What does this mean for Netscape the ISP?
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 1
Has anyone seen the Netscape ISP commercials? It is essentially AOL's way to target the $9.95/mo dialup access market, and they used the existing Netscape name to grab at the market. To the tech savvy, Netscape has been dead. Fortunately, for AOL, most people are not tech savvy and they still by into the Netscape brand. But, having a Netscape ISP, that probably has an IE based browser, and a Netscape browser... that could confuse anyone.
You are just asking for it aren't you? Seriously, if they do not like it, they can quit. It is not anyone's job to sit around and hold their hands and make them feel better about being dooped into their situation. If the job sucks, get another one, or shut up about it. If they are breaking the law, report them, and hopefully they will get punished accordingly; and still, look for a new job. If you are unwilling to look for a new job, you are either a) stupid (defined: repeating an action and expecting different results)or b) lazy (defined: lazy, rec. You get lazy).
Capitalism is the way to go, and beyound that, this Slashdot discussion and other ways to make it known to the world that EA sucks. And yes, it should be "each man against all men." We all want to survive, and we care mostly about "our own" first, and about other second, that is natural, and no, it is quite intelligent as well.
Hopefully the current job losses will gut the industry of these types and discourage future ones so it ends up with more balance.
One would hope, but people outside of IT still have the perception that they can get a high paying job without having any real skills. Must be the media's fault.
I do not see a shortage in IT jobs... I see a shortage in qualified IT workers. I would say a large percentage of the unemployed IT workforce are inexperienced and lack some major backing (like a college degree, certification, job experience/internship). I hear from so many people who obvious do not know anything about IT about how this certification sucks because they got it and they cannot find a job, or how they spent a year in an overpriced tech class that was supposed to turn them into an expert. It doesn't help when the unemployment office gives extra money to laid off airline workers if they take some IT classes. The biggest answer to unemployment problems "Hell, send 'em to some IT training, anyone can do it."
Oh well, I have a good job now, and I got it because all of the idiots out there made me look so much better. Hell, the guy that I interviewed with left because he didn't know what he was doing, and now I do his job and mine. Maybe if there were more qualified people, I would have a new coworker... because we are looking, we just cannot find anyone who is competent.
Look, I think that regardless of how much everyone here just wants to appear more intelligent than anyone else, you need to look at the facts.
The Kyoto Treaty would cause heavy pollutant manufacturing to occur in nations that have less rigid standards. This means a redistribution, not necessary less polution. Of course, it could mean less polution, but companies are going to find ways around that.
Further, why should the U.S. agree to do this? A great majority of countries have decided to not do this. Out of all of the industrialized countries, the U.S. produces the least amount of polution, and that is a fact. Why should we struggle to squeeze water from a rock?
If we would like to actually lower greenhouse causing emissions, a plan should be generated, country-by-country.
What could we do in the U.S.? Use less petroleum. That would help us in many areas and it is something we could begin today. It is realistic, as long as we can get the oil companies to embrace it, everyone will benefit.
Do not come to me with this silly Kyoto crap, it doesn't make any sense for the U.S. to agree. It is an aggregate of other nations that believe they can assert some control over the U.S., and as far as I care... they can shove it. Europe uses diesel fuel almost exclusively, they create a lot more green house gases with it than we do with our unleaded fuel. China burns more than half of the world's coal. Natural gas is becoming one of the predominant energy sources in the U.S. and it is by far the cleanest of the fossil fuels. We have done our share. Is it enough? I doubt it, but there is much more that other countries can do that will make a greater impact. It is analogous to this idea I had:
If someone is covered in mud, and you put more mud on them, you will not notice a difference. But, if you take someone who is clean and put a little mud on them, you would notice immediately.
With that being said, I am not against the U.S. making efforts, but I think it would be in the world's best interest for everyone to work on the biggest problems first: systematize, prioritize, and perform. Most people here are tech savvy (I guess) and should be able to understand that.
I was under the impression that we are using much more natural gas to create electricity these days. I just watched a special on this over the weekend. I know that locally (Indianapolis). We use steam, and this steam is created from coal and/or natural gas. Coal is predominate here, with only a few auxillary facilities using natural gas, but in the western states, natural gas seems to be supreme. As far as coal goes, China uses half the worlds coal. And we have become 1000% more efficient in using coal. In the past, we required 10 pounds of coal to power a 100 Watt lightbulb for one hour. Today, we can do the same with 1 pound of coal.
The biggest thing we could do today to reduce our consumption of crude oil is to use less, plain and simple. How? Hybrid-electric cars... increase fuel economy. Smarter engine that only use the number of cylinders necessary at the time. These are all real things that can be used today. A combination of hybrid-electric engines and smarter cylinder usage are coming our way in '05 models from Honda, GM, and Ford Companies, from what I have read... and this could be a short list.
Also, making our homes more energy efficient would help out in reducing other energy sources, freeing them up for other uses. Make your home use passive solar energy... use an on demand water heater, by a more efficient wash machine that will use less water and energy and it will all your dryer to do less work. I have seen many busses and government vehicles that run off of natural gas... with reduced natural gas consumption, we could have more of these vehicles.
Wow, I am really glad that the moderators came to their senses and voted this flamebait instead of interesting, as it started. This is a large mess. You really should use your frustration in a productive manner. You could have rented a 13 seater van and brought sandwiches and $5 bills to young voters in Ohio and you could have driven them to the polls (I was going to be extremely depressed if Bush lost, and I would have blamed myself for not doing this)... Heck, they could have even registered on the spot.
The biggest thing this nation needs is to become unified... there is a real threat out there, and the only way we can overcome it is to unify. I would have initially been heart broken if Kerry would have won, but I would have sucked it up and tried to do my part in making it clear that the US is still the greatest place to live.
I truly believe you should drop it, but I doubt it. You seem to be greatly effected the Democratic propaganda. People waking and realizing that the Kerry campaign was running on lies is what lost the election for Kerry.
1) Last I checked, a group of terrorists is responsible for the mass murder of over 3,000 Americans.
2) No military draft, that is just silly. It was actually 2 Democrats that proposed that idea. Good thing the Republicans shot that down.
3) As has been stated, the Middle East has been in constant conflict with itself and anyone else that it drags into its affairs. The Ottoman's vs. the Safavid's is what created the Sunni vs. Shiite tension today. The Muslim empire that ruled over India (cannot recall the name off the top of my head) is responsible for the India vs. Pakistan tension. Europe/America was pulled into this by the Safavid's and the Ottoman's were actually bring the conflicts to Southeastern Europe. Without Democracy... they have no chance.
4) The economy is fine. The stock market is back, we have job growth, it is great. The problems that we did have were created by Clinton in the first place. Further, each time that we change parties for the President, we take a nice hit on our economy. By retaining Bush, the economy will stabilize more.
5) The environment is hardly an issue that you can blaim on the US. Out of all the industrialized nations, the US contributes the least, per capita, to poor ecological effects. China uses more than half of the worlds coal. Europe is predominately powered by diesel fuel for cars, which is very dirty. Placing more environmental regulations on the US will hur the economy and have a minimal effect on the environment.
6) The world is not going to abandon us. There were some tensions leading up to this election, but the world will fall in suite now. If you check out the BBC, most of Europe, Russia, and even opposing Middle Eastern leaders believe we will have better relations now. The world knows where Bush stands, and they do not want terrorism, just as much as us.
7) Kerry would have been the one to screw the future, sorry. The last things we need is a radical liberal in office who is going to elect up to 4 supreme court justices who will remain until the die or leave. It is quite crazy, but the media is trying to make it seem like having morals is a bad thing... how silly.
8) I am sorry, if this world is less prosperous for your child... then you must be grooming your child to be a terrorist (or a trial lawyer). My children are going to have a better place to live because of GWB.
And yes, I am quite please. GWB is back. The Republicans control the legislative branch, and the Judicial branch will become more conservative. And my state finally ended a 16 year reign of Democrats as Govenor... now hopefully there is enough left for the Republican Governor to salvage. Hopefully the state (Indiana) doesn't have to file the second bankruptcy in its history.
Yea, I would have to agree. Last I checked this is a US election. Frankly, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks. The UN is corrupt, and most of Europe is pissed off because they are not getting money from selling weapons to Iraq any longer.
The parent post does point out that nearly all of the overseas voters are military... and they do not have all day to surf around on the Internet. Besides, yes the military is nearly 100% Bush supporters... why wouldn't they be? No need for you to comment on that idea if you were never in the US military. As far as the military is concerned, Republicans take care of the military, and they increase their pay... conversely, Democrats do the opposite.
Besides, just because he is the President of the US does not mean we control what he does with his website. Last I checked, there is little regulation on the Internet, and if he wants to block access to his website... well, we have to remember it is his website.
You seem to be very nearsighted in regards to the past. That is a shame, the old proverb says "...in hindsight, vision is 20/20."
Weakly backed observations and uninformed comments? You mean like these:
You did not make a point, just like Kerry and his supporters. But, since you like to cry wolf, I can urge you to do a search on Google. Also, pay attention to the foolish behavior of the leftist media. They showed us how many lies the Democrats have spun. As long as you had your eyes open.
Regardless of what Kerry says, I can tell you with the utmost confidence that John Kerry would have invaded Iraq if he were president during this past term, even without 9/11.What? What twisted planet are you from?
You do not believe that Kerry would have invaded Iraq? John Kerry was the biggest advocate for Saddam Hussein's removal, in the Senate, from 1993-2002. There are reels of news footage spewing forth of Kerry critisizing Clinton about not removing Hussein from power. Further, there was evidence then that Saddam had plans to acquire WMDs and technology to produce them. If you do not recall, Clinton nearly invaded Iraq in 1997.
Sounds prophetic, doesn't it? Bush is the best thing that has happened to islamic terrorism in a long time. His crusades are probably doing a better job a recruiting junior terrorists than Al-Quaida alone ever could. I'm sure Bin Laden is endorsing Bush's re-election all he can..
First, that is not prophetic, but merely observant. Of course there would be chaos, of course it would be messy... history has shown us. How long was Germany occupied and controlled? Decades. Remember the Berlin Wall? The wall was there because of the division of control because the Allies and Russia. It was not until Germany's reunification that they were no longer occupied.
BTW, modders, I see you proved my point.
Interesting quotes. Of course, these are subjective... words from the mouths of mortal men. Just because they speak does not make it truth. But, I do see some validity to your selections. The only thing that makes it different is that we, as well as many others, were attacked... people did lose their lives. Your quotes (other Ben Franklins's) are from people who are justifiying their modus operandi.
Huh. Another reason we should have removed Saddam. You cannot bring up the Iran-Iraq war. At the time Iraq was no threat at all. Iran was a large threat. We used Iraq then. Wouldn't you position one enemy against another? If not, you are wasting your time and spreading yourself too thin. That is the same thing that defeated both Napolean and Hitler.
Well, he didn't. Besides, he can say whatever he wants after the fact, but he would have done relatively the same thing, or he would have been impeached, laughed out of office, assassinated by some US citizen. You do not seem to remember how everyone felt after 9/11... if anyone would have reacted differently, it would have been considered Anti-American. Definately not a good thing during a time when party lines blurred and everyone had one goal. Of course, now Democrats are trying to capitalize off of it.
No one has lost their life because of a lie by the administration. If you want to attribute the lost lives to lies, then point the finger toward the UN, toward Saddam Hussein, toward France, or toward Germany. BTW, I am in the military. If I lost my life due to this, it would be with honor. We have not had successful attacks on US soil since 9/11 have we? Nope. Have they tried to bring it to us? Yes. Have they brought the battle to other successfully? Yes. Look at Spain. Look at Russia. If we went after anyone else in the Middle East, we would have received less support than we did in Iraq. Plus, Iraq would have allied with anyone over there, even Iran.
Actually, yes I do. And the reason we need to forget the WMDs is because there is more reason to go that whether we found them or not. And do not be a foolish Anon. Coward.
Do not bring the WMDs back up, that is inconclusive. Because of the UN, we may not find WMDs for some time, if at all, even if they were there. And also, if the UN would have backed us up on their own policies, we would not be fighting this war in Iraq. So, if you want to start pointing fingers at things other than the root cause, point them at the UN. With only using the Navy, we would be at a near stalemate without causing a nuclear war. North Korea is touchy and requires some finesse. Kery is suggesting that we just go bust down the door. That is not going to happen without global devistation.
For one, do not respong with Anon. Coward. Secondly, your statement about North Korea is flame bait. I do not care what they state their reason to be... that is like blaming a wife getting beaten by her husband on the fact that the husband does not have a job (once again, root cause. a doctor should treat an illness, not the symptoms). Also, it is not the American companies purchasing the oil, but the other companies in the Middle East that are deceiving. Third, we have not ceased the search for Osama bin Laden... that is a foolish statement, even the liberal media has not stooped low enough to say that. I have seen stories on CBS, for crying out loud, about our continued search for Bin Laden. Further, George W. Bush is not worried about upsetting the Bin Laden's... they believe that Osama is a disgrace. They have not consulted with him in over 20 years, and further, he turned his back on them for not embracing his radical views on Islam. Get a clue. And do not bring taxes into this. Bush has lowered taxes for every single tax payer, period. Every single tax payer received a $600 check after the fact. And if Kerry gets elected, there are a few things that are certain: 1) he will be an advocate of same sex marriage, 2) he will be a coward in the face of adversity, and 3) he WILL raise taxes.
You are obviously missing the point that we have many allies in the Pacific (well, not necessarily allies, but we have common threats in North Korea). It would be foolish for us to make a move at this time.
You are flat out wrong. Iraq was the right war, at the right time. You are missing many clear points. There is definitive evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to put weapons in the hands of terrorists in order to form a war on American soil. I would love to see it actually, becase it would be very funny. All of those Europeans that wonder what the US's "fascination" is with weapons... just let me say, we would not need our military. Further, Saddam broke international treaties that allowed him to remain in power. That, in and of itself, is reason enough to go to war. How can we be certain if he had WMD's if we are not able to monitor? That is why we had to rely on intelligence that may very well have been wrong (this is not yet definitive, like Kerry would have you believe). And even further, there are plenty of reasons France and Germany did not support the effort: 1) the US had trade embargos with Iraq restricting their oil from being sold to the US. This oil still found its way here, through proxy nations in the Middle East. This has proven itself through the increase in oil prices. 2) Saddam took that money and purchased weapons (no, I did not say WMD's) from both France and Germany (as well as others). Why would they want to miss out on that money? I am tired of hearing uninformed people speak about Iraq. I am in the military (only a reservist) and my brother-in-law is visiting from Iraq (on leave from the Army). He has not leaked any intelligence, but you can tell, from his conviction that he believes in fighting this battle, as do so many others serving (As they did _VOLUNTEER_). There is usually a reason for such conviction.
I am getting to get seriously modded down, and that is just a reflection of how Demoncats, er, Democrats and their supporters love to censor the media. There are currently bigger fish to fry than the DMCA. There is a good reason for the DMCA, we need to strengthen our grip on IP for the moment. It will be loosened in time, heck, it already has been loosened considerably.
I am very disheartened by what I am seeing on Slashdot. Typically, I have a lot of respect for my fellow geeks (but maybe you are not geeks, merely nerds). The problem I have is that so many people that I consider relatively intelligence are making weakly backed observations and are making uninformed comments. Do not try to speak with authority when you have not mastered a subject. Bush has not been lying (maybe a little, but we _ALL_ do to an extent). Regardless of what Kerry says, I can tell you with the utmost confidence that John Kerry would have invaded Iraq if he were president during this past term, even without 9/11.
John Kerry has done absolutely nothing in his 20 year tenure in the US Senate. During his campaign, he has acted like a prosecutor who has no evidence. He simply makes bold faced lies to the jury, and even though they are objected... the jury still has to hear it. This is an age old technique.
President Bush is certainly not a perfect man, but he has held his position with integrity. He has made decisions that are very difficult, and I am sure that I would not have done a better job, nor would anyone else. He did what any president would have had to do. The economic decline had nothing to do with George W. Bush. He has turned the economy around, and that is irrefutible. If you argue with that you are a fool. Seriously, there is documentation to support this. Whereas the opposition to this merely makes accusations. Healthcare has been horrible for years. John Kerry's plan will never, and I repeat, never be passed. It is too outlandish, and I really hope it never is passed. President Bush's plan is more realistic and addresses the root cause of the issue (many developers should understand what root cause analysis is). Republicans are none supressing minority votes... that is all speculation (and lies). In regards to terrorism, Bush did what was necessary, the public demanded it, as well as his moral conviction demanded it. We did _NOT_ rush to war, as Kerry always states, to the contrary, we probably waited too long to go to war. Us not finding WMD's is a reflection of our hesitance to go to war. Watch, they are in Syria. Also, I do not care if we ever find any WMD's... Iraq was breaking treaties that gave us permission to monitor his ability to have WMD's... how can we know if he has any or not if we cannot monitor? That, in and of itself, is enough reason to remove him from power. Heck, he should have been removed during the Gulf War, but the UN got in the way, just like they have tried to do in this conflict.
This is just all ridiculous. The Democrats are total liars, and anyone who follows them is a complete fool. The Democrats support every single issue that is questionable. They support gay/lesbain marriage (only positive for gay/lesbian community), they support stem cell research from embryos and abortion(only positive for feminists, and do not get me started on that). Questionable item after questionable item. And to top it off, the Democratic Party is becoming mroe and more socialist. If I can recall, I only know of one socialist idea that has been even remotely successful, and that is Open Source Software, and I can argue that the only reason that it has been successful is because of the capitalist economy. Further, it is not really all that socialist... in socialism, the state own everything... rather than the individual who created it.
I am tired of this, I could go on for days. Democrats are foolish. Democrats tend to be selfish, or lazy, or have no one who relies on them. Every government run system runs horribly. Look at the things that ever
Funny you bring this up. It is a VFS module for Samba. That is, the protocol level stuff works, and is completely functional. The system for creating the "versions" is not part of Samba, nor should be. It actually is a bit more complicated than M$ or anyone else tries to explain. This technology uses Copy On Write (COW) and snapshots. Snapshots were originally created to help make tape backup more quick. You bring your system to a lower state (ie. stop database services etc), take a snapshot, then bring your system back to functional state. This takes all of about 3 seconds or so. Then you do a backup of the snapshot. Snapshots are block-level backups, and only change when blocks change. This is completely dependant on the way that any given application does it's writes to disk. If you use something that saves in binary, then all blocks are rewritten, and you disk usage increases exponentially with each snapshot. For Samba, we have looked at using LVM or EVMS. I think either would handle things as easily or better than Windows Server 2003, but it still seems scary. There is a write-up on how to use this.
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism is the way to go, and beyound that, this Slashdot discussion and other ways to make it known to the world that EA sucks. And yes, it should be "each man against all men." We all want to survive, and we care mostly about "our own" first, and about other second, that is natural, and no, it is quite intelligent as well.
One would hope, but people outside of IT still have the perception that they can get a high paying job without having any real skills. Must be the media's fault.
Oh well, I have a good job now, and I got it because all of the idiots out there made me look so much better. Hell, the guy that I interviewed with left because he didn't know what he was doing, and now I do his job and mine. Maybe if there were more qualified people, I would have a new coworker... because we are looking, we just cannot find anyone who is competent.
The Kyoto Treaty would cause heavy pollutant manufacturing to occur in nations that have less rigid standards. This means a redistribution, not necessary less polution. Of course, it could mean less polution, but companies are going to find ways around that.
Further, why should the U.S. agree to do this? A great majority of countries have decided to not do this. Out of all of the industrialized countries, the U.S. produces the least amount of polution, and that is a fact. Why should we struggle to squeeze water from a rock?
If we would like to actually lower greenhouse causing emissions, a plan should be generated, country-by-country.
What could we do in the U.S.? Use less petroleum. That would help us in many areas and it is something we could begin today. It is realistic, as long as we can get the oil companies to embrace it, everyone will benefit.
Do not come to me with this silly Kyoto crap, it doesn't make any sense for the U.S. to agree. It is an aggregate of other nations that believe they can assert some control over the U.S., and as far as I care... they can shove it. Europe uses diesel fuel almost exclusively, they create a lot more green house gases with it than we do with our unleaded fuel. China burns more than half of the world's coal. Natural gas is becoming one of the predominant energy sources in the U.S. and it is by far the cleanest of the fossil fuels. We have done our share. Is it enough? I doubt it, but there is much more that other countries can do that will make a greater impact. It is analogous to this idea I had:
If someone is covered in mud, and you put more mud on them, you will not notice a difference. But, if you take someone who is clean and put a little mud on them, you would notice immediately.
With that being said, I am not against the U.S. making efforts, but I think it would be in the world's best interest for everyone to work on the biggest problems first: systematize, prioritize, and perform. Most people here are tech savvy (I guess) and should be able to understand that.
The biggest thing we could do today to reduce our consumption of crude oil is to use less, plain and simple. How? Hybrid-electric cars... increase fuel economy. Smarter engine that only use the number of cylinders necessary at the time. These are all real things that can be used today. A combination of hybrid-electric engines and smarter cylinder usage are coming our way in '05 models from Honda, GM, and Ford Companies, from what I have read... and this could be a short list.
Also, making our homes more energy efficient would help out in reducing other energy sources, freeing them up for other uses. Make your home use passive solar energy... use an on demand water heater, by a more efficient wash machine that will use less water and energy and it will all your dryer to do less work. I have seen many busses and government vehicles that run off of natural gas... with reduced natural gas consumption, we could have more of these vehicles.
The biggest thing this nation needs is to become unified... there is a real threat out there, and the only way we can overcome it is to unify. I would have initially been heart broken if Kerry would have won, but I would have sucked it up and tried to do my part in making it clear that the US is still the greatest place to live.
I truly believe you should drop it, but I doubt it. You seem to be greatly effected the Democratic propaganda. People waking and realizing that the Kerry campaign was running on lies is what lost the election for Kerry.
1) Last I checked, a group of terrorists is responsible for the mass murder of over 3,000 Americans.
2) No military draft, that is just silly. It was actually 2 Democrats that proposed that idea. Good thing the Republicans shot that down.
3) As has been stated, the Middle East has been in constant conflict with itself and anyone else that it drags into its affairs. The Ottoman's vs. the Safavid's is what created the Sunni vs. Shiite tension today. The Muslim empire that ruled over India (cannot recall the name off the top of my head) is responsible for the India vs. Pakistan tension. Europe/America was pulled into this by the Safavid's and the Ottoman's were actually bring the conflicts to Southeastern Europe. Without Democracy... they have no chance.
4) The economy is fine. The stock market is back, we have job growth, it is great. The problems that we did have were created by Clinton in the first place. Further, each time that we change parties for the President, we take a nice hit on our economy. By retaining Bush, the economy will stabilize more.
5) The environment is hardly an issue that you can blaim on the US. Out of all the industrialized nations, the US contributes the least, per capita, to poor ecological effects. China uses more than half of the worlds coal. Europe is predominately powered by diesel fuel for cars, which is very dirty. Placing more environmental regulations on the US will hur the economy and have a minimal effect on the environment.
6) The world is not going to abandon us. There were some tensions leading up to this election, but the world will fall in suite now. If you check out the BBC, most of Europe, Russia, and even opposing Middle Eastern leaders believe we will have better relations now. The world knows where Bush stands, and they do not want terrorism, just as much as us.
7) Kerry would have been the one to screw the future, sorry. The last things we need is a radical liberal in office who is going to elect up to 4 supreme court justices who will remain until the die or leave. It is quite crazy, but the media is trying to make it seem like having morals is a bad thing... how silly.
8) I am sorry, if this world is less prosperous for your child... then you must be grooming your child to be a terrorist (or a trial lawyer). My children are going to have a better place to live because of GWB.
And yes, I am quite please. GWB is back. The Republicans control the legislative branch, and the Judicial branch will become more conservative. And my state finally ended a 16 year reign of Democrats as Govenor... now hopefully there is enough left for the Republican Governor to salvage. Hopefully the state (Indiana) doesn't have to file the second bankruptcy in its history.
Yea, I would have to agree. Last I checked this is a US election. Frankly, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks. The UN is corrupt, and most of Europe is pissed off because they are not getting money from selling weapons to Iraq any longer. The parent post does point out that nearly all of the overseas voters are military... and they do not have all day to surf around on the Internet. Besides, yes the military is nearly 100% Bush supporters... why wouldn't they be? No need for you to comment on that idea if you were never in the US military. As far as the military is concerned, Republicans take care of the military, and they increase their pay... conversely, Democrats do the opposite. Besides, just because he is the President of the US does not mean we control what he does with his website. Last I checked, there is little regulation on the Internet, and if he wants to block access to his website... well, we have to remember it is his website.
You seem to be very nearsighted in regards to the past. That is a shame, the old proverb says "...in hindsight, vision is 20/20." Weakly backed observations and uninformed comments? You mean like these: You did not make a point, just like Kerry and his supporters. But, since you like to cry wolf, I can urge you to do a search on Google. Also, pay attention to the foolish behavior of the leftist media. They showed us how many lies the Democrats have spun. As long as you had your eyes open. Regardless of what Kerry says, I can tell you with the utmost confidence that John Kerry would have invaded Iraq if he were president during this past term, even without 9/11. What? What twisted planet are you from? You do not believe that Kerry would have invaded Iraq? John Kerry was the biggest advocate for Saddam Hussein's removal, in the Senate, from 1993-2002. There are reels of news footage spewing forth of Kerry critisizing Clinton about not removing Hussein from power. Further, there was evidence then that Saddam had plans to acquire WMDs and technology to produce them. If you do not recall, Clinton nearly invaded Iraq in 1997. Sounds prophetic, doesn't it? Bush is the best thing that has happened to islamic terrorism in a long time. His crusades are probably doing a better job a recruiting junior terrorists than Al-Quaida alone ever could. I'm sure Bin Laden is endorsing Bush's re-election all he can.. First, that is not prophetic, but merely observant. Of course there would be chaos, of course it would be messy... history has shown us. How long was Germany occupied and controlled? Decades. Remember the Berlin Wall? The wall was there because of the division of control because the Allies and Russia. It was not until Germany's reunification that they were no longer occupied. BTW, modders, I see you proved my point.
Interesting quotes. Of course, these are subjective... words from the mouths of mortal men. Just because they speak does not make it truth. But, I do see some validity to your selections. The only thing that makes it different is that we, as well as many others, were attacked... people did lose their lives. Your quotes (other Ben Franklins's) are from people who are justifiying their modus operandi.
Huh. Another reason we should have removed Saddam. You cannot bring up the Iran-Iraq war. At the time Iraq was no threat at all. Iran was a large threat. We used Iraq then. Wouldn't you position one enemy against another? If not, you are wasting your time and spreading yourself too thin. That is the same thing that defeated both Napolean and Hitler.
That is what I stated.
Well, he didn't. Besides, he can say whatever he wants after the fact, but he would have done relatively the same thing, or he would have been impeached, laughed out of office, assassinated by some US citizen. You do not seem to remember how everyone felt after 9/11... if anyone would have reacted differently, it would have been considered Anti-American. Definately not a good thing during a time when party lines blurred and everyone had one goal. Of course, now Democrats are trying to capitalize off of it.
No one has lost their life because of a lie by the administration. If you want to attribute the lost lives to lies, then point the finger toward the UN, toward Saddam Hussein, toward France, or toward Germany. BTW, I am in the military. If I lost my life due to this, it would be with honor. We have not had successful attacks on US soil since 9/11 have we? Nope. Have they tried to bring it to us? Yes. Have they brought the battle to other successfully? Yes. Look at Spain. Look at Russia. If we went after anyone else in the Middle East, we would have received less support than we did in Iraq. Plus, Iraq would have allied with anyone over there, even Iran.
It would be pretty easy for someone to tie me to this nick... pretty well known among a few open source groups.
Actually, yes I do. And the reason we need to forget the WMDs is because there is more reason to go that whether we found them or not. And do not be a foolish Anon. Coward.
Do not bring the WMDs back up, that is inconclusive. Because of the UN, we may not find WMDs for some time, if at all, even if they were there. And also, if the UN would have backed us up on their own policies, we would not be fighting this war in Iraq. So, if you want to start pointing fingers at things other than the root cause, point them at the UN. With only using the Navy, we would be at a near stalemate without causing a nuclear war. North Korea is touchy and requires some finesse. Kery is suggesting that we just go bust down the door. That is not going to happen without global devistation.
For one, do not respong with Anon. Coward. Secondly, your statement about North Korea is flame bait. I do not care what they state their reason to be... that is like blaming a wife getting beaten by her husband on the fact that the husband does not have a job (once again, root cause. a doctor should treat an illness, not the symptoms). Also, it is not the American companies purchasing the oil, but the other companies in the Middle East that are deceiving. Third, we have not ceased the search for Osama bin Laden... that is a foolish statement, even the liberal media has not stooped low enough to say that. I have seen stories on CBS, for crying out loud, about our continued search for Bin Laden. Further, George W. Bush is not worried about upsetting the Bin Laden's... they believe that Osama is a disgrace. They have not consulted with him in over 20 years, and further, he turned his back on them for not embracing his radical views on Islam. Get a clue. And do not bring taxes into this. Bush has lowered taxes for every single tax payer, period. Every single tax payer received a $600 check after the fact. And if Kerry gets elected, there are a few things that are certain: 1) he will be an advocate of same sex marriage, 2) he will be a coward in the face of adversity, and 3) he WILL raise taxes.
You are obviously missing the point that we have many allies in the Pacific (well, not necessarily allies, but we have common threats in North Korea). It would be foolish for us to make a move at this time.
You are flat out wrong. Iraq was the right war, at the right time. You are missing many clear points. There is definitive evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to put weapons in the hands of terrorists in order to form a war on American soil. I would love to see it actually, becase it would be very funny. All of those Europeans that wonder what the US's "fascination" is with weapons... just let me say, we would not need our military. Further, Saddam broke international treaties that allowed him to remain in power. That, in and of itself, is reason enough to go to war. How can we be certain if he had WMD's if we are not able to monitor? That is why we had to rely on intelligence that may very well have been wrong (this is not yet definitive, like Kerry would have you believe). And even further, there are plenty of reasons France and Germany did not support the effort: 1) the US had trade embargos with Iraq restricting their oil from being sold to the US. This oil still found its way here, through proxy nations in the Middle East. This has proven itself through the increase in oil prices. 2) Saddam took that money and purchased weapons (no, I did not say WMD's) from both France and Germany (as well as others). Why would they want to miss out on that money? I am tired of hearing uninformed people speak about Iraq. I am in the military (only a reservist) and my brother-in-law is visiting from Iraq (on leave from the Army). He has not leaked any intelligence, but you can tell, from his conviction that he believes in fighting this battle, as do so many others serving (As they did _VOLUNTEER_). There is usually a reason for such conviction.
I am getting to get seriously modded down, and that is just a reflection of how Demoncats, er, Democrats and their supporters love to censor the media. There are currently bigger fish to fry than the DMCA. There is a good reason for the DMCA, we need to strengthen our grip on IP for the moment. It will be loosened in time, heck, it already has been loosened considerably.
I am very disheartened by what I am seeing on Slashdot. Typically, I have a lot of respect for my fellow geeks (but maybe you are not geeks, merely nerds). The problem I have is that so many people that I consider relatively intelligence are making weakly backed observations and are making uninformed comments. Do not try to speak with authority when you have not mastered a subject. Bush has not been lying (maybe a little, but we _ALL_ do to an extent). Regardless of what Kerry says, I can tell you with the utmost confidence that John Kerry would have invaded Iraq if he were president during this past term, even without 9/11.
John Kerry has done absolutely nothing in his 20 year tenure in the US Senate. During his campaign, he has acted like a prosecutor who has no evidence. He simply makes bold faced lies to the jury, and even though they are objected... the jury still has to hear it. This is an age old technique.
President Bush is certainly not a perfect man, but he has held his position with integrity. He has made decisions that are very difficult, and I am sure that I would not have done a better job, nor would anyone else. He did what any president would have had to do. The economic decline had nothing to do with George W. Bush. He has turned the economy around, and that is irrefutible. If you argue with that you are a fool. Seriously, there is documentation to support this. Whereas the opposition to this merely makes accusations. Healthcare has been horrible for years. John Kerry's plan will never, and I repeat, never be passed. It is too outlandish, and I really hope it never is passed. President Bush's plan is more realistic and addresses the root cause of the issue (many developers should understand what root cause analysis is). Republicans are none supressing minority votes... that is all speculation (and lies). In regards to terrorism, Bush did what was necessary, the public demanded it, as well as his moral conviction demanded it. We did _NOT_ rush to war, as Kerry always states, to the contrary, we probably waited too long to go to war. Us not finding WMD's is a reflection of our hesitance to go to war. Watch, they are in Syria. Also, I do not care if we ever find any WMD's... Iraq was breaking treaties that gave us permission to monitor his ability to have WMD's... how can we know if he has any or not if we cannot monitor? That, in and of itself, is enough reason to remove him from power. Heck, he should have been removed during the Gulf War, but the UN got in the way, just like they have tried to do in this conflict.
This is just all ridiculous. The Democrats are total liars, and anyone who follows them is a complete fool. The Democrats support every single issue that is questionable. They support gay/lesbain marriage (only positive for gay/lesbian community), they support stem cell research from embryos and abortion(only positive for feminists, and do not get me started on that). Questionable item after questionable item. And to top it off, the Democratic Party is becoming mroe and more socialist. If I can recall, I only know of one socialist idea that has been even remotely successful, and that is Open Source Software, and I can argue that the only reason that it has been successful is because of the capitalist economy. Further, it is not really all that socialist... in socialism, the state own everything... rather than the individual who created it.
I am tired of this, I could go on for days. Democrats are foolish. Democrats tend to be selfish, or lazy, or have no one who relies on them. Every government run system runs horribly. Look at the things that ever
Already done. It is called Microsoft Services for Unix, and it works for Linux...
Funny you bring this up. It is a VFS module for Samba. That is, the protocol level stuff works, and is completely functional. The system for creating the "versions" is not part of Samba, nor should be. It actually is a bit more complicated than M$ or anyone else tries to explain. This technology uses Copy On Write (COW) and snapshots. Snapshots were originally created to help make tape backup more quick. You bring your system to a lower state (ie. stop database services etc), take a snapshot, then bring your system back to functional state. This takes all of about 3 seconds or so. Then you do a backup of the snapshot. Snapshots are block-level backups, and only change when blocks change. This is completely dependant on the way that any given application does it's writes to disk. If you use something that saves in binary, then all blocks are rewritten, and you disk usage increases exponentially with each snapshot. For Samba, we have looked at using LVM or EVMS. I think either would handle things as easily or better than Windows Server 2003, but it still seems scary. There is a write-up on how to use this.