount of wars of conquest etc will be higher than they have been since WWII.
Aggregate total population of western europe, counting France, Germany, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Spain is around 270 million. The US has 300 million people. Better yet, the US is growing way, way faster than Western Europe. Indeed, France is actually losing population.
The combined economy of all of *europe* is slightly larger than the US'. While Europe, in general, does tend to have a higher general unemployment than the US its standard of living is about equal. Military wise, their armies are comparable to the US', and in some cases bigger, but their navies and air forces fall short. Their militaries aren't really weaker than ours, they just aren't designed to go fight wars in other places.
Japan realized there was no "win" before WWII yet still went to war. The emperor himself realized that the war would result in a loss by Japan.
I think you are giving too much credit to people, US documents released under the freedom of information act point out that the US was quite willing to risk a limited nuclear exchange during much of the 1950's and 60's. While Nuke weapons certainly contributed to the peace between the major superpowers they wren't alone responsible for it.
Maintain whatever you want, but the US wasn't a superpower until after WW2. America was pretty isolationist between the world wars.
Not true at all. The US as isolationist only with regards to Europe, and then not really. We participated in the Washington Naval Treaty and other treaties with europe throughout the time between the wars. The US also agressively persued our policies in the far east (which lead us to confrontation with Japan).
The US was a superpower after WWI, indeed before WWI, because of her economic might. With regards to your other points, no the UN couldn't really do anything if the US or China went to war but it does reduce the liklihood of such an event occurring by giving a forum for discussing issues that might lead to war as well as allowing other world powers to convince them otherwise. Yeah, the US did what it wanted in the middle east but the rest of the world put considerable pressure on the US -- through the UN I might add -- to not go to war.
Who doesn't have karma to burn?
The UN has prevented war simply by giving diplomacy a outlet and allowing for world wide discussion of issues. This, combined with the possiblity of military action from the world's superpower, has lead to the near extinction of wars of conquest. Name me more than 5 in the last 50 years -- you won't be able to. Their authority is backed by the world, if the world doesn't care then the UN won't care.
At any rate, the UN hasn't "caused messes" for the US to clean up. It has, indeed, been much the other way around. UN has rubberstamped many US operations that lead to bigger messes indeed.