A guy who ignored his own agencies telling him there was going to be a big deal from Al Queda.
How did Bush ignore his own agencies? The preliminary results of the 9/11 hearings show that 1) the FBI and CIA weren't providing anything specific to act on and 2) he actually did take al-Qaida more seriously than Clinton.
So gets us involved in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack, which has cost us half a trillion dollars and ruined our influence in the middle east as well as western europe.
Which he did by claiming WMD were in Iraq, but guess what, they weren't.
A half a trillion dollars is chump change for us. Kerry is willing to spend more than Bush on Iraq anyway. As far as WMD, true nothing was found yet. Maybe everything either had already been destroyed, went to Syria, or never even existed. Does it really matter? Saddam is an evil SOB. He should have been removed a long time ago. He'd been a thorn in our side during the entire Clinton administration and started being more vocal immediately after the World Trade Center went crumbling down.
Oh, but the Vice-President's company Haliburton (no, he didn't sell all his stock), got a multi-billion no-bid contract to "help" the troops.
All the while giving tax breaks to rich people, which didn't help the economy.
Bush gave tax breaks to everyone. Kerry wants to give tax breaks to everyone but the rich--which also happens to translate to small business owners. If you truely are a Republican (which I don't think you are at all), then you would agree with Bush on taxes. BTW, check the latest economic reports and you'll see that they are helping the economy.
All the while crushing our civil liberties and going after boobies on TV and radio to cover the fact that they're trying to allow media consolidation to occur.
You are sounding more and more like a democarat after each sentance.
Oh, and I mention the guy can produce a single sentence that makes sense unless it comes off a teleprompter.
For someone you claims to be nearly 50 years old, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the vernacular either.
Name one president worse in the last 100 years. Carter at least was honest.
Again, see my point that history will ultimately decided how Bush is viewed.
Be honest. I'm a republican, lifelong (I've been voting for 30 years), never voted for anything but a republican, this will be the first time I don't. He's that bad. I mean... REALLY bad.
Maybe you're the one that needs to be honest. If you really are a Republican you would care more about core issues of your party than what's going on in Iraq. Kerry and Bush differ very little on Iraq anyway. If you are a Republican and voted for a Democrat then you would be throwing away all your core beliefs. You shouldn't care who is running for presdient on the Republican ticket. Elections are decided by the middle of the road Joe Swing-Voter, not lifelong Republicans or Democarats.
Wow. Sounds like you're mistaken. Freedom means that you can do something without restraints or restrictions.
So your example, if you'll pardon my phrase, is complete bullshit.
Wrong. Try goggling "Schenck v. U.S." and see what comes up.
Oh, and Bush is probably the worst president of the last 100 years, and I even voted for the guy. Worst mistake I've made in a voting booth.
Presidents are ultimately judged by historians 10 or 20 years down the road. Comparing a sitting president to any previous president over the last 100 years is just absurd. Wait to see what comes about because of his actions before you pre-judge him. You may not like him or where he's leading the country. In that case, don't vote for him. But such a broad, sweeping statement is naive at best. Contrary to what you may believe, Bush's presidency won't be judged by the day-to-day successes and failures of his decisions. The big picture is all that will eventually matter.
It's a so-called 'guided tour of Longhorn', which consists of no actual imagery, but rather a gigantic step-list of things for you to click on in your Longhorn alpha, to make you go 'ooooh'.
If you would have just slowed down a little bit before you started bashing Microsoft, you might have read the page's headline correctly. But instead you miss quoted it after realizing there was no pictures for you to look at.
Try reading it again and you'll see the title is "Take a Self-Guided Longhorn Tour" (emphasis added, of course).
Designing software is an art. Programming is not an art, it is a craft. The people that design software get paid much more than the company's programmers do. Programming is entry level for a reason. With a good design the actual time spent programming accounts for only a small amount of the total time a project takes to be completed.
Lockheed, for instance, does not hire people to program anymore. They contract out, but handle the project design themselves. They are also a CMM Level V company (at least one of their division is). Of course, with most companies being at Level I, the whole concecpt of design often gets thrown out the window.
Sorry for replying twice, but I just remembered something I heard once. Yes, CNN corespondants may seem like they're coming mainly from the right since the war began, but there is a reason for that. If you look at the political break down of the United States, you will noticed that a good majority of the country is left of the middle. However, the reason why the Democrats aren't always cleaning house in the elections is because liberals in general--and Democratic canidates specifically--don't hold true to their views on key issues when the going gets tough. Sure, there are some die hard war protesters out there, but they are such a small percentage. Conservatives, on the other hand, are relentless when it comes to issues they strongly believe in. You are seeing exactly this in action with CNN teetering to the right during the war.
Unfortuanately, I cannot comment on Fox's war coverage because my university doesn't offer it. I wonder why?:P
True, Fox News definitely leans to the right. But maybe you should watch Crossfire on CNN sometime. The show is actually funded by Democrats, the audience is packed with liberals, and Bob Novak is the possibly the worst representative of the right.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but that is exactly what requiring a TV tuner card which does not pass its work off to the CPU is meant to prevent. That was the solution to the above mentioned problem.
As far a stuttering goes, that was mentioned as problem when recording and watching a show simultaneously AND while using a card that did not meet the media center's requirements. Namely that the tuner card must not pass any of its work off to the processor.
My point is that by requiring "TV tuner cards that handle MPEG-2 encode entirely in hardware," you can play Unreal Tournament 2003 to your hearts content and still record the Simpsons without a problem. Maybe I'm just not understanding the article, but either way the recommended processor requirement for UT 2003 is P3 1.0 GHz or better. So I think your machine could handle a little extra load.
Slashdot Mirror
How did Bush ignore his own agencies? The preliminary results of the 9/11 hearings show that 1) the FBI and CIA weren't providing anything specific to act on and 2) he actually did take al-Qaida more seriously than Clinton.
So gets us involved in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack, which has cost us half a trillion dollars and ruined our influence in the middle east as well as western europe.
Which he did by claiming WMD were in Iraq, but guess what, they weren't.
A half a trillion dollars is chump change for us. Kerry is willing to spend more than Bush on Iraq anyway. As far as WMD, true nothing was found yet. Maybe everything either had already been destroyed, went to Syria, or never even existed. Does it really matter? Saddam is an evil SOB. He should have been removed a long time ago. He'd been a thorn in our side during the entire Clinton administration and started being more vocal immediately after the World Trade Center went crumbling down.
Oh, but the Vice-President's company Haliburton (no, he didn't sell all his stock), got a multi-billion no-bid contract to "help" the troops.
All the while giving tax breaks to rich people, which didn't help the economy.
Bush gave tax breaks to everyone. Kerry wants to give tax breaks to everyone but the rich--which also happens to translate to small business owners. If you truely are a Republican (which I don't think you are at all), then you would agree with Bush on taxes. BTW, check the latest economic reports and you'll see that they are helping the economy.
All the while crushing our civil liberties and going after boobies on TV and radio to cover the fact that they're trying to allow media consolidation to occur.
You are sounding more and more like a democarat after each sentance.
Oh, and I mention the guy can produce a single sentence that makes sense unless it comes off a teleprompter.
For someone you claims to be nearly 50 years old, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the vernacular either.
Name one president worse in the last 100 years. Carter at least was honest.
Again, see my point that history will ultimately decided how Bush is viewed.
Be honest. I'm a republican, lifelong (I've been voting for 30 years), never voted for anything but a republican, this will be the first time I don't. He's that bad. I mean... REALLY bad.
Maybe you're the one that needs to be honest. If you really are a Republican you would care more about core issues of your party than what's going on in Iraq. Kerry and Bush differ very little on Iraq anyway. If you are a Republican and voted for a Democrat then you would be throwing away all your core beliefs. You shouldn't care who is running for presdient on the Republican ticket. Elections are decided by the middle of the road Joe Swing-Voter, not lifelong Republicans or Democarats.
So your example, if you'll pardon my phrase, is complete bullshit.
Wrong. Try goggling "Schenck v. U.S." and see what comes up.
Oh, and Bush is probably the worst president of the last 100 years, and I even voted for the guy. Worst mistake I've made in a voting booth.
Presidents are ultimately judged by historians 10 or 20 years down the road. Comparing a sitting president to any previous president over the last 100 years is just absurd. Wait to see what comes about because of his actions before you pre-judge him. You may not like him or where he's leading the country. In that case, don't vote for him. But such a broad, sweeping statement is naive at best. Contrary to what you may believe, Bush's presidency won't be judged by the day-to-day successes and failures of his decisions. The big picture is all that will eventually matter.
How about using the spacebar? :P
I thought he meant the board game. :(
If you would have just slowed down a little bit before you started bashing Microsoft, you might have read the page's headline correctly. But instead you miss quoted it after realizing there was no pictures for you to look at.
Try reading it again and you'll see the title is "Take a Self-Guided Longhorn Tour" (emphasis added, of course).
Could someone please point me to the design documents for Linux? I'm not sure where they are located. Thanks.
Lockheed, for instance, does not hire people to program anymore. They contract out, but handle the project design themselves. They are also a CMM Level V company (at least one of their division is). Of course, with most companies being at Level I, the whole concecpt of design often gets thrown out the window.
Unfortuanately, I cannot comment on Fox's war coverage because my university doesn't offer it. I wonder why? :P
True, Fox News definitely leans to the right. But maybe you should watch Crossfire on CNN sometime. The show is actually funded by Democrats, the audience is packed with liberals, and Bob Novak is the possibly the worst representative of the right.
Well, if by fairly balanced you mean left-wing funded propoganda, then I'd have to agree. :P
As far a stuttering goes, that was mentioned as problem when recording and watching a show simultaneously AND while using a card that did not meet the media center's requirements. Namely that the tuner card must not pass any of its work off to the processor.
My point is that by requiring "TV tuner cards that handle MPEG-2 encode entirely in hardware," you can play Unreal Tournament 2003 to your hearts content and still record the Simpsons without a problem. Maybe I'm just not understanding the article, but either way the recommended processor requirement for UT 2003 is P3 1.0 GHz or better. So I think your machine could handle a little extra load.
Perhaps you should read the article first. This page in particular.
Nah, we just wanted to look at the pictures.