US Air Force has documented its plans to shoot down "commercial spacecraft, neutral countries' launching pads -- even weather satellites" should the need arise.
News must be very slow lately... seems like all these places are just stating some obvious stuff in order to fill up their pages or put something with today's date on it.
Of *course* the US Air Force have has these plans for a long time now. Why in the world would this be something just now "found out"? Is this supposed to be some new scuttlebutt just "unearthed" (pardon the pun)? Is there anyone out there who *didn't* think the USAF had these type plans for decades now?
I'm sure that humans don't help the problem much, but nothing has been presented yet to convince me that this warming trend (if there is one) isn't part of the natural cycle of our planet over 1000s (and 1,000,000s) of years. Our data doesn't go back far enough to definitively say that it's all because of human impact.
Again, I'm sure that humans don't help the problem and can do a lot better than we currently do, but I'm not convinced that if we immediately stopped all the "bad stuff" that the warming trend wouldn't continue simply because it's a part of a natural cycle.
Yeah... I stubbed my toe this morning and happened to also see on the news that the Cubs lost. I had better not stub my toe next season...
The number of factors that go into creating/destroying the ozone layer are many, many more than just CFC production. In fact, we don't even know what percentage of factors we do know about how the ozone layer behaves.
Hindsight is 20/20. Coulda/woulda/shoulda, we'll never know.
Odds are, IF Apple had become what Microsoft is, we'd be paying massive amounts more money for hardware and massive amounts more money for upgrades. Apple's history is full of this. I was once a follower of Apple back in the Apple ][ days and up to around the Mac II before I was forced to go x86 because of the available software.
I didn't notice until too late that you had posted both replies so I'm consolidating under this reply. Hopefully if we have further discussion, we can consolidate it under one thread.
I don't think you understand or have knowledge of what Kerry was talking about. There is a program in place to secure former Soviet Union nukes, where we were basically paying to secure those nukes. More or less, we buy the nukes so that the terrorists can't. Bush cut most of the funding to this program. Kerry proposes to increase it. So, despite your belief, the fact is that there is a clear implementation and the timeline is realistic.
I understand this, but to me it seems that not all of the "goods" are on a supermarket shelf with a price tag on it. It seems that there may be a bit of variability in the price for some of it, for example the material that is already in the hands of black market sellers. If this is the case, then what price will they put on it? How can Kerry know that his amount of money is enough to cover all the prices for every one of the pieces of material?
Your idea of tying Kerry's personal funds to his proposal is an interesting idea, but I confess I find something absurd about it. By the same token, shouldn't Bush use his personal fortune to compensate all the unemployed? He did promise that the tax cuts for the rich would solve the unemployment problems.
I was using this as an example to see how strongly Kerry feels about his 4 year plan to buy up a bunch of material that he has no control over the price to buy. If he is confident in his plan, he could bet on it. If he didn't take the bet, then he isn't as sure about it as he appeared in the debate. As far as jobs, the President does not make or destroy jobs directly for the most part. He can only enact policy that he thinks, or is advised that it will make a difference.
If you don't believe Kerry, you could check the facts.
I heard him say that as well. This still does not explain why Kerry thinks that reverting back to a bi-lateral discussion would be better than a multi-lateral discussion, especially when he has been so vocal about multi-lateral discussion in other areas (Iraq).
Your position seems to be that you don't want a leader to exhibit adult behavior. Admitting mistakes is adult behavior.
As I said in my other response: Admitting a mistake and correcting it is a good thing. However, Kerry has voted, said it was a mistake, then voted again the same way as before, then said it was a mistake again, repeat... Repeatedly making the same mistake and saying it is a mistake each time is not a sign of responsible adult behavior.
One thing that struck me over all about the debate is that John Kerry seemed like a man and that George Bush seemed like a child. George Bush was clearly out of his league.
I agree that Kerry looked good during the debate. He was confident and sure of himself. He spoke well and clearly. He is a good speaker. However, I didn't get the feeling that all of his great presentation had any substance and I simply disagree with some of his "facts" and ideas. I don't think some of his ideas will work or will be much more difficult than he thinks it will be, yet he (just as doggedly and inflexibly as Bush) stands by his ideas as if they were The Ultimate Truth.
Bin Laden is not Afghani, he's Saudi. And with something as important as capturing or killing Bin Laden, you want to observe such diplomatic niceties, while overlooking the diplomatic failures of Bush in the Iraq matter?
Bin Laden is Saudi, but his "troops" in Afghanistan are made up of Afghanis. Having his own troops (his own people, in effect) turning against him and throwing him out is "better" than the USA doing it.
You're ignoring the fact that we were getting results, something I would like to credit the President. Using the crediblethreat of force, Bush got inspectors back into Iraq, and they were making progress. And to give Kerry and others in congress credit, they voted to give Bush that tool, the credibility of force. So, your "insanity test" fails on that point when we look at the facts.
On the other hand, I think that test might apply very well to Bush's execution of policy in Iraq. As Kerry pointed out, Bush is promising us "more of the same" of a failing plan. Bush's stubbornness in sticking to his plan despite the realities on the ground, his unwillingness to accept facts that do not jibe with his preconceived notions, should be seen as delusional, which your test nicely points out.
We were getting results? Can you give a metric of the results we were getting? I saw no difference from before when the weapons inspectors were allowed in and shown a dog-n-pony show while the real things the inspectors were there to find were being scurried about so that they wouldn't be seen by the inspectors.
As Kerry pointed out, Bush is promising us "more of the same" of a failing plan. Bush's stubbornness in sticking to his plan despite the realities on the ground, his unwillingness to accept facts that do not jibe with his preconceived notions, should be seen as delusional, which your test nicely points out.
Kerry stated that Bush was promising "more of the same". That is the only source I've ever heard mentioning that phrase, much less the "summary" of Bush's plan. To be honest, I don't know if Bush's plan is "failing" or is being "successful". What are your criteria for "failing"? What are your criteria for "succeeding"? Do you actually think that all the bad guys would lay down and play nice once Houssein was ousted? Did you not think that every person who hates the USA wouldn't take this prime opportunity to kill some Americans? Kerry and his followers seem to think that once Houssein fell, all the bad guys would give up and go home or something. I agree with Bush's assessment that they will fight harder and more to try to break the will of the American public, much as what was seen in Vietnam, to get the troops to get pulled out. They know that Americans are quite fickle and will get tired quickly in the face of determined opposition. When Americans get tired, they'll pull out and the bad guys will be able to take over once again. Kerry has already let them win half the battle when he said publicly that it was all a mistake, a diversion. Kerry is half way giving up already and the people who believe him will feel the same. If they can just keep the resistance going for another year and Kerry is in office, he'll pull the troops out and let Iraq fall into anarchy. This is the worst possible scenario that can happen. As far as Kerry's plans go, he, of all people, should know that plans are the first casualties of a battlefield. He seems to think that he can script how everything will go from here out, but he doesn't realize that there's a whole other side that has some say in what will be happening.
Now, unless I see definitive metrics that prove that we are failing (rising casualty counts are not sufficient proof because casualties *must* be expected), I think that the assessment that the effort is failing is quite subjective. If you somehow thought that the fight would be over and we'd be out of there six months after we started (I specifically remember various public officials warning that it would be lon
Aren't some of the best engineers around the world actually self-taught
Yes, but not necessarily *the* best engineers are self taught (don't fall into that logic trap). I imagine many (if not the majority) of the best engineers are a combination of self taught and formally educated. Sometimes they start off as self-taught and then get formal training to advance beyond where they can get without training. Sometimes (as in innovation) formally educated people use known methods to "self-teach" themselves about new things that haven't been discovered by others yet.
Re:Corps will continue to rule, people are sheep..
on
Amateur Revolution?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
He was a genuine artist more interested in the realities of life than hip hop fame, which is what it boils down to for every genre.
But is this the exception or the rule? If it is the exception, then this is a common mistake trying to prove by example (you can't prove something by example, unless you exhaustively use every example and they all hold to your original hypothesis).
For every one of your example, I can probably show three examples of folks who get into it for the "benefits" of fame.
Well... I didn't really have anywhere else to put this right now... so I'll put it in this thread.
I watched the debate last night (all but the last 15 minutes) and ended up with a number of statements/questions for Kerry that I didn't see brought forth. They bothered me enought that I felt I had to write them down and present them so I've summarized them here.
- Why did Bush use Afghani troops to attack Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?
A politician and soldier should know why Afghani troops were used in this way. If USA troops actually went in and killed Osama bin Laden then it was the USA vs. Muslims. By using Afghani troops, it would be his own people "throwing him out". The political difference should be obvious.
- More diplomacy was needed in Iraq.
The UN had passed 16 resolutions in 10 years (also note that 10 years covered more than Bush's term in office) detailing what Iraq needed to do. Houssein repeatedly ignored them and/or balked at them. What behavior over the past 10 years and 16 resolutions would lead one to believe that the 17th or the 18th resolutions would be different? There is a saying: The definition of "insanity" is "Repeating the same experiment many times expecting different results."
- How can you expect to rally support for a cause that you have publicly stated you believe to be a mistake/diversion?
After having publicly stated that the War in Iraq was a mistake and/or a diversion, what makes anyone think that you can sell other countries on more participation? By these statements, you've shown that your resolve is not strong and/or your goals and exit strategy will change. You may state that you will see it through, but your previous statements define your position as not agreeing with the war, so your heart isn't in it. Therefore, you will not do as good a job. In addition to this, as you so frequently remind us, you learned many things during your service in Vietnam (which I am definitely not questioning and I do acknowledge and respect). It seems to me that one of the most important lessons that you should have learned is what happens in a military action where the nation/President/government that is not fully committed to the task. You've already demonstrated that you aren't fully committed (simply because you think it is a mistake). What assurances would you give to me that this will not turn worse and become another Vietnam type situation (note: I'm not saying that it won't do the same with Bush, but he is very clear about his resolve to the issue, at least). These points were brought up many times during the debate by both sides but you never stated why you expected other nations to become *more* committed in the face of your comments.
- 4 year time-line for nuclear material cleanup. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
I find it hard for anyone to assign a timeline to a task such as this. How can you guarantee this or is it simply an idle promise for the campaign? To be honest, timelines on tasks that have no clear implementation and so many unknowns seem very hard to fix in time so I have to simply dismiss your timeline for this as simple election gab. Are you willing to commit the military to insure your timeline is met? Are you willing to supply your own private funds as monitary backing to insure your promise of 4 years? If you aren't willing to bet your entire wealth on your timeline, you cannot be as sure of it as you appeared in the debates.
- North Korea bi-lateral talks... tried that and failed. Why are you against multi-lateral talks? Why are they not the next step?
As with the diplomacy in Iraq above. You state you want bi-lateral talks. This had already been done and proven ineffective. Now that there are a number of other interested parties in the mix, why would they now be excluded or would you end-around them? It would demonstrate to the other interested parties that you didn't have confidence in those efforts and it would definitely show th
It's far too optimistic of a view of the Democratic Party. I'm not saying that the Republican Party is any better, just saying that believing either party has such idealistic views is wrong I think.
Personally, I don't like the government taking so much of my income. I don't like paying for social programs that I think do more harm than good (or at least those social programs should be heavily revamped). In the past, the Democrats have wanted to take more money from me every year and give to programs I don't like, so that's one of the reasons I don't like them, that and they believe in HUGE government. I read once that during the Clinton era, it took all of the tax money generated east of the Mississippi River just to pay the paychecks of the National Governmental employees. The rest was left for social programs. I can't believe everyone can't see that the US Government being the largest employer in the *world* is a good thing.
I also can't believe that so many people still fail to understand the "Fool in the Shower" economic theory and attribute economic trends solely to the President in office.
I guess I just have a hard time believing that the general populace is just as ignorant as they seem to be. I *know* I don't understand many things, least of all how to guide an economy, so I have to trust others to do it for me. It seems that the people who know the least try the hardest to guide the rest, though.
To be honest, I don't think Bush or Kerry will do as good a job as I'd like. I guess when it comes time for me to vote, I'll have to vote for which one will screw up the least and I think I've already made up my mind who I think that will be.
So... two people getting killed is worse than one? What's your number of people getting killed before it becomes a tragedy? Do you think his family and friends feel less bad because more people didn't die? Why would it have to be Linus or RMS before it's a tragedy? Do you have to have a certain amount of fame or money when you die for it to be a tragedy? Do you have to actually know someone who died before you can feel sympathy for his family and friends?
Really... I'm curious as to what your metrics are before someone's death becomes a tragedy. Maybe you can demonstrate it for us in the form of a graph of deaths vs. degree of tragedy just to be simple.
Yeah... like the Clinton Administration wasn't biased... Seems I remember some things about trips to Apple and other sites and purposefully not visiting Microsoft... why was that? Not exactly non-partisan.
Funny thing is... who was given a job by Apple after leaving office? Again... not very neutral feeling there...
Unfortunately, that's not what it really is. IE was used as the FileManager replacement and to do many things... like do the help system, and such, and also handle http and ftp and all those other things. Basically, the idea was "why have 82 tools, each one displays a similar, but seperate thing and duplicates code, when one tool can easily do it all". With that, it needs to be a core part of the GUI.
Now, that doesn't sound bad to me. Implementation-wise, maybe it shouldn't have been as much in the kernel and the implementation had problems (security and otherwise), but I can see the logic in having a "universal viewer" and not having to load/use 20 other programs to do the same thing, just with different data streams.
They built it themselves... purposefully to win a court case (period).
Funny... since the court case was *about* this particular thing, it's funny that they would have built it into the system in order to cause a court case to happen in order to win a court case with it. I think you have the order in which things happened mixed up.
CEOs and CIOs don't care about usability beyond 'can we use it to do our jobs?'
When I've presented choices like: with ProductA, I can do this in a day. If I use ProductB, it will take me a week to do the same thing. I have yet to be told to use ProductB unless ProductA costs significantly more than my paycheck to cover the time difference, and that's only for a one-off job. If it's something that I do repetitively, it's pretty easy to guess which one I'll get unless it is *really* a huge price difference.
This works for companies who predominantly write code for their own infrastructure but doesn't work very well for companies who try to produce software products.
Depends on what you install. I feel sorry for you if you install Linux on that and try to use KDE or Gnome. We couldn't even get Mandrake 9.2 to install on a machine with 64M because the installer crashed repeatedly. I've found that I need a machine with 256M to run KDE or Gnome at a non-frustrating speed for the GUI. I had a P3-450 w/ 384M for a while running Mandrake 9.2 w/ KDE and it was usable but not very fast. The same machine running Windows ran fine. I suspect that a bit of it was video card support though.
In any case, I've found that lately, most Linux distros (with GUI) to require the same or greater resources to have a similar experience to Windows (not waiting for redraws and such). This didn't used to be the case. 100% of my job is developing on Linux and has been for a year now and my Linux roots go back to pre-1.0 kernel days so I've played around with it a bit.
Now Mono is rapidly becoming a viable alternative to Microsoft's.NET
Why do you think it is an alternative? I know you can "use one or the other" but they aren't necessarily designed to compete by fighting with each other. Personally, I see them sort of both supporting C# and those ideals rather than trying to "beat" each other at anything.
Too bad most folks who buy Windows computers eventually end up playing at least one Windows game. Until Linux has a bunch of games and new titles coming out for it, it won't make much headroom and there have already been plenty of posts about how hard it is going to be to get lots of quality games on Linux.
I talked to my uncle who was having continuous problems with Windows spyware and such because he clicks on everything. I told him that I could build him a Linux machine and he wouldn't have that problem anymore, but unfortunately, he wouldn't be able to play some of his games on it. He said "no thanks".
Slashdot Mirror
US Air Force has documented its plans to shoot down "commercial spacecraft, neutral countries' launching pads -- even weather satellites" should the need arise.
News must be very slow lately... seems like all these places are just stating some obvious stuff in order to fill up their pages or put something with today's date on it.
Of *course* the US Air Force have has these plans for a long time now. Why in the world would this be something just now "found out"? Is this supposed to be some new scuttlebutt just "unearthed" (pardon the pun)? Is there anyone out there who *didn't* think the USAF had these type plans for decades now?
We *do* have solid evidence that periodic cooling cycles are a part of a natural cycle of our planet (ice ages) so I can't rule out warming cycles.
I'm sure that humans don't help the problem much, but nothing has been presented yet to convince me that this warming trend (if there is one) isn't part of the natural cycle of our planet over 1000s (and 1,000,000s) of years. Our data doesn't go back far enough to definitively say that it's all because of human impact.
Again, I'm sure that humans don't help the problem and can do a lot better than we currently do, but I'm not convinced that if we immediately stopped all the "bad stuff" that the warming trend wouldn't continue simply because it's a part of a natural cycle.
Yeah... I stubbed my toe this morning and happened to also see on the news that the Cubs lost. I had better not stub my toe next season...
The number of factors that go into creating/destroying the ozone layer are many, many more than just CFC production. In fact, we don't even know what percentage of factors we do know about how the ozone layer behaves.
You think they might come out and say "Well... yeah, they're right."? What *other* response would they have given other than the one they did?
Actually, you had it right the first time.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Coulda/woulda/shoulda, we'll never know.
Odds are, IF Apple had become what Microsoft is, we'd be paying massive amounts more money for hardware and massive amounts more money for upgrades. Apple's history is full of this. I was once a follower of Apple back in the Apple ][ days and up to around the Mac II before I was forced to go x86 because of the available software.
I didn't notice until too late that you had posted both replies so I'm consolidating under this reply. Hopefully if we have further discussion, we can consolidate it under one thread.
I don't think you understand or have knowledge of what Kerry was talking about. There is a program in place to secure former Soviet Union nukes, where we were basically paying to secure those nukes. More or less, we buy the nukes so that the terrorists can't. Bush cut most of the funding to this program. Kerry proposes to increase it. So, despite your belief, the fact is that there is a clear implementation and the timeline is realistic.
I understand this, but to me it seems that not all of the "goods" are on a supermarket shelf with a price tag on it. It seems that there may be a bit of variability in the price for some of it, for example the material that is already in the hands of black market sellers. If this is the case, then what price will they put on it? How can Kerry know that his amount of money is enough to cover all the prices for every one of the pieces of material?
Your idea of tying Kerry's personal funds to his proposal is an interesting idea, but I confess I find something absurd about it. By the same token, shouldn't Bush use his personal fortune to compensate all the unemployed? He did promise that the tax cuts for the rich would solve the unemployment problems.
I was using this as an example to see how strongly Kerry feels about his 4 year plan to buy up a bunch of material that he has no control over the price to buy. If he is confident in his plan, he could bet on it. If he didn't take the bet, then he isn't as sure about it as he appeared in the debate. As far as jobs, the President does not make or destroy jobs directly for the most part. He can only enact policy that he thinks, or is advised that it will make a difference.
If you don't believe Kerry, you could check the facts.
I heard him say that as well. This still does not explain why Kerry thinks that reverting back to a bi-lateral discussion would be better than a multi-lateral discussion, especially when he has been so vocal about multi-lateral discussion in other areas (Iraq).
Your position seems to be that you don't want a leader to exhibit adult behavior. Admitting mistakes is adult behavior.
As I said in my other response: Admitting a mistake and correcting it is a good thing. However, Kerry has voted, said it was a mistake, then voted again the same way as before, then said it was a mistake again, repeat... Repeatedly making the same mistake and saying it is a mistake each time is not a sign of responsible adult behavior.
One thing that struck me over all about the debate is that John Kerry seemed like a man and that George Bush seemed like a child. George Bush was clearly out of his league.
I agree that Kerry looked good during the debate. He was confident and sure of himself. He spoke well and clearly. He is a good speaker. However, I didn't get the feeling that all of his great presentation had any substance and I simply disagree with some of his "facts" and ideas. I don't think some of his ideas will work or will be much more difficult than he thinks it will be, yet he (just as doggedly and inflexibly as Bush) stands by his ideas as if they were The Ultimate Truth.
Thanks for reading, fitten.
Thank you for replying.
Bin Laden is not Afghani, he's Saudi. And with something as important as capturing or killing Bin Laden, you want to observe such diplomatic niceties, while overlooking the diplomatic failures of Bush in the Iraq matter?
Bin Laden is Saudi, but his "troops" in Afghanistan are made up of Afghanis. Having his own troops (his own people, in effect) turning against him and throwing him out is "better" than the USA doing it.
You're ignoring the fact that we were getting results, something I would like to credit the President. Using the crediblethreat of force, Bush got inspectors back into Iraq, and they were making progress. And to give Kerry and others in congress credit, they voted to give Bush that tool, the credibility of force. So, your "insanity test" fails on that point when we look at the facts.
On the other hand, I think that test might apply very well to Bush's execution of policy in Iraq. As Kerry pointed out, Bush is promising us "more of the same" of a failing plan. Bush's stubbornness in sticking to his plan despite the realities on the ground, his unwillingness to accept facts that do not jibe with his preconceived notions, should be seen as delusional, which your test nicely points out.
We were getting results? Can you give a metric of the results we were getting? I saw no difference from before when the weapons inspectors were allowed in and shown a dog-n-pony show while the real things the inspectors were there to find were being scurried about so that they wouldn't be seen by the inspectors.
As Kerry pointed out, Bush is promising us "more of the same" of a failing plan. Bush's stubbornness in sticking to his plan despite the realities on the ground, his unwillingness to accept facts that do not jibe with his preconceived notions, should be seen as delusional, which your test nicely points out.
Kerry stated that Bush was promising "more of the same". That is the only source I've ever heard mentioning that phrase, much less the "summary" of Bush's plan. To be honest, I don't know if Bush's plan is "failing" or is being "successful". What are your criteria for "failing"? What are your criteria for "succeeding"? Do you actually think that all the bad guys would lay down and play nice once Houssein was ousted? Did you not think that every person who hates the USA wouldn't take this prime opportunity to kill some Americans? Kerry and his followers seem to think that once Houssein fell, all the bad guys would give up and go home or something. I agree with Bush's assessment that they will fight harder and more to try to break the will of the American public, much as what was seen in Vietnam, to get the troops to get pulled out. They know that Americans are quite fickle and will get tired quickly in the face of determined opposition. When Americans get tired, they'll pull out and the bad guys will be able to take over once again. Kerry has already let them win half the battle when he said publicly that it was all a mistake, a diversion. Kerry is half way giving up already and the people who believe him will feel the same. If they can just keep the resistance going for another year and Kerry is in office, he'll pull the troops out and let Iraq fall into anarchy. This is the worst possible scenario that can happen. As far as Kerry's plans go, he, of all people, should know that plans are the first casualties of a battlefield. He seems to think that he can script how everything will go from here out, but he doesn't realize that there's a whole other side that has some say in what will be happening.
Now, unless I see definitive metrics that prove that we are failing (rising casualty counts are not sufficient proof because casualties *must* be expected), I think that the assessment that the effort is failing is quite subjective. If you somehow thought that the fight would be over and we'd be out of there six months after we started (I specifically remember various public officials warning that it would be lon
Aren't some of the best engineers around the world actually self-taught
Yes, but not necessarily *the* best engineers are self taught (don't fall into that logic trap). I imagine many (if not the majority) of the best engineers are a combination of self taught and formally educated. Sometimes they start off as self-taught and then get formal training to advance beyond where they can get without training. Sometimes (as in innovation) formally educated people use known methods to "self-teach" themselves about new things that haven't been discovered by others yet.
He was a genuine artist more interested in the realities of life than hip hop fame, which is what it boils down to for every genre.
But is this the exception or the rule? If it is the exception, then this is a common mistake trying to prove by example (you can't prove something by example, unless you exhaustively use every example and they all hold to your original hypothesis).
For every one of your example, I can probably show three examples of folks who get into it for the "benefits" of fame.
Well... I didn't really have anywhere else to put this right now... so I'll put it in this thread.
I watched the debate last night (all but the last 15 minutes) and ended up with a number of statements/questions for Kerry that I didn't see brought forth. They bothered me enought that I felt I had to write them down and present them so I've summarized them here.
- Why did Bush use Afghani troops to attack Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?
A politician and soldier should know why Afghani troops were used in this way. If USA troops actually went in and killed Osama bin Laden then it was the USA vs. Muslims. By using Afghani troops, it would be his own people "throwing him out". The political difference should be obvious.
- More diplomacy was needed in Iraq.
The UN had passed 16 resolutions in 10 years (also note that 10 years covered more than Bush's term in office) detailing what Iraq needed to do. Houssein repeatedly ignored them and/or balked at them. What behavior over the past 10 years and 16 resolutions would lead one to believe that the 17th or the 18th resolutions would be different? There is a saying: The definition of "insanity" is "Repeating the same experiment many times expecting different results."
- How can you expect to rally support for a cause that you have publicly stated you believe to be a mistake/diversion?
After having publicly stated that the War in Iraq was a mistake and/or a diversion, what makes anyone think that you can sell other countries on more participation? By these statements, you've shown that your resolve is not strong and/or your goals and exit strategy will change. You may state that you will see it through, but your previous statements define your position as not agreeing with the war, so your heart isn't in it. Therefore, you will not do as good a job. In addition to this, as you so frequently remind us, you learned many things during your service in Vietnam (which I am definitely not questioning and I do acknowledge and respect). It seems to me that one of the most important lessons that you should have learned is what happens in a military action where the nation/President/government that is not fully committed to the task. You've already demonstrated that you aren't fully committed (simply because you think it is a mistake). What assurances would you give to me that this will not turn worse and become another Vietnam type situation (note: I'm not saying that it won't do the same with Bush, but he is very clear about his resolve to the issue, at least). These points were brought up many times during the debate by both sides but you never stated why you expected other nations to become *more* committed in the face of your comments.
- 4 year time-line for nuclear material cleanup. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
I find it hard for anyone to assign a timeline to a task such as this. How can you guarantee this or is it simply an idle promise for the campaign? To be honest, timelines on tasks that have no clear implementation and so many unknowns seem very hard to fix in time so I have to simply dismiss your timeline for this as simple election gab. Are you willing to commit the military to insure your timeline is met? Are you willing to supply your own private funds as monitary backing to insure your promise of 4 years? If you aren't willing to bet your entire wealth on your timeline, you cannot be as sure of it as you appeared in the debates.
- North Korea bi-lateral talks... tried that and failed. Why are you against multi-lateral talks? Why are they not the next step?
As with the diplomacy in Iraq above. You state you want bi-lateral talks. This had already been done and proven ineffective. Now that there are a number of other interested parties in the mix, why would they now be excluded or would you end-around them? It would demonstrate to the other interested parties that you didn't have confidence in those efforts and it would definitely show th
It's far too optimistic of a view of the Democratic Party. I'm not saying that the Republican Party is any better, just saying that believing either party has such idealistic views is wrong I think.
Personally, I don't like the government taking so much of my income. I don't like paying for social programs that I think do more harm than good (or at least those social programs should be heavily revamped). In the past, the Democrats have wanted to take more money from me every year and give to programs I don't like, so that's one of the reasons I don't like them, that and they believe in HUGE government. I read once that during the Clinton era, it took all of the tax money generated east of the Mississippi River just to pay the paychecks of the National Governmental employees. The rest was left for social programs. I can't believe everyone can't see that the US Government being the largest employer in the *world* is a good thing.
I also can't believe that so many people still fail to understand the "Fool in the Shower" economic theory and attribute economic trends solely to the President in office.
I guess I just have a hard time believing that the general populace is just as ignorant as they seem to be. I *know* I don't understand many things, least of all how to guide an economy, so I have to trust others to do it for me. It seems that the people who know the least try the hardest to guide the rest, though.
To be honest, I don't think Bush or Kerry will do as good a job as I'd like. I guess when it comes time for me to vote, I'll have to vote for which one will screw up the least and I think I've already made up my mind who I think that will be.
So... two people getting killed is worse than one? What's your number of people getting killed before it becomes a tragedy? Do you think his family and friends feel less bad because more people didn't die? Why would it have to be Linus or RMS before it's a tragedy? Do you have to have a certain amount of fame or money when you die for it to be a tragedy? Do you have to actually know someone who died before you can feel sympathy for his family and friends?
Really... I'm curious as to what your metrics are before someone's death becomes a tragedy. Maybe you can demonstrate it for us in the form of a graph of deaths vs. degree of tragedy just to be simple.
Heh... you have GOT to be kidding... or brainwashed one... I'd mod this one up as hilarious. I can't believe someone would believe this.
Yeah... like the Clinton Administration wasn't biased... Seems I remember some things about trips to Apple and other sites and purposefully not visiting Microsoft... why was that? Not exactly non-partisan.
Funny thing is... who was given a job by Apple after leaving office? Again... not very neutral feeling there...
those sneaky American citizens can't hide their financial records from them.
Seems this has been a part of the IRS for a long time... a lot longer than the Patriot Act...
Unfortunately, that's not what it really is. IE was used as the FileManager replacement and to do many things... like do the help system, and such, and also handle http and ftp and all those other things. Basically, the idea was "why have 82 tools, each one displays a similar, but seperate thing and duplicates code, when one tool can easily do it all". With that, it needs to be a core part of the GUI.
Now, that doesn't sound bad to me. Implementation-wise, maybe it shouldn't have been as much in the kernel and the implementation had problems (security and otherwise), but I can see the logic in having a "universal viewer" and not having to load/use 20 other programs to do the same thing, just with different data streams.
They built it themselves... purposefully to win a court case (period).
Funny... since the court case was *about* this particular thing, it's funny that they would have built it into the system in order to cause a court case to happen in order to win a court case with it. I think you have the order in which things happened mixed up.
I thought it was funny... I guess some people can't understand the joke.
(Photoshop, while not OSS, does run under Linux with Wine -- if not perfectly.)
So... why would he want to do his job imperfectly or not at all when Windows + Photoshop will do the job exactly? Why would he "settle" for less?
CEOs and CIOs don't care about usability beyond 'can we use it to do our jobs?'
When I've presented choices like: with ProductA, I can do this in a day. If I use ProductB, it will take me a week to do the same thing. I have yet to be told to use ProductB unless ProductA costs significantly more than my paycheck to cover the time difference, and that's only for a one-off job. If it's something that I do repetitively, it's pretty easy to guess which one I'll get unless it is *really* a huge price difference.
This works for companies who predominantly write code for their own infrastructure but doesn't work very well for companies who try to produce software products.
Depends on what you install. I feel sorry for you if you install Linux on that and try to use KDE or Gnome. We couldn't even get Mandrake 9.2 to install on a machine with 64M because the installer crashed repeatedly. I've found that I need a machine with 256M to run KDE or Gnome at a non-frustrating speed for the GUI. I had a P3-450 w/ 384M for a while running Mandrake 9.2 w/ KDE and it was usable but not very fast. The same machine running Windows ran fine. I suspect that a bit of it was video card support though.
In any case, I've found that lately, most Linux distros (with GUI) to require the same or greater resources to have a similar experience to Windows (not waiting for redraws and such). This didn't used to be the case. 100% of my job is developing on Linux and has been for a year now and my Linux roots go back to pre-1.0 kernel days so I've played around with it a bit.
Just curious... why did you phrase this:
.NET
Now Mono is rapidly becoming a viable alternative to Microsoft's
Why do you think it is an alternative? I know you can "use one or the other" but they aren't necessarily designed to compete by fighting with each other. Personally, I see them sort of both supporting C# and those ideals rather than trying to "beat" each other at anything.
lol... damn my lack of mod points! ;)
Too bad most folks who buy Windows computers eventually end up playing at least one Windows game. Until Linux has a bunch of games and new titles coming out for it, it won't make much headroom and there have already been plenty of posts about how hard it is going to be to get lots of quality games on Linux.
I talked to my uncle who was having continuous problems with Windows spyware and such because he clicks on everything. I told him that I could build him a Linux machine and he wouldn't have that problem anymore, but unfortunately, he wouldn't be able to play some of his games on it. He said "no thanks".