Some smart people in the US must know that their IP laws will put them at an economic disadvantage... all they have to do is get the whole world to adopt them, and then the party can continue indefinietly!
These "smart people" you speak of don't give a rat's ass about the US economy. All they care about are the corporate (RIAA, MPAA, etc.) lobbyists lining their pockets with cash, stocks, business deals, and power. Whether the US economy goes down the toilet or not makes absolutely no difference to these people. In their eyes it will make no difference to them as their pockets will continue to be lined with gold and their power assured.
The true smart people in my country don't vote for these assholes, do what we can to lobby against them, and are the first ones to say "Welcome to the United Corporations of America." because we actually see it for what it is.
If these same corporations told the politicians to kill the DMCA, kill WIPO, etc. they'd do it.
If I were a Canadian, I would say "F*** the US." Since I'm not, and I'm an American, I just say "F*** the US government and the corporations it serves!"
You are comparing an OS (Windows) with a complete system (a Linux distribution). There is a HUGE difference between the two. Now if we are going to make this comparison, then we'll do it fairly.
For some background, I have been an administrator and developer for Windows, Linux, Unix, VMS, and some systems most haven't ever even heard of. I've also had numerous network security contracts involving both audits forensics, as well as the task of securing some prominent government and commercial networks.I run both Windows 2000 and Linux on my network currently, and am working full time as a software engineer. I have performed independent research into Linux/Windows TCO with references to both pro-Linux and pro-Windows comparisons. This research had two different goals: convince a CEO why a company should switch from Linux to Windows, and why a company should switch from Windows to Linux.
Now, let's do a short comparison of RHEL WS (Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation Version 3) and Windows 2000. We'll call both of these a "distribution" for our comparison and I'll refer to RHEL WS as simply Linux and Windows 2000 as W2K for brevity. We won't look at the initial price for either distro as anyone can look these up. First in the comparison, Linux.
Linux comes with a boatload of applications - multiple office suites, project management, multi-media tools, many games, graphics applications, utilities, more than a couple mail transport agents, multiple desktop environments, web servers, multiple web browsers, multiple file servers, etc. - a list long enough to take a couple CDs. A typical user can avoid the package selection by selecting one of the pre-defined options at install. Do so will format the drive, install all software for that configuration, provide dialogs for selecting networking options (in the case of a networked system), timezone, etc. Linux comes with the source code, another couple CDs.
Linux includes the option to select specific applications, environment, source code, etc. (the package selection you complain about). This is considered an advanced installation and 99% of the users out there would never select this option. Selecting a basic workstation install is simple, quick, and is performed in roughly half the time of W2K. Linux can be installed as a single user workstation or a complete server (web, file, application, mail, database, etc.).
Linux includes no anti-virus, anti-spyware, or anti-adware software nor does it (to date) need it. The basic UNIX security model does not make it necessary (but that's another long discussion). Linux does not require a per-user license. It does not require a license for every computer it's installed on, unless you want support from Red Hat for every computer (then you're paying for the support, NOT Linux).
Linux comes with development tools for various compiled and interpreted languages. It comes with the compilers and interpreters for those same languages. It comes with a couple of IDEs, a debugger, and various utilities for code development. All total, there are some 13 CDs for Linux (I haven't actually counted them, but I have a nice stack for each of RHEL WS and RHEL ES). That basically sums up Linux, so now how does W2K measure up?
W2K comes with a browser, some text editors, a few little games, a terminal program, a single mail program, and a few other minor things. It all fits on a single CD. It can only be installed as a workstation and not as a server. It has no anti-virus, anti-spyware, or anti-adware software, but it requires it. W2k has limited "package" selection because there's few packages to select. It takes far longer to format the hard drive, and has only two real installation options: default and individual package selection.
W2k has a single environment, no compilers, no IDEs, no servers, no source code. It has a very simple graphics application, not many utilities. If a user wants to add all the equivalent applications to make it on par with Linux, then the user must purc
The NT kernel is an unstable POS (tell all the admins out there that have spent many a weekend re-booting locked NT machines it's a lean kernel that rivals Linux). I would certainly not call it secure nor even close to rivaling the Linux (or any other modern) kernel.
In addition, the NT kernel has far more lines of code than the Linux kernel (as does any Windows kernel since), embedded Windows is essentially the same as desktop Windows with fewer bells and whistles. The fact that the ATM system is written using a combination of C++, MFC, and uses a Web interface (which strongly implies embedded IE), makes the entire thing a cyber-bomb waiting to go off.
That decides it for me. Time to research a new bank, and if there aren't any that don't use Windows based ATMs, then I won't use ATMs.
In addition, they couldn't go to another OS because?
I've been contemplating changing banks for some time now (from Wells Fargo), but haven't for several reasons. This could be the straw that breaks this camel's back.
(FYI, a few years ago I walked up to a WF ATM, started to put my card in, and noticed a M$ Dev. Studio GPF dialog asking if I wanted to debug the application or cancel!!)
And it's not anywhere near being ready to replace Microsoft Office, but I guess they've only had 10 years...
Most M$ Office users use only a fraction of the "features" available in M$ Office. Open Office works just fine for 99% of the tasks that 100% of M$ Office users perform.
I have been using Open Office and Star Office for years now with no compatability problems at all. My school requires presentations and.doc format files for assignments, and Open Office does just fine. I also have the need for spreadsheets which also need to be M$ format compatable, and that too works just fine. I can use a number of standard image formats for embedded images/drawings which also work for that M$ product.
In short, don't believe the FUD about OO.org not being ready to replace M$ Office as an office suite. Outside of possibly a few rarely used M$ Office features and obscurities, it's perfectly fine and often superior (it's sure a lot more stable when run in Linux).
To take the argument in another direction, Linux is more than usable and certainly a replacement for those M$ OS's. It's Open Source, has had millions of man-hours put into it, and is far better than any M$ OS (overall). Then there's MySQL, Open LDAP, Apache, etc., etc.
So tell me again why an Open Source 3D video card project can never make it?
I guess I can say goodbye to my domains (randomlogic.com/us/ws). I've had many people over the years ask me to sell them (in fact, I recently recieved a request to transfer just before the domain registrations were due for renewal - I ignored it), now they can just steal them. I suppose I can say goodbye to my various dreampark domains as well.
Typical crap you get from a dictatorship.
I hope some large company with some clout raises a big enough stink to put ICANN in their place and make them reverse this fsck'd up policy back to the way it was.
After over a month of research, we (Random Logic Consulting) found that the best combination was Ad-Aware, Spybot, and AVG. There have also been several articles written in several magazines with the same results. Zonealarm can also be installed for added security.
Regardless of what product (or products) is used, it's important to keep it/them up to date and proper user education is a must. No software can keep up with the rate at which malicious entities try to infiltrate your computer. For this reason users must be educated as to how to avoid such problems.
As always, the best defense against spyware, adware, viruses, worms, trojans, and crackers is user education and user diligence in keeping their own system clean and safe.
I never wrote any such thing or made any such assertion. Apparently I struck a chord with you? The personal attack on me included what logic and actual facts?
So because you can't make a point through logic and facts you resort to personal attacks? Well, then I guess you've put me in my place. Forgive me for reading anything other than a newspaper article.
Why stop at reading "excerpts" of the 9/11 Commission Report?
Only because I haven't purchased my own copy yet. My boss has one that I've looked at and that he's related to me. (I prefer reading something like that from a real book rather than from a computer screen. That and I have almost no computer access at work.)
(Like, say, Chapter 2's detailing of the lack of substantive links between Iraq and al Qaeda.)
No substantive links, but there were links between Iraq and al Qaeda. In fact, in the very chapter you refer to, some of the ties between Bin Laden, al Qaeda, and Iraqi officials are outlined. (Also see Chapter 10.)
Besides, as I said before, and as the President said (though he screwed the pooch as far as continuing to point it out), there are multiple reasons for invading Iraq. It seems the typical tunnel vision of the public at large (not just the American public) conveniently sidesteps all other reasons and instead tries to change history, stating the only reasons ever given were 9/11 and WMD.
So, how many people have read the 9/11 Commission reports? How many people believe, verbatum, everything the media spews?
How many people really know who said what, when, and based upon what evidence? I'd bet 99% of the people responding in this forum really don't have a clue as to the real facts.
I have read excerpts of the 9/11 report. I don't believe everything I hear from the media. I actually listened to Bush's initial speech about going into Iraq and know that WMDs were not the only reason. I also know that not only Bush and his administration, but Clinton and his, and every government agency in the federal government screwed the pooch on the whole damned deal. How do I know?
I pay attention to the facts (and research them when they seem to be lacking), and ignore the editorializing, half-truth telling, spin-doctor journalists. I won't even waste my time reading the NYT article. Maybe Bush (or his administration) lied, maybe not, but I won't take the word of the NYT on it.
You need to do some research then. TV ads say nothing about anything based in reality.
Whether or not one agreed with Reagan, he was an honest man of integrity. He was well liked by nearly everyone, even those who did not agree with him (as evidenced by statements made by many former Russian leaders, etc.)
In addition, what you see in the media regarding the lack of a threat to the US and the world regarding Terrorism and Iraq, and what you see regarding what's happening in Iraq are not, in general, even close to the truth. The media has always had a propensity to slam every incumbent President and administration, and ignore or gloss over the negative about the challenger. They can't simply report the news, they have to editorialize it. They have to show all the bad, even if it's a small fraction of the good, because the good is not news and does not get the ratings.
We have not lost the war in Iraq. Things are not as bad as the mainstream media would like us to believe. WMDs were not the only reason we went there (and anyone that actually paid attention to Bush's original speech on the matter would realize this). Whether or not it was the right decision is not important - we are there (so get over it) and we can't just cut and run as things would just be worse. The UN is and has been historically useless. WMDs have been found, though not many in Iraq, but instead they were moved from Iraq before (and perhaps during) our invasion, and found in countries such as Syria.
The only president in my lifetime that I can remember that dealt with any threat to the US and/or the world with anything close to some understanding of the big picture was Reagan. Since then we have, and still have, a rotten policy when dealing with the rest of the world. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have done nothing to help regarding the issues that really matter.
Now, we have two major camps of voters, those who hate Bush, and those who don't, and none that really know the issues and why neither man is a good bet to run the country. In the "those who hate Bush" camp we have people voting for Kerry not because he will do a better job, or is even a decent choice at all, but only because "He's not Bush!" Talk about a wasted vote! Just as bad are those voting for Bush because "He's not as scary as Kerry!"
I dislike Bush because of his typical political power trip and his administration's threat to the Constitution. I dislike Kerry because he stands for nothing but his obvious personal power trip and the fact that he has the potential to once again destroy one of the few things the Federal Government is supposed to keep strong: National Defense. I will be voting for neither man. There are, after all, other choices, but of course the TV ads don't tell you that and neither does the media (and the "establishment" would rather you not know there are other choices).
So, I suppose you hate people who are anti-Bush and anti-Kerry? More accurately, I hate both the Democratic and Rupublican parties (I used to be a Republican). The last truely good and honest president we had with any integrity and no underlying agenda at all was president Reagan.
All we get these days is a bunch of assholes that have one agenda - their own power trip - and care nothing about the American's they supposedly represent.
But then, the apathetic, uninformed, irresponsible, American voting public deserves the crap they put in office. Unfortunately it affects the informed, enthusiastic, responsible voters as well.
It's not just US Government, it's the US citizen. We have allowed this kind of crap to happen due to our un-informed voting habits (those who even bother to vote), our apathetic attitude, and the general "I don't give a shit, it'll never happen to me." attitude.
I just hope the American public gets a clue before it's too late. We do not have a two party system. History does repeat itself.
He who gives up his civil rights in the name of security deserves neither.
Wrong. A theory must make testable predictions and be falsifiable. How do you falsify the idea that "God did it"?
Simple: Prove that God does not exist.
Where's the evidence proving Evolution to be scientific fact?
The fact that we've seen it happen, both in nature and in the lab?
We have not seen it happen. We have seen proof of Natural Selection, not Evolution. Just because we can synthesize a small portion of somthing in a lab does not mean that that small portion can, has, or will happen in nature., let alone the whole of it.
Huh? The truth of evolution does not imply that God does not exist.
You stated it exactly (almost): Even if Evoltuon is proven true (which it has not been - it is a damned theory, get over it - does not disprove Creation. God could very well have created the universe and as a part of it He could have made Evolution a part of it. However, Evolution is NOT a scientific truth any more than Creation is. Both are theories, but unfortunately Evolution is taught in most schools as a scientific fact.
You can't have faith-based belief AND a theory. A theory is an explanation based on facts (tests, observations) while faith is complete belief in something without question with NO EVIDENCE.
Wrong. The facts behind Evolution and Creation (both are theories, BTW) are the same. I have faith in God and therefore believe that Creation is true. I also have faith that this chair I'm sitting in will not collapse with me in it. I base my faith on both upon some facts that I can perceive through a myriad of methods. There are two kinds of faith my friend. The type you refer to is blind faith and is based upon no evidence at all. The faith I speak of is based upon facts and historical evidence.
So you either believe this conspiracy of yours or you entertain it as a theory based on pure speculation (which makes for a lousy theory).
Conspiracy is a rather interesting term. Evolution is not based upon any speculation? Where's the evidence proving Evolution to be scientific fact? Where's the evidence proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist? Where's the evidence proving that Creation is false? Why are the texts used in The Bible any more inaccurate than any other ancient writings ever found? Is it just because they talk about God and/or the nation of Israel?
You mean that obscene book full or murder, rape, advocating of genocide, slavery, etc?
And the world always was, is, and will be without these things? Murder is spoken of because it is part of the story and is an important point not to be left out. Evil people, both large and small numbers of them, have been removed from the face of the earth by all peoples in all times for longer than there has been written history. For a valid definition of "slavery" as relates to Biblical times, see:
As for the quiz, the first question implies that God forgot what he said when Moses came down with the first set of commandments. Aside from it being somewhat of a trick question, it is misleading. God indeed wrote down (or made a copy of) the first set, and in addition to that He told Moses to write down another set of commandments that He called a set of ten commandments. Browsing through some of the other questions, there appear to be several inaccuracies, misleading questions and answers, and sections taken out of context. I'm sorry I have run out of time to comment further (as I'm sure you all are;) )
Creationists believe the earth to be at least 60,000 years old, not 30,000 (The last time I looked, but I haven't kept up. I do know that scientific evidence has changed the Creationist view placing the theoretical age higher than what it wonce was).
Even at that, those that are sticklers on the age of the earth are generally extremists and miss the point behind the Theory of Creation. The point is not the age of the Earth, but how it came to be.
The problem with people on both sides of the argument is they seem to ignore the fact that both are scientific theories, not scientific facts.
Finally, we have no accurate method to date anything anywhere near that old and even if we did, how would we know? It's not like we can travel back in time and verify the results!
I have a Dish 510 and it works great. No name based recording, but it's been 100% reliable, costs under $500 (so I'm told, I received a free upgrade), and does not suffer any of the problems that I've read (in this forum) the 721 does. My only gripe is that all the Dish Networks units use the same frequency and codes for their UHF remotes. We have 2 of three receivers (including the 510) that are UHF capable and they tend to interfere with each other (I'll change the channel in the bedroom and my wife can be heard screaming from the living room!).
Also, AFAIK, it is not affected by the broadcast flag - I can record what I want, when I want, and keep it for as long as I want. They even included instructions on how to copy recorded programs to a VCR.
Slashdot Mirror
Some smart people in the US must know that their IP laws will put them at an economic disadvantage... all they have to do is get the whole world to adopt them, and then the party can continue indefinietly!
These "smart people" you speak of don't give a rat's ass about the US economy. All they care about are the corporate (RIAA, MPAA, etc.) lobbyists lining their pockets with cash, stocks, business deals, and power. Whether the US economy goes down the toilet or not makes absolutely no difference to these people. In their eyes it will make no difference to them as their pockets will continue to be lined with gold and their power assured.
The true smart people in my country don't vote for these assholes, do what we can to lobby against them, and are the first ones to say "Welcome to the United Corporations of America." because we actually see it for what it is.
If these same corporations told the politicians to kill the DMCA, kill WIPO, etc. they'd do it.
If I were a Canadian, I would say "F*** the US." Since I'm not, and I'm an American, I just say "F*** the US government and the corporations it serves!"
PGA
I like the way it looks like some of the X Windows desktop themes I've had. Still only a single desktop though?
PGA
You are comparing an OS (Windows) with a complete system (a Linux distribution). There is a HUGE difference between the two. Now if we are going to make this comparison, then we'll do it fairly.
For some background, I have been an administrator and developer for Windows, Linux, Unix, VMS, and some systems most haven't ever even heard of. I've also had numerous network security contracts involving both audits forensics, as well as the task of securing some prominent government and commercial networks.I run both Windows 2000 and Linux on my network currently, and am working full time as a software engineer. I have performed independent research into Linux/Windows TCO with references to both pro-Linux and pro-Windows comparisons. This research had two different goals: convince a CEO why a company should switch from Linux to Windows, and why a company should switch from Windows to Linux.
Now, let's do a short comparison of RHEL WS (Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation Version 3) and Windows 2000. We'll call both of these a "distribution" for our comparison and I'll refer to RHEL WS as simply Linux and Windows 2000 as W2K for brevity. We won't look at the initial price for either distro as anyone can look these up. First in the comparison, Linux.
Linux comes with a boatload of applications - multiple office suites, project management, multi-media tools, many games, graphics applications, utilities, more than a couple mail transport agents, multiple desktop environments, web servers, multiple web browsers, multiple file servers, etc. - a list long enough to take a couple CDs. A typical user can avoid the package selection by selecting one of the pre-defined options at install. Do so will format the drive, install all software for that configuration, provide dialogs for selecting networking options (in the case of a networked system), timezone, etc. Linux comes with the source code, another couple CDs.
Linux includes the option to select specific applications, environment, source code, etc. (the package selection you complain about). This is considered an advanced installation and 99% of the users out there would never select this option. Selecting a basic workstation install is simple, quick, and is performed in roughly half the time of W2K. Linux can be installed as a single user workstation or a complete server (web, file, application, mail, database, etc.).
Linux includes no anti-virus, anti-spyware, or anti-adware software nor does it (to date) need it. The basic UNIX security model does not make it necessary (but that's another long discussion). Linux does not require a per-user license. It does not require a license for every computer it's installed on, unless you want support from Red Hat for every computer (then you're paying for the support, NOT Linux).
Linux comes with development tools for various compiled and interpreted languages. It comes with the compilers and interpreters for those same languages. It comes with a couple of IDEs, a debugger, and various utilities for code development. All total, there are some 13 CDs for Linux (I haven't actually counted them, but I have a nice stack for each of RHEL WS and RHEL ES). That basically sums up Linux, so now how does W2K measure up?
W2K comes with a browser, some text editors, a few little games, a terminal program, a single mail program, and a few other minor things. It all fits on a single CD. It can only be installed as a workstation and not as a server. It has no anti-virus, anti-spyware, or anti-adware software, but it requires it. W2k has limited "package" selection because there's few packages to select. It takes far longer to format the hard drive, and has only two real installation options: default and individual package selection.
W2k has a single environment, no compilers, no IDEs, no servers, no source code. It has a very simple graphics application, not many utilities. If a user wants to add all the equivalent applications to make it on par with Linux, then the user must purc
The NT kernel is an unstable POS (tell all the admins out there that have spent many a weekend re-booting locked NT machines it's a lean kernel that rivals Linux). I would certainly not call it secure nor even close to rivaling the Linux (or any other modern) kernel.
In addition, the NT kernel has far more lines of code than the Linux kernel (as does any Windows kernel since), embedded Windows is essentially the same as desktop Windows with fewer bells and whistles. The fact that the ATM system is written using a combination of C++, MFC, and uses a Web interface (which strongly implies embedded IE), makes the entire thing a cyber-bomb waiting to go off.
That decides it for me. Time to research a new bank, and if there aren't any that don't use Windows based ATMs, then I won't use ATMs.
PGA
Your source for this bit of info?
In addition, they couldn't go to another OS because?
I've been contemplating changing banks for some time now (from Wells Fargo), but haven't for several reasons. This could be the straw that breaks this camel's back.
(FYI, a few years ago I walked up to a WF ATM, started to put my card in, and noticed a M$ Dev. Studio GPF dialog asking if I wanted to debug the application or cancel!!)
PGA
And it's not anywhere near being ready to replace Microsoft Office, but I guess they've only had 10 years...
.doc format files for assignments, and Open Office does just fine. I also have the need for spreadsheets which also need to be M$ format compatable, and that too works just fine. I can use a number of standard image formats for embedded images/drawings which also work for that M$ product.
Most M$ Office users use only a fraction of the "features" available in M$ Office. Open Office works just fine for 99% of the tasks that 100% of M$ Office users perform.
I have been using Open Office and Star Office for years now with no compatability problems at all. My school requires presentations and
In short, don't believe the FUD about OO.org not being ready to replace M$ Office as an office suite. Outside of possibly a few rarely used M$ Office features and obscurities, it's perfectly fine and often superior (it's sure a lot more stable when run in Linux).
To take the argument in another direction, Linux is more than usable and certainly a replacement for those M$ OS's. It's Open Source, has had millions of man-hours put into it, and is far better than any M$ OS (overall). Then there's MySQL, Open LDAP, Apache, etc., etc.
So tell me again why an Open Source 3D video card project can never make it?
PGA
I guess I can say goodbye to my domains (randomlogic.com/us/ws). I've had many people over the years ask me to sell them (in fact, I recently recieved a request to transfer just before the domain registrations were due for renewal - I ignored it), now they can just steal them. I suppose I can say goodbye to my various dreampark domains as well.
Typical crap you get from a dictatorship.
I hope some large company with some clout raises a big enough stink to put ICANN in their place and make them reverse this fsck'd up policy back to the way it was.
PGA
After over a month of research, we (Random Logic Consulting) found that the best combination was Ad-Aware, Spybot, and AVG. There have also been several articles written in several magazines with the same results. Zonealarm can also be installed for added security.
Regardless of what product (or products) is used, it's important to keep it/them up to date and proper user education is a must. No software can keep up with the rate at which malicious entities try to infiltrate your computer. For this reason users must be educated as to how to avoid such problems.
As always, the best defense against spyware, adware, viruses, worms, trojans, and crackers is user education and user diligence in keeping their own system clean and safe.
PGA
...ruin a perfectly good architecture with a POS operating system because...?
PGA
....I guess installing SP2 for WinXP was a mistake after all!
PGA
I never wrote any such thing or made any such assertion. Apparently I struck a chord with you? The personal attack on me included what logic and actual facts?
PGA
So because you can't make a point through logic and facts you resort to personal attacks? Well, then I guess you've put me in my place. Forgive me for reading anything other than a newspaper article.
PGA
Why stop at reading "excerpts" of the 9/11 Commission Report?
Only because I haven't purchased my own copy yet. My boss has one that I've looked at and that he's related to me. (I prefer reading something like that from a real book rather than from a computer screen. That and I have almost no computer access at work.)
(Like, say, Chapter 2's detailing of the lack of substantive links between Iraq and al Qaeda.)
No substantive links, but there were links between Iraq and al Qaeda. In fact, in the very chapter you refer to, some of the ties between Bin Laden, al Qaeda, and Iraqi officials are outlined. (Also see Chapter 10.)
Besides, as I said before, and as the President said (though he screwed the pooch as far as continuing to point it out), there are multiple reasons for invading Iraq. It seems the typical tunnel vision of the public at large (not just the American public) conveniently sidesteps all other reasons and instead tries to change history, stating the only reasons ever given were 9/11 and WMD.
PGA
So, how many people have read the 9/11 Commission reports? How many people believe, verbatum, everything the media spews?
How many people really know who said what, when, and based upon what evidence? I'd bet 99% of the people responding in this forum really don't have a clue as to the real facts.
I have read excerpts of the 9/11 report. I don't believe everything I hear from the media. I actually listened to Bush's initial speech about going into Iraq and know that WMDs were not the only reason. I also know that not only Bush and his administration, but Clinton and his, and every government agency in the federal government screwed the pooch on the whole damned deal. How do I know?
I pay attention to the facts (and research them when they seem to be lacking), and ignore the editorializing, half-truth telling, spin-doctor journalists. I won't even waste my time reading the NYT article. Maybe Bush (or his administration) lied, maybe not, but I won't take the word of the NYT on it.
PGA
You need to do some research then. TV ads say nothing about anything based in reality.
Whether or not one agreed with Reagan, he was an honest man of integrity. He was well liked by nearly everyone, even those who did not agree with him (as evidenced by statements made by many former Russian leaders, etc.)
In addition, what you see in the media regarding the lack of a threat to the US and the world regarding Terrorism and Iraq, and what you see regarding what's happening in Iraq are not, in general, even close to the truth. The media has always had a propensity to slam every incumbent President and administration, and ignore or gloss over the negative about the challenger. They can't simply report the news, they have to editorialize it. They have to show all the bad, even if it's a small fraction of the good, because the good is not news and does not get the ratings.
We have not lost the war in Iraq. Things are not as bad as the mainstream media would like us to believe. WMDs were not the only reason we went there (and anyone that actually paid attention to Bush's original speech on the matter would realize this). Whether or not it was the right decision is not important - we are there (so get over it) and we can't just cut and run as things would just be worse. The UN is and has been historically useless. WMDs have been found, though not many in Iraq, but instead they were moved from Iraq before (and perhaps during) our invasion, and found in countries such as Syria.
The only president in my lifetime that I can remember that dealt with any threat to the US and/or the world with anything close to some understanding of the big picture was Reagan. Since then we have, and still have, a rotten policy when dealing with the rest of the world. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have done nothing to help regarding the issues that really matter.
Now, we have two major camps of voters, those who hate Bush, and those who don't, and none that really know the issues and why neither man is a good bet to run the country. In the "those who hate Bush" camp we have people voting for Kerry not because he will do a better job, or is even a decent choice at all, but only because "He's not Bush!" Talk about a wasted vote! Just as bad are those voting for Bush because "He's not as scary as Kerry!"
I dislike Bush because of his typical political power trip and his administration's threat to the Constitution. I dislike Kerry because he stands for nothing but his obvious personal power trip and the fact that he has the potential to once again destroy one of the few things the Federal Government is supposed to keep strong: National Defense. I will be voting for neither man. There are, after all, other choices, but of course the TV ads don't tell you that and neither does the media (and the "establishment" would rather you not know there are other choices).
PGA
So, I suppose you hate people who are anti-Bush and anti-Kerry? More accurately, I hate both the Democratic and Rupublican parties (I used to be a Republican). The last truely good and honest president we had with any integrity and no underlying agenda at all was president Reagan.
All we get these days is a bunch of assholes that have one agenda - their own power trip - and care nothing about the American's they supposedly represent.
But then, the apathetic, uninformed, irresponsible, American voting public deserves the crap they put in office. Unfortunately it affects the informed, enthusiastic, responsible voters as well.
PGA
It's not just US Government, it's the US citizen. We have allowed this kind of crap to happen due to our un-informed voting habits (those who even bother to vote), our apathetic attitude, and the general "I don't give a shit, it'll never happen to me." attitude.
I just hope the American public gets a clue before it's too late. We do not have a two party system. History does repeat itself.
He who gives up his civil rights in the name of security deserves neither.
PGA
However it does mean full kernel access, does it not?
PGA
.....because I could not take part in it. :P
PGA
Wrong. A theory must make testable predictions and be falsifiable. How do you falsify the idea that "God did it"?
Simple: Prove that God does not exist.
Where's the evidence proving Evolution to be scientific fact?
The fact that we've seen it happen, both in nature and in the lab?
We have not seen it happen. We have seen proof of Natural Selection, not Evolution. Just because we can synthesize a small portion of somthing in a lab does not mean that that small portion can, has, or will happen in nature., let alone the whole of it.
Huh? The truth of evolution does not imply that God does not exist.
You stated it exactly (almost): Even if Evoltuon is proven true (which it has not been - it is a damned theory, get over it - does not disprove Creation. God could very well have created the universe and as a part of it He could have made Evolution a part of it. However, Evolution is NOT a scientific truth any more than Creation is. Both are theories, but unfortunately Evolution is taught in most schools as a scientific fact.
PGA
You can't have faith-based belief AND a theory. A theory is an explanation based on facts (tests, observations) while faith is complete belief in something without question with NO EVIDENCE.
;) )
Wrong. The facts behind Evolution and Creation (both are theories, BTW) are the same. I have faith in God and therefore believe that Creation is true. I also have faith that this chair I'm sitting in will not collapse with me in it. I base my faith on both upon some facts that I can perceive through a myriad of methods. There are two kinds of faith my friend. The type you refer to is blind faith and is based upon no evidence at all. The faith I speak of is based upon facts and historical evidence.
So you either believe this conspiracy of yours or you entertain it as a theory based on pure speculation (which makes for a lousy theory).
Conspiracy is a rather interesting term. Evolution is not based upon any speculation? Where's the evidence proving Evolution to be scientific fact? Where's the evidence proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist? Where's the evidence proving that Creation is false? Why are the texts used in The Bible any more inaccurate than any other ancient writings ever found? Is it just because they talk about God and/or the nation of Israel?
You mean that obscene book full or murder, rape, advocating of genocide, slavery, etc?
And the world always was, is, and will be without these things? Murder is spoken of because it is part of the story and is an important point not to be left out. Evil people, both large and small numbers of them, have been removed from the face of the earth by all peoples in all times for longer than there has been written history. For a valid definition of "slavery" as relates to Biblical times, see:
Definition of Slavery
As for the quiz, the first question implies that God forgot what he said when Moses came down with the first set of commandments. Aside from it being somewhat of a trick question, it is misleading. God indeed wrote down (or made a copy of) the first set, and in addition to that He told Moses to write down another set of commandments that He called a set of ten commandments. Browsing through some of the other questions, there appear to be several inaccuracies, misleading questions and answers, and sections taken out of context. I'm sorry I have run out of time to comment further (as I'm sure you all are
PGA
Creationists believe the earth to be at least 60,000 years old, not 30,000 (The last time I looked, but I haven't kept up. I do know that scientific evidence has changed the Creationist view placing the theoretical age higher than what it wonce was).
Even at that, those that are sticklers on the age of the earth are generally extremists and miss the point behind the Theory of Creation. The point is not the age of the Earth, but how it came to be.
The problem with people on both sides of the argument is they seem to ignore the fact that both are scientific theories, not scientific facts.
Finally, we have no accurate method to date anything anywhere near that old and even if we did, how would we know? It's not like we can travel back in time and verify the results!
PGA
I have a Dish 510 and it works great. No name based recording, but it's been 100% reliable, costs under $500 (so I'm told, I received a free upgrade), and does not suffer any of the problems that I've read (in this forum) the 721 does. My only gripe is that all the Dish Networks units use the same frequency and codes for their UHF remotes. We have 2 of three receivers (including the 510) that are UHF capable and they tend to interfere with each other (I'll change the channel in the bedroom and my wife can be heard screaming from the living room!).
Also, AFAIK, it is not affected by the broadcast flag - I can record what I want, when I want, and keep it for as long as I want. They even included instructions on how to copy recorded programs to a VCR.
PGA
1. First, if you raised them right, you have little to worry about.
2. Second, given (1), if a child is going to be bad, the child will be bad whether you have the Eagle Eye or not. You deal with it when it happens.
3. I use a router that has SPI and I can see everything the kids do on the Internet (and they know it).
PGA
...is Linus going to start charging SCO $6,990 for each Linux license?
PGA