1. Oil companies in alaska spend big bucks pumping Natural Gas which emerges during the pumping process *BACK IN* to oil fields because environmentalists have blocked attempts to build a second pipeline for Natural Gas right next to the current one for petroleum. There is no shortage of Natural Gas that is not the direct product of the environmentalist movement's success at obstructing rational progress. This malthusian scarcity argument is as wrongheaded as it was in the seventies when many of these same pseudo-scientists were predicting global cooling and imminent starvation in India.
Finally, why does the author of this ridiculous "hypothesis" get a pass on its inability to be observed or tested (let alone reproduced) or even explain the world at large? Glad the guy is willing to rethink his religious dogma, but an unfounded theory based on speculative and unprovable premises might as well be a treatise on creationism. It's not a theory, it's a religious tract, and he's not a scientist, he's a theologian with a moderately successful book contract.
Much faster, not as polished, but clean and reliable.
Been migrating several machines over the last few months. Moving the last machine over this weekend.
Goodbye RH. It was fun until your MBA types decided to prove that "non-vendor lockin" has practical limitations, and did so at the expense of those who carried your message into server and boardrooms everywhere.
"...RH was greate when it offered an option for people who wanted a fairly stable release and didn't require support..."
When I refer to not requiring support, I'm talking about live human support, not automated access to bug fixes and security patches, which most operating systems, including Microsoft, give away for free. Expecting a customer to pay for fixes is encouraging your users to give your OS a bad reputation.
It's about RH's reputation as a viable choice,
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 1
...not that other choices exist. Whatever happened to Open Source's vaunted lack of vendor lockin? RH has proven that a dangerous illusion, unless you are prepared to say that time spent undergoing mandatory upgrades of your entire machine base is irrelevant, or training wasted on RH products which are now being replaced is inconsequencial, or wholesale migrations to some other distro are no big deal, or licensing schemes for RH workstations which exceed Windows XP upgrade fees are a bargain, or declare that vendors who don't support the new version aren't an issue that RH, the supposed distro of choice for serious business requirements, is concerned about.
RH has damaged the reputations of it's most dedicated advocates, whose only fault was recommending your company's product on the reasonable assumption that nothing like this would ever happen. The people who got RH into the server room now have to explain how they steered their companies into such an expensive quagmire. Why should anybody who values their job and desires to help their employer accomplish its objectives ever recommend a vendor that pulls a stunt like this? Didn't MS try a mandatory upgrade to a subscription based model for XP before they weakened their stance within a few months? Where does RH get the marketing leverage that MS (which owns over 90% of the market and makes more money in 2 typical days than the entire Linux Market makes every year) lacked?
How does RH suggest a mandatory "upgrade" to RHEL 3.0 be performed on 10,000 machines when no upgrade path from RH9.0 is available? Does RH pretend that RH9 was not used in business? Guess they should have bought the RHEL at 2.0, but that doesn't upgrade either, now does it?
Does RH still claim that Fedora, which was billed as "cutting edge" and for "hackers" by the geniuses in RH marketing who were afraid it might hurt RHEL sales, and which *requires* upgrades with every new drop, (a.k.a: a toy), is an acceptable alternative for RHL users who don't want to incur a massive migration charge? Was it the users fault that they used a system which cycled every few years, came which much more software of the kind required than small businesses than the artificially limited RHEL, and was significantly cheaper?
BTW, I have used RH since 4.1 (Biltmore?). I've moved on because the choices offered to me by the distro I have invested years of learning and experience were unacceptably risky for my needs. RH was great when it offered an option for people who wanted a fairly stable release and didn't require support. Needless to say I don't recommend RH anymore to my friends or my clients. As Warren Buffet says, when you sell a commodity, your only as good as your dumbest competitor, and now I know why.
Heaven forbid that we should be able to get rid of someone every four years. If it were ten, what are you going to do, deny them reelection for their *next* ten years (when they're too tired to run again?) This idea is so stupid it should start reading the evening news.
You can go to far the other way too, like the non-confidence vote in a parliamentary system which keeps the government almost totally ineffective. (although that's not always a bad idea).
and I doubt they ever will.
pro forma profits aren't real, they're pro forma.
RedHat made it into the backroom on the recommendations of the people they just royally fucked over. I don't know why people here can't see that it is the RHEL customers who *really* got screwed with this deal.
This isn't about your bedroom box. Fedora is being marketed as a toy that gets updated every few months with no updates for previous releases, only fixes going forward. It's the enterprise product customers who are really getting screwed.
This is about tens of thousands of installs at thousands of *businesses* which *must* be carried out in the next few months in conjunction with a tripling of licensing fees, or a massive migration to a new system (fat chance).
Gee, I'm sure those CIO's who advocated linux are going to look really smart when their RHE implementations require bare metal installs and now cost 3 to 6 times what they did when the deal was struck. Wow, linux is looking much cheaper now doesn't it? What do you suppose the TCO on that prospect looks like?
Let's review: RedHat is forcing a migration to a new subscription system which is substantially more expensive than its old one. Hmmm, why does this sound so familiar? What happened to a certain famous monopoly which tried the same thing a few months ago? Oh that's right, the customers bolted to... wait for it... Linux (namely RedHat).
But wait-- RedHat's not a monopoly... where's the monopoly power? isn't that like showing up at a gun fight with a pen knife? Oops.
Yeah, they're some real fucking geniuses over there at RH. Watch the pretty company implode.
That's Smart. Wake up. RH just gut shot the argument that open source is immune to vendor lock in. They deserve more scorn than SCO, because they've made everyone who advocated them for business look like idiots.
Yes, it makes a lot of sense to get angry about us ending some of the worst hell holes on earth. Maybe we would be happier if we just whistled dixie and kept the status quo like the eurotrash who traded on the Iraqi people's misery while they asked for "more time".
Did you forget Abu Dhabi Television to round out your credible sources?
The point is he implicated himself as being familiar with the operational details of the plan. Osama did deny it at first, and it doesn't surprise me that he would do it for the sympathetic leftists at the Guardian.
As for the link, it was the most famous tape aired in America, and lasts for over an hour while he meets with some fat cleric visiting from Saudi Arabia. Even Saturday Night Live parodied it. I would google under "Osama video dinner arabic translation 'helicopter wreckage'"
A cite of "some british journalist" doesn't really refute the well publicized tape of Osama bragging how the people who carried out the attacks didn't even know what they were attacking.
I don't know, but most people might take that as evidence of him being on the inside track of some very *operational* nitty-gritty. Unless he just some clueless religious leader (as if that isn't dangerous) who just happens to be familiar with the comparmentilization precautions for a particular mission carried out by mid level operatives. Yeah, right.
The tech market began it's implosion in April of 2000, about the same time that Judge Jackson laid the smackdown on MS. The twits on wall street fled in terror at the thought of chopping up MS, even though they should have been running for entirely different reasons. (i.e., a ridiculous amount of investment in crappy business 'ideas'.)
I guess that's chicken scratch right? Is this the crap they teach you in public schools nowadays? Your ignorance of history is as shocking as your assumption that you are a master of it.
Poland was invaded on *both* sides in 1939, not 1945. The U.S. was committed to defending democracy and freedom because it paid up, showed up, and turned the tide, unlike the French, who just gave up in a few weeks. (That is the real reason why most of Europe was in Axis hands by the middle of 1940.) U.S. ships were running wolfpack blockades since 1939. What you think of as the holocaust didn't start until months after the Wannasee conferance, which was in 1942. As for your reliably wrong revisionism regarding the post war world, the U.S. only had three nuclear weapons at the time, and it used one in the dessert and two on Japan. It certainly could NOT have done anything more than bluffed the Soviets who already occupied 3/4's of Western Europe and enjoyed a massive superiority both in armor and men, all while the U.S. still had business to attend to out in the Pacific.
Didn't see too much help rolling them up either, although we were grateful for the help. Idiots like you obviously aren't.
Bankruptcy laws were changed to allow collection efforts against individuals who were suspected of abusing of the system, not to make bankruptcy easier to hide.
Your "basically bankrupt" argument makes the laughably ignorant "what did we ever do for the French" arguments look good by comparison. The U.S. has a TEN TRILLION dollar ANNUAL GDP. It is FAR more productive and larger than the next closest economy, which is Japan. It is hardly bankrupt because it spends less than ten percent of a THREE TRILLION dollar federal budget paying interest on a 6 trillion dollar debt.
Our unemployment is at 6%. Germany, the so-called powerhouse of Europe, is at 15% and climbing. Whose broke?
Since your ignorance of history and bankruptcy laws is somehow surpassed by your ignorance of international trade: Buying stuff (and giving people in other lands a job) is not the same as getting "support", but I can understand how you would be confused since most Euros live in socialist paradises where expensive things like a crappy higher education, crappy healthcare, and industries which need big subsidies to stay in business are bought for them via massive income taxes.
You already know you are looking for very particular information (prices) which can reliably be found in a particular location. Data mining involves slicing and dicing data to discover new information which may or may not be there.
BTW, [and yes, IAAL], it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for non-lawyers to fret over dubious caselaw from what is probably some other jurisdiction with a very different set of facts.
Just because one judge was dumb enough to go along with a bad decision doesn't mean you have to worry what the next one would do. Don't worry, they'll send you a letter if they really don't like it, and then your legal department can worry about it. With very few exceptions, just collect your paycheck, live your life, and move on.
We once supported dictator "x" for purpose "y", so we are obligated to a) look the other way no matter what he does, b) support him for life, because really we were entering into a "lifetime insurance for bad regimes" contract which we are obligated to honor, and c), our national interests are not allowed to change, because that would be unfair to all those regimes we propped up when things were totally different, our government's philosophy was different, and our security interests were different.
...parrotting a supposedly witty anti-Bush viewpoint and immediately begin modding all who agree with first five words of article as "+5 Insightful", as opposed to actually addressing the concerns which the supposedly unbiased reporter mocks.
[Like how Canada lax immigration policies are a notorious waystop for Al Queda terrorists like the Millenium bomber on their way to American targets.]
Pathetic. I wonder what all those Canadians who have been prosecuted under "hate speech" laws by its "human rights" commission think of all that Canadian Freedom? Anti-gun laws? The freedom to get healthcare when you need it (other than a ticket to the states?)
Now mod this down as flamebait, all you all-too-predictable "freethinkers" who happen to always agree with anyone who expressess any historically revisionist anti-U.S. opinion.
You're pronouncement cuts both ways. Just because companies can pick and choose between H1B's doesn't mean they won't choose a cheaper H1B resource over an American every time.
If you're putting "I require H1-B sponsorship" on your resume, you might as well print below it:
"I am aware that the visa process poses considerable paperwork and expense, so I'll be grateful for a job, I will work for considerably less than an American can afford to, and I am legally constrained from jumping to another opportunity after you've trained me, unlike those fickle Americans who bail as soon as they decide you're company sucks."
America outlawed indentured servitude with the 13th Amendment. It's time to stop pretending that a worker who can be deported at a moment's notice isn't subject to a coercive employment situation.
You ever hear the U.S. Supreme court, or a state supreme court, or the federal Circuit Court of *Appeals*, or a state appellate court? These are all appellate courts and there for *both* sides if either side doesn't feel it got a fair shake.
If you're talking about double jeopardy, it only applies if a government actor tries to retry someone for the same criminal act after already going through the entire appeals process. [Like the cops in Rodney King, who were tried for a different offense for the same act (double jeopardy in all but name)]. That's why the prosecutors in the several states and Feds involved in the DC shootings coordinated their indictments, so that each of three jurisdictions will have a crack at them in case the other two fail to convict with a death penalty.
If I'm going to get "flame-baited" by every knee-jerk teen fool with Mod points, I might as well go for broke...
Now *this* is flamebait:
Bush is a psychopathic fundamentalist who does unspeakable things [medialens.org] to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the Gulf region.
yes, I must have missed that part about him trying out chemical weapons on his own people, or the acid baths, or calling for the holocaust part II, or paying bounties to PLO for their terrorist organizations. What kind of clueless f*ck compares the *elected* (by official electors as provided in the constitution, you moron) leader of the Free world to a second rate hitler who starves his people so that he can have a bigger nuclear penis? You're an idiot.
(By unspeakable, I refer to his complete lack of respect for everything that the USA is supposed to stand for)
Ooo boy. That's nearly as bad as torturing children to death in front of their parents.
What *EXACTLY* has Bush done that shows a lack of respect for what the USA is supposed to stand for? Can you even tell me what the USA is supposed to stand for? I doubt it, because you're just another vile spouting idiot with a feeble "education" who learned everything you "know" about "freedom" from MTV. I bet you can't even define what a "right" is. You probably can't even rationalize why the Constitution does a better job of protecting human rights than the U.N's declaration of Human Rights ever will. Fool.
When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for
Bullshit, this is one of the disinformation tactics mentioned in the above link.
Logical error: Appeal to authority/Circular reasoning. The original claim is baseless and wrong, written by an idiot who might try reading a little Orwell if he can sound out the big words. If you support stopping the war, you must logically be in favor of extending Saddamn's regime. Even a chimpanzee could grasp this binary relationship.
Only a Eurotrash pseudo-intellectual would try to rationalize that it doesn't. Have you read too much Postmodern French Philosophy?
Being opposed to war does not mean that we are opposed to doing anything. All it means is that we are not happy about being deliberatly misled by our leaders to start a war that is going to cause more long term problems than it will solve.
spoken like a true frenchman. Q: Hey, why are there trees lining the streets of paris? A: So the Germans can march in the shade.
Do you mean long term problems like keeping Americans alive to buy some more oil? Long term problems like liberating the Iraqi people? Long term problems like destabilizing a fundamentally corrupt chain of arab states led by backwards authoritarians who blame all their internal problems on the west? Here's a clue: You can easily see that you're argument is flawed because it can be used to justify all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. If your grandfather thought like you did, you'd be living in a fascist police state. War solves most intractable problems in human interaction in a very permanent fashion. Only a deluded idiot who has never cracked a history book or lived through a time of strife would believe the old hippie canard that "violence solves nothing".
Inspectors are now in Iraq because of a tangible threat of force. They are not there because of 12 years of sanctions, or 8 years of inspections. Iraq is not complying because it is hoping people like you will win the day. It will not comply until American boots are in the sand, because that is how the world works, little lamb.
Do you think the USA is going to win over any friends in the region by medling further in the Middle East? Why don't you ask the next
Well, win some Iraqi friends, and we already have the Iranian youth on our side. This stupid ass idea that "the arab street will rise up" is an obvious myth. Gee, by your account we f*cked with them for fifty years, (Guess muslims don't appreciate that we fought the last three wars in Kuwait, Somolia, and Kosovo on their behalf) back up their supposedly mortal enemy, Israel, (who hasn't attacked a muslim neighbor since the Six Day War, and humiliated the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. What is it going to take to get this street off it's ass? Bombing Mecca? Only fools think that the most advanced society on earth has to fear the scorn of people who don't even have the freedom to protest without their government's permission.
...generation of potential terrorists, who will grow up hating the country that killed their parents...
Yeah, just like the Japanese and the Germans are running around trying to blow up Americans today. Even the Vietnamese respect the fact that we weren't there to conquer them.
Ahh, but you forget the fact that your cities were attacked because of meddling in the past. Doing nothing would be a better solution (I'm not saying it's the best though). Going around killing people is only going to inspire the next generation of terrorists.
Yes, that's why there's all those nazi's and japanese militarists running around today. Because killing people who are bent on killing you really solves nothing. Is it naptime yet?
And as the war on terrorism is inherently unwinnable
ASSUMPTION - which is patently ridiculous.
Terrorism will end if people don't think it's in their interests to kill their children for some misguided cause. Right now many do. That will change if A) things improve for them, or B) Antiterror techniques are racheted up until it's very difficult to inflict damage on American targets.
(you can't defeat an enemy you can't see)
Woa, they have "predator" light bending camofluage now? Wow, we better just kill ourselves then, before they get us for refusing to stop that barbarous habit of hunting them down and killing or capturing the deluded fools who want to slaughter every single American they can get their hands on. Yes, let's just become good muslims, and enslave our women, and do nothing while they slaughter or enslave members of other religions, or even their own religion (like that bombing of Shite muslims in Pakistan) or Al Queda's hatred for Saudi Arabia, which practices a very strict version of the Sharia, all because the [insert offender here, especially if he has something worth taking] were not backwards enough to please the ignorant little wannabe iman.
Our priests are our servants. They used to be the leaders of our society. They aren't any more, and there's a reason for that. We are the apogee of human achievement. They are a common pox not worthy of classification. They have nothing of value to show us. We have much to show them, as they will soon see as we tighten the noose around this pathetic little twelfth century cult.
I question the reasoning and motives behind the current policies.
Oh, beg you're pardon your majesty, I didn't realize that we needed you're leave before we go free that slave pen and put an end to France's illicit oil supply. Can you perhaps provide better reasoning for your position than "killing is always bad" and "violence never solves anything." You're a twit. Leave the Geopolitics to the professionals who have forgotten more than you'll ever know about foreign policy.
First off, You've got a good point on the downtime penalties, but that's about it. It's not supposed to be "pac-bell's" home, but you oldschool telco employees never get past the fact that you're no longer "the" phone company.
Those lines were paid for by the taxpayers, because last mile, copper technology has been in the ground for years, so don't act like the bells are the sacrificial lambs of the broadband industry because they have to share lines laid by a government funded monopoly at taxpayer expense. DSL is expensive because the Bells stand in the way of competition, not because of competition, which would actually drive the price down close to that of cable if the FCC would stop meddling.
Their offerings are marginal, their service is pathetic, and their justifications that they can't compete is just inane blather. They missed out on ISDN, and they missed out on DSL because they thought they had it all locked up. They have ridiculous overhead due to unionized labor and a culture of sloth, all because they have been sheltered from market forces for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Oil companies in alaska spend big bucks pumping Natural Gas which emerges during the pumping process *BACK IN* to oil fields because environmentalists have blocked attempts to build a second pipeline for Natural Gas right next to the current one for petroleum. There is no shortage of Natural Gas that is not the direct product of the environmentalist movement's success at obstructing rational progress. This malthusian scarcity argument is as wrongheaded as it was in the seventies when many of these same pseudo-scientists were predicting global cooling and imminent starvation in India.
Finally, why does the author of this ridiculous "hypothesis" get a pass on its inability to be observed or tested (let alone reproduced) or even explain the world at large? Glad the guy is willing to rethink his religious dogma, but an unfounded theory based on speculative and unprovable premises might as well be a treatise on creationism. It's not a theory, it's a religious tract, and he's not a scientist, he's a theologian with a moderately successful book contract.
Much faster, not as polished, but clean and reliable.
Been migrating several machines over the last few months. Moving the last machine over this weekend.
Goodbye RH. It was fun until your MBA types decided to prove that "non-vendor lockin" has practical limitations, and did so at the expense of those who carried your message into server and boardrooms everywhere.
"...RH was greate when it offered an option for people who wanted a fairly stable release and didn't require support..."
When I refer to not requiring support, I'm talking about live human support, not automated access to bug fixes and security patches, which most operating systems, including Microsoft, give away for free. Expecting a customer to pay for fixes is encouraging your users to give your OS a bad reputation.
...not that other choices exist. Whatever happened to Open Source's vaunted lack of vendor lockin? RH has proven that a dangerous illusion, unless you are prepared to say that time spent undergoing mandatory upgrades of your entire machine base is irrelevant, or training wasted on RH products which are now being replaced is inconsequencial, or wholesale migrations to some other distro are no big deal, or licensing schemes for RH workstations which exceed Windows XP upgrade fees are a bargain, or declare that vendors who don't support the new version aren't an issue that RH, the supposed distro of choice for serious business requirements, is concerned about.
RH has damaged the reputations of it's most dedicated advocates, whose only fault was recommending your company's product on the reasonable assumption that nothing like this would ever happen. The people who got RH into the server room now have to explain how they steered their companies into such an expensive quagmire. Why should anybody who values their job and desires to help their employer accomplish its objectives ever recommend a vendor that pulls a stunt like this? Didn't MS try a mandatory upgrade to a subscription based model for XP before they weakened their stance within a few months? Where does RH get the marketing leverage that MS (which owns over 90% of the market and makes more money in 2 typical days than the entire Linux Market makes every year) lacked?
How does RH suggest a mandatory "upgrade" to RHEL 3.0 be performed on 10,000 machines when no upgrade path from RH9.0 is available? Does RH pretend that RH9 was not used in business? Guess they should have bought the RHEL at 2.0, but that doesn't upgrade either, now does it?
Does RH still claim that Fedora, which was billed as "cutting edge" and for "hackers" by the geniuses in RH marketing who were afraid it might hurt RHEL sales, and which *requires* upgrades with every new drop, (a.k.a: a toy), is an acceptable alternative for RHL users who don't want to incur a massive migration charge? Was it the users fault that they used a system which cycled every few years, came which much more software of the kind required than small businesses than the artificially limited RHEL, and was significantly cheaper?
BTW, I have used RH since 4.1 (Biltmore?). I've moved on because the choices offered to me by the distro I have invested years of learning and experience were unacceptably risky for my needs. RH was great when it offered an option for people who wanted a fairly stable release and didn't require support. Needless to say I don't recommend RH anymore to my friends or my clients. As Warren Buffet says, when you sell a commodity, your only as good as your dumbest competitor, and now I know why.
Heaven forbid that we should be able to get rid of someone every four years. If it were ten, what are you going to do, deny them reelection for their *next* ten years (when they're too tired to run again?) This idea is so stupid it should start reading the evening news.
You can go to far the other way too, like the non-confidence vote in a parliamentary system which keeps the government almost totally ineffective. (although that's not always a bad idea).
and I doubt they ever will. pro forma profits aren't real, they're pro forma. RedHat made it into the backroom on the recommendations of the people they just royally fucked over. I don't know why people here can't see that it is the RHEL customers who *really* got screwed with this deal.
This isn't about your bedroom box. Fedora is being marketed as a toy that gets updated every few months with no updates for previous releases, only fixes going forward. It's the enterprise product customers who are really getting screwed.
This is about tens of thousands of installs at thousands of *businesses* which *must* be carried out in the next few months in conjunction with a tripling of licensing fees, or a massive migration to a new system (fat chance).
Gee, I'm sure those CIO's who advocated linux are going to look really smart when their RHE implementations require bare metal installs and now cost 3 to 6 times what they did when the deal was struck. Wow, linux is looking much cheaper now doesn't it? What do you suppose the TCO on that prospect looks like?
Let's review:
RedHat is forcing a migration to a new subscription system which is substantially more expensive than its old one. Hmmm, why does this sound so familiar? What happened to a certain famous monopoly which tried the same thing a few months ago? Oh that's right, the customers bolted to... wait for it... Linux (namely RedHat).
But wait-- RedHat's not a monopoly... where's the monopoly power? isn't that like showing up at a gun fight with a pen knife? Oops.
Yeah, they're some real fucking geniuses over there at RH. Watch the pretty company implode.
That's Smart. Wake up. RH just gut shot the argument that open source is immune to vendor lock in. They deserve more scorn than SCO, because they've made everyone who advocated them for business look like idiots.
in .
Yes, it makes a lot of sense to get angry about us ending some of the worst hell holes on earth. Maybe we would be happier if we just whistled dixie and kept the status quo like the eurotrash who traded on the Iraqi people's misery while they asked for "more time".
Did you forget Abu Dhabi Television to round out your credible sources? The point is he implicated himself as being familiar with the operational details of the plan. Osama did deny it at first, and it doesn't surprise me that he would do it for the sympathetic leftists at the Guardian. As for the link, it was the most famous tape aired in America, and lasts for over an hour while he meets with some fat cleric visiting from Saudi Arabia. Even Saturday Night Live parodied it. I would google under "Osama video dinner arabic translation 'helicopter wreckage'"
did the Apollo missions. Whoo hoo, time to medicate.
Time to meta moderate.
A cite of "some british journalist" doesn't really refute the well publicized tape of Osama bragging how the people who carried out the attacks didn't even know what they were attacking. I don't know, but most people might take that as evidence of him being on the inside track of some very *operational* nitty-gritty. Unless he just some clueless religious leader (as if that isn't dangerous) who just happens to be familiar with the comparmentilization precautions for a particular mission carried out by mid level operatives. Yeah, right.
First you'll have to find those ten thousand people the U.S. didn't kill. (Go ahead, that should be interesting.)
Then ignore the tens of thousands who were slaughtered by the Taliban during their mercifully short reign of ignorance.
Wow, maybe we should reinstall Saddam so he can get back to killing 50,000 Iraqis per year.
Foreshadowing comes before, not during or after.
The tech market began it's implosion in April of 2000, about the same time that Judge Jackson laid the smackdown on MS. The twits on wall street fled in terror at the thought of chopping up MS, even though they should have been running for entirely different reasons. (i.e., a ridiculous amount of investment in crappy business 'ideas'.)
I guess that's chicken scratch right? Is this the crap they teach you in public schools nowadays? Your ignorance of history is as shocking as your assumption that you are a master of it.
Poland was invaded on *both* sides in 1939, not 1945. The U.S. was committed to defending democracy and freedom because it paid up, showed up, and turned the tide, unlike the French, who just gave up in a few weeks. (That is the real reason why most of Europe was in Axis hands by the middle of 1940.) U.S. ships were running wolfpack blockades since 1939. What you think of as the holocaust didn't start until months after the Wannasee conferance, which was in 1942. As for your reliably wrong revisionism regarding the post war world, the U.S. only had three nuclear weapons at the time, and it used one in the dessert and two on Japan. It certainly could NOT have done anything more than bluffed the Soviets who already occupied 3/4's of Western Europe and enjoyed a massive superiority both in armor and men, all while the U.S. still had business to attend to out in the Pacific.
Didn't see too much help rolling them up either, although we were grateful for the help. Idiots like you obviously aren't.
Ok, I'll bite:
Bankruptcy laws were changed to allow collection efforts against individuals who were suspected of abusing of the system, not to make bankruptcy easier to hide.
Your "basically bankrupt" argument makes the laughably ignorant "what did we ever do for the French" arguments look good by comparison. The U.S. has a TEN TRILLION dollar ANNUAL GDP. It is FAR more productive and larger than the next closest economy, which is Japan. It is hardly bankrupt because it spends less than ten percent of a THREE TRILLION dollar federal budget paying interest on a 6 trillion dollar debt.
Our unemployment is at 6%. Germany, the so-called powerhouse of Europe, is at 15% and climbing. Whose broke?
Since your ignorance of history and bankruptcy laws is somehow surpassed by your ignorance of international trade: Buying stuff (and giving people in other lands a job) is not the same as getting "support", but I can understand how you would be confused since most Euros live in socialist paradises where expensive things like a crappy higher education, crappy healthcare, and industries which need big subsidies to stay in business are bought for them via massive income taxes.
You should be, Mr. '1889'. Stop whining and start packing whenever you feel like it, --it *IS* a free country.
This is just "web scraping".
You already know you are looking for very particular information (prices) which can reliably be found in a particular location. Data mining involves slicing and dicing data to discover new information which may or may not be there.
BTW, [and yes, IAAL], it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for non-lawyers to fret over dubious caselaw from what is probably some other jurisdiction with a very different set of facts.
Just because one judge was dumb enough to go along with a bad decision doesn't mean you have to worry what the next one would do. Don't worry, they'll send you a letter if they really don't like it, and then your legal department can worry about it. With very few exceptions, just collect your paycheck, live your life, and move on.
We once supported dictator "x" for purpose "y", so we are obligated to a) look the other way no matter what he does, b) support him for life, because really we were entering into a "lifetime insurance for bad regimes" contract which we are obligated to honor, and c), our national interests are not allowed to change, because that would be unfair to all those regimes we propped up when things were totally different, our government's philosophy was different, and our security interests were different.
That was easy. Next tired canard, please?
...parrotting a supposedly witty anti-Bush viewpoint and immediately begin modding all who agree with first five words of article as "+5 Insightful", as opposed to actually addressing the concerns which the supposedly unbiased reporter mocks.
[Like how Canada lax immigration policies are a notorious waystop for Al Queda terrorists like the Millenium bomber on their way to American targets.]
Pathetic. I wonder what all those Canadians who have been prosecuted under "hate speech" laws by its "human rights" commission think of all that Canadian Freedom? Anti-gun laws? The freedom to get healthcare when you need it (other than a ticket to the states?)
Now mod this down as flamebait, all you all-too-predictable "freethinkers" who happen to always agree with anyone who expressess any historically revisionist anti-U.S. opinion.
You're pronouncement cuts both ways. Just because companies can pick and choose between H1B's doesn't mean they won't choose a cheaper H1B resource over an American every time.
If you're putting "I require H1-B sponsorship" on your resume, you might as well print below it:
"I am aware that the visa process poses considerable paperwork and expense, so I'll be grateful for a job, I will work for considerably less than an American can afford to, and I am legally constrained from jumping to another opportunity after you've trained me, unlike those fickle Americans who bail as soon as they decide you're company sucks."
America outlawed indentured servitude with the 13th Amendment. It's time to stop pretending that a worker who can be deported at a moment's notice isn't subject to a coercive employment situation.
What are you talking about???
You ever hear the U.S. Supreme court, or a state supreme court, or the federal Circuit Court of *Appeals*, or a state appellate court? These are all appellate courts and there for *both* sides if either side doesn't feel it got a fair shake.
If you're talking about double jeopardy, it only applies if a government actor tries to retry someone for the same criminal act after already going through the entire appeals process. [Like the cops in Rodney King, who were tried for a different offense for the same act (double jeopardy in all but name)]. That's why the prosecutors in the several states and Feds involved in the DC shootings coordinated their indictments, so that each of three jurisdictions will have a crack at them in case the other two fail to convict with a death penalty.
Bush is a psychopathic fundamentalist who does unspeakable things [medialens.org] to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the Gulf region.
yes, I must have missed that part about him trying out chemical weapons on his own people, or the acid baths, or calling for the holocaust part II, or paying bounties to PLO for their terrorist organizations. What kind of clueless f*ck compares the *elected* (by official electors as provided in the constitution, you moron) leader of the Free world to a second rate hitler who starves his people so that he can have a bigger nuclear penis? You're an idiot.
(By unspeakable, I refer to his complete lack of respect for everything that the USA is supposed to stand for)
Ooo boy. That's nearly as bad as torturing children to death in front of their parents.
What *EXACTLY* has Bush done that shows a lack of respect for what the USA is supposed to stand for? Can you even tell me what the USA is supposed to stand for? I doubt it, because you're just another vile spouting idiot with a feeble "education" who learned everything you "know" about "freedom" from MTV. I bet you can't even define what a "right" is. You probably can't even rationalize why the Constitution does a better job of protecting human rights than the U.N's declaration of Human Rights ever will. Fool.
When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for
Bullshit, this is one of the disinformation tactics mentioned in the above link.
Logical error: Appeal to authority/Circular reasoning.
The original claim is baseless and wrong, written by an idiot who might try reading a little Orwell if he can sound out the big words. If you support stopping the war, you must logically be in favor of extending Saddamn's regime. Even a chimpanzee could grasp this binary relationship.
Only a Eurotrash pseudo-intellectual would try to rationalize that it doesn't. Have you read too much Postmodern French Philosophy?
Being opposed to war does not mean that we are opposed to doing anything. All it means is that we are not happy about being deliberatly misled by our leaders to start a war that is going to cause more long term problems than it will solve.
spoken like a true frenchman. Q: Hey, why are there trees lining the streets of paris? A: So the Germans can march in the shade.
Do you mean long term problems like keeping Americans alive to buy some more oil? Long term problems like liberating the Iraqi people? Long term problems like destabilizing a fundamentally corrupt chain of arab states led by backwards authoritarians who blame all their internal problems on the west? Here's a clue: You can easily see that you're argument is flawed because it can be used to justify all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. If your grandfather thought like you did, you'd be living in a fascist police state. War solves most intractable problems in human interaction in a very permanent fashion. Only a deluded idiot who has never cracked a history book or lived through a time of strife would believe the old hippie canard that "violence solves nothing".
Inspectors are now in Iraq because of a tangible threat of force. They are not there because of 12 years of sanctions, or 8 years of inspections. Iraq is not complying because it is hoping people like you will win the day. It will not comply until American boots are in the sand, because that is how the world works, little lamb.
Do you think the USA is going to win over any friends in the region by medling further in the Middle East? Why don't you ask the next
Well, win some Iraqi friends, and we already have the Iranian youth on our side. This stupid ass idea that "the arab street will rise up" is an obvious myth. Gee, by your account we f*cked with them for fifty years, (Guess muslims don't appreciate that we fought the last three wars in Kuwait, Somolia, and Kosovo on their behalf) back up their supposedly mortal enemy, Israel, (who hasn't attacked a muslim neighbor since the Six Day War, and humiliated the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. What is it going to take to get this street off it's ass? Bombing Mecca? Only fools think that the most advanced society on earth has to fear the scorn of people who don't even have the freedom to protest without their government's permission.
Yeah, just like the Japanese and the Germans are running around trying to blow up Americans today. Even the Vietnamese respect the fact that we weren't there to conquer them.
Ahh, but you forget the fact that your cities were attacked because of meddling in the past. Doing nothing would be a better solution (I'm not saying it's the best though). Going around killing people is only going to inspire the next generation of terrorists.
Yes, that's why there's all those nazi's and japanese militarists running around today. Because killing people who are bent on killing you really solves nothing. Is it naptime yet?
And as the war on terrorism is inherently unwinnable
ASSUMPTION - which is patently ridiculous.
Terrorism will end if people don't think it's in their interests to kill their children for some misguided cause. Right now many do. That will change if A) things improve for them, or B) Antiterror techniques are racheted up until it's very difficult to inflict damage on American targets.
(you can't defeat an enemy you can't see)
Woa, they have "predator" light bending camofluage now? Wow, we better just kill ourselves then, before they get us for refusing to stop that barbarous habit of hunting them down and killing or capturing the deluded fools who want to slaughter every single American they can get their hands on. Yes, let's just become good muslims, and enslave our women, and do nothing while they slaughter or enslave members of other religions, or even their own religion (like that bombing of Shite muslims in Pakistan) or Al Queda's hatred for Saudi Arabia, which practices a very strict version of the Sharia, all because the [insert offender here, especially if he has something worth taking] were not backwards enough to please the ignorant little wannabe iman.
Our priests are our servants. They used to be the leaders of our society. They aren't any more, and there's a reason for that. We are the apogee of human achievement. They are a common pox not worthy of classification. They have nothing of value to show us. We have much to show them, as they will soon see as we tighten the noose around this pathetic little twelfth century cult.
I question the reasoning and motives behind the current policies.
Oh, beg you're pardon your majesty, I didn't realize that we needed you're leave before we go free that slave pen and put an end to France's illicit oil supply. Can you perhaps provide better reasoning for your position than "killing is always bad" and "violence never solves anything." You're a twit. Leave the Geopolitics to the professionals who have forgotten more than you'll ever know about foreign policy.
Go ahead now little fools, mod me down.
First off, You've got a good point on the downtime penalties, but that's about it. It's not supposed to be "pac-bell's" home, but you oldschool telco employees never get past the fact that you're no longer "the" phone company.
Those lines were paid for by the taxpayers, because last mile, copper technology has been in the ground for years, so don't act like the bells are the sacrificial lambs of the broadband industry because they have to share lines laid by a government funded monopoly at taxpayer expense. DSL is expensive because the Bells stand in the way of competition, not because of competition, which would actually drive the price down close to that of cable if the FCC would stop meddling.
Their offerings are marginal, their service is pathetic, and their justifications that they can't compete is just inane blather. They missed out on ISDN, and they missed out on DSL because they thought they had it all locked up. They have ridiculous overhead due to unionized labor and a culture of sloth, all because they have been sheltered from market forces for decades.