The ISP my brother has, uses a software/hardware combination that they acknowledge won't work with SP2. They refuse to upgrade either, so he's stuck with SP1. The thing is; it's a pretty big ADSL supplier in Holland and he's not the only one in this situation.
Give RASPPPoE a try. It's free and compatible with almost all ADSL ISPs, whether they support it offically or not. (See the page listing known compatible ISPs). Many seem to make deals for some branded software like WinPoet then don't want to pay to upgrade it. Or perhasp you have some odd USB DSL modem thast requires a special driver? If so, can he use an ethernet-port DSL modem instead? And what about routers? Macs? Linux? They can't use this XP1 software.
The alternative in the last election represents a far-left anti-war contingency. Although I disagree with the war in Iraq, to pretend that voting for somebody else (Kerry, in reality, was the only choice)
You're saying that Kerry was "far left"?
He was slightly to the left of the nutjob you did elect, perhaps. Amazing that a decorated vet runs against a deserter and was painted as a pacifist appeaser.
Once someone has got the money to pay KJI, they've got the money. It doesn't matter who doesn't give them the money, just that they've got it.
So who would? It does matter that anyone who has that kind of money is not likely to want to commit suicide. One thing Bush has shown is that he's willing to go to war on suspicion. Also, Kim himself knows that he would be a prime suspect for supplying said bomb; I can believe he'd use a bomb against South Korea if he thought he could get away with it, or the US as a last ditch "Fuck You" statement, but not that he'd hand it over to a bunch of Arabs who would use it for their own agenda. Though I did enjoy Team America, I think it unlikely that he's an alien cockroach trying to wipe out humanity so his race can take over.
I don't agree, if the west hadn't interefered, the people would eventually have revolted, but when the us attacked, the leader could use this too smother all dissidents.
The Kims would have had no trouble creating enemies. Japan, as I mentioned. And even if the US had not sent in troops, they would remain an object of fear and hate. The variable is China. Perhaps without needing a buffer against a capitalist South Korea, China would have tired of supporting the crumbling economy and let it collapse. But millions could have died in that process, or China may have annexed it.
50 years ago we tried to do the right thing in N Korea, and look at us now. If the US didn't, what would the situation be ? The Korean people would by now have a more democratic leadership; at least a not so crazy one. My Message : stop interfering!
Hey, I'm a pretty vicious critic of the US's current policies, but in Korea 1950s they were right. If the US hadn't pushed back the North's invasion, lead by Kim Il Sung, the current Dear Leader's father, the whole peninsula would have been under their rule. Very likely, emboldened by that, the Kims would have proceeded to threaten Japan and other neighbours. Japan and the US would have responded, and China (under Mao) would have backed Korea up. After that, it gets more unpredictable, but undoubtedly terrible.
The main threat is him selling them to someone (AlQaeda??)
Al Qaeda had about $1 million budget for 9/11. They could probably pass around the hat for more, but anyone who could donate big bucks to them (enough for a nuke) wouldn't, they don't want a nuclear war because it would be bad for (the oil) business, and definitely would not want the US tracking the money trail back to him and stringing him up by his balls in Bagram. Despite Tom Clancy and Jack Bauer, it's not somethng to lose sleep over.
The cease-fire that he agreed to after being ejected from Kuwait obligated Iraq to destroy those weapons, and prove that they had done so. It was not the job of the weapons inspectors to go hunting for them. Their job was to witness, document and audit Iraq's disarmament.
Trying to prove you destroyed something ten years ago isn't that easy. Nevertheless, Saddam did satisfy the inspectors that he had done so. Bush chose to stick his fingers in his ears and say "La La La 9-11 Al Qaeda WMD!" and sent in the troops anyway.
And then there's the whole "politically correct" factor; there is no question that speaking against the climate change faction is not any way to get funding, to get published, or even to get invited to a party.
Bullshit. Any scientists who could make a case against climate change have no problem getting funding.
Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.
These include the International Policy Network, a thinktank with its HQ in London, and the George C Marshall Institute, which is based in Washington DC. In 2004, the institute jointly published a report with the UK group the Scientific Alliance which claimed that global temperature rises were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
And that's just the money that is out in the open. If I was as conspiracy minded as you, I'd suspect ten or a hundred times as much was funnelled to the "cause" indirectly. Electing the current US government of former oil executives for one thing.
As for reputation, if you can disprove a popular theory, you get noticed, published and funded. You'll certainly get attacked in turn, but if you've got the facts, you'll prevail. But of course, they don't argue in the scientific journals, they go to the media which "reports the controversy", playing the same game as the tobacco companies did for decades in denying the health risks of smoking; as the creationists do now.
1. Put a bunch of ice cubes in a cup. 2. Watch as they melt. 3. Note that the water level in the cup doesn't change. 4. Ponder meaning of melting glaciers...
I always wondered about this fact that the level doesn't rise. I hope somebody can explain to me how exactly melting glaciers raises the sea level by any significant amount.
Floating ice, like at the north pole, yes, that won't change the sea level if it melts. Glaciers, like in Greenland and Antarctica, are on land. So when they melt they'll run into the ocean and that will increase the sea level, by several metres -- the ice in Antarctica is a few kilometres thick.
Err.. don't you think these mysterious, nefarious, greedy "commercial interests" have some stake in protecting the planet? ie. If the planet is engulfed in flames, or C02, or giant termites from space, how are these nasty businesses going to make money?
The owners will already have made their money, and move to gated communities in Aspen, Alaska, Antarctica or wherever while the rest of us fry.
be misused to search for software bugs, password information and even proprietary code that shouldn't have been posted to the Internet, security experts said Friday.
What else can one say, but DUH. If someone is stupid enough to leave their confidential files on a fucking web server, they won't be confidential for long. Google didn't create the problem. malicious hackers would probably have found them anyway, just now everyone else can.
The question from the editor was more like "why is this murder case important enough to garner so much media attention, such that the police would go to the extent of using YouTube to try to catch the criminals?"
I don't know why using Youtube is an indication of importance. It costs nothing and anyone can do it. It's easier than running off fliers and handing them out in hte street. If they'd put it on broadcast TV, that would be making it important.
the reason why music copyright law exists - to ensure the owners are compensated for their work
That's actually not the reason we have copyright law.
In the US, for instance:
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Author and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
And in many European countries the concept of authors' "moral rights" is enshrined in copyright law. Not the right of publishers to make a buck.
this is assuming that one voted for the traitors in question. I didn't. Next false assumption?
98 out of 100 senators voted in favour; and Bush won re-election in 2004, so a majority of your compatriots supported (or apathetically failed to oppose) these measures. This wasn't about you personally; it was about contrasting national characteristics as in the post I responded to which essentially claimed the US was a shining beacon of respect for human rights.
Nonsense; the evil actions of a leader doesn't blind everyone under their rule to morality. Many of us are outraged at what is happening at those places as are we with the apparent lack of freedom of expression in the UK being shown right now.
The post I was replying to was criticizing the UK by comparison with the US in its respect for civil liberties. That's what made me choke on my pretzel. As for "evil actions of a leader...". You (presuming you're American) voted him in and re-elected him. Even if you didn't vote Republican, your representatives confirmed his actions.
o use law -- the threat of violence -- to forbid people from expressing hurtful opinions.
These weren't "hurtful" in the sense of hurting their self esteem, but in the sense of threatening to kill them. Since their son had actually been killed by racist thugs, this wasn't something that could be ignored.
In more civilized societies, you need an actual violent act to happen before anyone's going on trial for inciting it, and even then, good luck getting a conviction. This incident is nothing more than thoughtcrime--it wasn't an American who wrote 1984.
Please, America has no moral authority on this issue since you started locking people up in places like Guantanamo and Bagram without a shred of due process.
Since the creations by Walt Disney of Space Mountain and EPCOT, progressives have attempted to show us a picture of how technology will affect our future lives. More often than not, these pictures become laughable after 20 years. Not for Royal Philips Electronics, who at their Simplicity Event in London unveiled their picture of the seamlessly technological future
So on the day of their "unveiling", Philips' "seamlessly technological future" is declared future proof and, unlike those losers at Disney, will never seem kitch and passe. And you're quoting from a carefully researched and unbiased assessment of the project (or was it their marketing speil?).
I can't blame them too much. With Word files particularly, the model for styles and formatting is so convoluted and screwed up that no one understands how to use it effectively. Back with Word 5 for DOS, styles made sense, though you did have to RTFM to use them. but in an unceasing campaign to add more powerful features, and yet remain user-friendly, so many automatic or default adjustments are made silently (e.g.: missing fonts are substituted, with no sign that this has been done; styles are overridden, local formatting changes a basic style universally, etc, etc). I deal with university professors' documents; they're mostly just as clueless and treat it as a typewriter, and I've never met one who actually used heirarchical heading styles consistently, for instance. A chapter heading is likely to be "Normal" text with "24 pt Arial Bold" applied; a paragraph of text is actually Heading 1 formatted 12 pt Times.
I know all about that. I work in DTP and have had to deal with all kinds of files. Now of course when people say "file" they mean "MSWord file", and are baffled at the idea that there is any alternative, which makes me rather sad; especailly as I am forced to use this myself. But "MSWord file" is no guarantee of compatibility. After a file has been passed back and forth between several people the style, layout, spelling, fonts, page size.... all change with no one really knowing how or why. A good part of my work is stripping layers of crap from such files before I can actually get to the creative part of the job.
Slashdot Mirror
Give RASPPPoE a try. It's free and compatible with almost all ADSL ISPs, whether they support it offically or not. (See the page listing known compatible ISPs). Many seem to make deals for some branded software like WinPoet then don't want to pay to upgrade it. Or perhasp you have some odd USB DSL modem thast requires a special driver? If so, can he use an ethernet-port DSL modem instead? And what about routers? Macs? Linux? They can't use this XP1 software.
Good way to get rid of those pizza crusts and apple cores.
Try http://windizupdate.com/
You're saying that Kerry was "far left"?
He was slightly to the left of the nutjob you did elect, perhaps. Amazing that a decorated vet runs against a deserter and was painted as a pacifist appeaser.
So who would? It does matter that anyone who has that kind of money is not likely to want to commit suicide. One thing Bush has shown is that he's willing to go to war on suspicion. Also, Kim himself knows that he would be a prime suspect for supplying said bomb; I can believe he'd use a bomb against South Korea if he thought he could get away with it, or the US as a last ditch "Fuck You" statement, but not that he'd hand it over to a bunch of Arabs who would use it for their own agenda. Though I did enjoy Team America, I think it unlikely that he's an alien cockroach trying to wipe out humanity so his race can take over.
The Kims would have had no trouble creating enemies. Japan, as I mentioned. And even if the US had not sent in troops, they would remain an object of fear and hate. The variable is China. Perhaps without needing a buffer against a capitalist South Korea, China would have tired of supporting the crumbling economy and let it collapse. But millions could have died in that process, or China may have annexed it.
Hey, I'm a pretty vicious critic of the US's current policies, but in Korea 1950s they were right. If the US hadn't pushed back the North's invasion, lead by Kim Il Sung, the current Dear Leader's father, the whole peninsula would have been under their rule. Very likely, emboldened by that, the Kims would have proceeded to threaten Japan and other neighbours. Japan and the US would have responded, and China (under Mao) would have backed Korea up. After that, it gets more unpredictable, but undoubtedly terrible.
Al Qaeda had about $1 million budget for 9/11. They could probably pass around the hat for more, but anyone who could donate big bucks to them (enough for a nuke) wouldn't, they don't want a nuclear war because it would be bad for (the oil) business, and definitely would not want the US tracking the money trail back to him and stringing him up by his balls in Bagram. Despite Tom Clancy and Jack Bauer, it's not somethng to lose sleep over.
Trying to prove you destroyed something ten years ago isn't that easy. Nevertheless, Saddam did satisfy the inspectors that he had done so. Bush chose to stick his fingers in his ears and say "La La La 9-11 Al Qaeda WMD!" and sent in the troops anyway.
Bullshit. Any scientists who could make a case against climate change have no problem getting funding.
And that's just the money that is out in the open. If I was as conspiracy minded as you, I'd suspect ten or a hundred times as much was funnelled to the "cause" indirectly. Electing the current US government of former oil executives for one thing.As for reputation, if you can disprove a popular theory, you get noticed, published and funded. You'll certainly get attacked in turn, but if you've got the facts, you'll prevail. But of course, they don't argue in the scientific journals, they go to the media which "reports the controversy", playing the same game as the tobacco companies did for decades in denying the health risks of smoking; as the creationists do now.
2. Watch as they melt.
3. Note that the water level in the cup doesn't change.
4. Ponder meaning of melting glaciers...
I always wondered about this fact that the level doesn't rise. I hope somebody can explain to me how exactly melting glaciers raises the sea level by any significant amount.
Floating ice, like at the north pole, yes, that won't change the sea level if it melts. Glaciers, like in Greenland and Antarctica, are on land. So when they melt they'll run into the ocean and that will increase the sea level, by several metres -- the ice in Antarctica is a few kilometres thick.
The owners will already have made their money, and move to gated communities in Aspen, Alaska, Antarctica or wherever while the rest of us fry.
What else can one say, but DUH. If someone is stupid enough to leave their confidential files on a fucking web server, they won't be confidential for long. Google didn't create the problem. malicious hackers would probably have found them anyway, just now everyone else can.
I don't know why using Youtube is an indication of importance. It costs nothing and anyone can do it. It's easier than running off fliers and handing them out in hte street. If they'd put it on broadcast TV, that would be making it important.
That's actually not the reason we have copyright law.
In the US, for instance:
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Author and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
And in many European countries the concept of authors' "moral rights" is enshrined in copyright law. Not the right of publishers to make a buck.
PEEK: quick glimpse.
This in an article quoting Oxford University Press....
98 out of 100 senators voted in favour; and Bush won re-election in 2004, so a majority of your compatriots supported (or apathetically failed to oppose) these measures. This wasn't about you personally; it was about contrasting national characteristics as in the post I responded to which essentially claimed the US was a shining beacon of respect for human rights.
The post I was replying to was criticizing the UK by comparison with the US in its respect for civil liberties. That's what made me choke on my pretzel. As for "evil actions of a leader...". You (presuming you're American) voted him in and re-elected him. Even if you didn't vote Republican, your representatives confirmed his actions.
Yes. As we deprive cannibals of the right to exercise their dietary preferences, and for a similar reason.
These weren't "hurtful" in the sense of hurting their self esteem, but in the sense of threatening to kill them. Since their son had actually been killed by racist thugs, this wasn't something that could be ignored.
Please, America has no moral authority on this issue since you started locking people up in places like Guantanamo and Bagram without a shred of due process.
You could "infer" it from the meaning of the word "recite".
recite. To repeat or utter aloud (something rehearsed or memorized).
I can't blame them too much. With Word files particularly, the model for styles and formatting is so convoluted and screwed up that no one understands how to use it effectively. Back with Word 5 for DOS, styles made sense, though you did have to RTFM to use them. but in an unceasing campaign to add more powerful features, and yet remain user-friendly, so many automatic or default adjustments are made silently (e.g.: missing fonts are substituted, with no sign that this has been done; styles are overridden, local formatting changes a basic style universally, etc, etc). I deal with university professors' documents; they're mostly just as clueless and treat it as a typewriter, and I've never met one who actually used heirarchical heading styles consistently, for instance. A chapter heading is likely to be "Normal" text with "24 pt Arial Bold" applied; a paragraph of text is actually Heading 1 formatted 12 pt Times.
I know all about that. I work in DTP and have had to deal with all kinds of files. Now of course when people say "file" they mean "MSWord file", and are baffled at the idea that there is any alternative, which makes me rather sad; especailly as I am forced to use this myself. But "MSWord file" is no guarantee of compatibility. After a file has been passed back and forth between several people the style, layout, spelling, fonts, page size.... all change with no one really knowing how or why. A good part of my work is stripping layers of crap from such files before I can actually get to the creative part of the job.