From the parent post: As for your entire thesis, "jews knew they
weren't wanted"...suppose you bought a vacant lot in my town.
Suppose a white person bought a vacant lot in Harlem, in the center of the
black community in New York. Suppose many blacks warned him that he was not
wanted there. Yes, it would be unfair, but the white person would be the
target of violence.
Here's good advice to anyone with an anger problem: Stay out of harm's way. On
any particular day, there are many people crazier than you.
Please notice that I said in my original post that Jews are wanted in New
York. I think everyone, or almost everyone, agrees that they make fine
contributions to U.S. society. (And stupid contributions, too, as do every
sub-culture.)
When I speak against Jewish self-destructiveness, I am anti-Jewish? Jews should be allowed to destroy themselves without comment from anyone who is non-Jewish? Particularly when they are corrupting the U.S. government for their self-destructive purposes? It would be irresponsible not to comment.
Both Jews and Arabs are Semitic, so being anti-Semitic would not be anti-Jewish.
"this aid comes in the form of money israel can only spend on _american_ military products, so actually most of this money is used to keep a part of the american economy alive, and not to be used by Israel as it wants."
The "aid" is used to buy U.S.-made weapons, which are solely used to kill Israel's Arab neighbors.
$5 billion per year does not "keep a part of the american economy alive". It helps make the owners of U.S. arms manufacturers rich.
You said, "Look, the zionists (not all) jews realised that jews were not
wanted anywhere at all."
This is not true. There are more Jews in New York than Israel. Although their
relationships are not perfect there, they are wanted.
I'm an American. I'm not Jewish. I'm not Arab. I don't live near New York. I'm
not saying I know any answers. I know that many Jews are very well educated,
and many are brilliant. But I've observed that, when considering violence,
Jewish IQ drops to a very low value.
By getting Americans into a fight with Arabs, the Jews have assured that,
eventually, the truth will become known to American taxpayers, and Jews will
become unwelcome in America. The Jews have been making themselves unwelcome
for 3200 years. When will it stop?
The truth I am speaking of: The U.S. government gives $5.5 billion each year,
about $1000 for every Jewish man, woman, and child in Israel, to Israelis for
the purpose of killing Arabs. According to recent interviews on TV of the King
of Jordan and the Iranian ambassador, U.S. government support for violence
against Arabs is 90% of the reason for the terrorism against the United
States. Most Americans don't know this. When average Americans discover that
they are paying for Jewish violence, they will revolt.
In return for American hospitality, Jews have helped corrupt the U.S.
government. Put yourself in the place of a non-Jewish American. Would you want
such a powerful and powerfully destructive small group in your
country? Those who call themselves "Zionists" are helping history repeat
itself.
I did what was suggested in the parent comment. It was very interesting. I learned something. This
is the first sentence of one of the
Google links to '1929 hebron slaughter': "Under Ottoman Rule 1882 -
1917 -- From the beginning Jewish settlement met with opposition from the
local Arabs." The article is by a Jewish organization in Israel.
So the Jews realized in 1882 that they were not wanted, but decided to settle
in Palestine anyway.
Later, the article says that the Jews decided to engage in violence to promote
their ability to stay in Palestine. There are only about 14 million Jews in
the entire world. There are 330 million Arabs, I understand, and 1.1
billion Muslims.
Here's a question: Why do Jews think they can get into gun battles with Arabs
and "win"?
Another of the Google links you took me to said this (I'm not inventing
this; see for yourself; it's at the end.): "Not all the Arab missiles, bombs and daggers
constitute the main danger to our existence, but our suicidal Jewish genetics.
This is the cause of all the destruction that ever befell us." This is from another Jewish organization in Israel.
Quote: "Here's the story of how they consolidated print servers from 30 servers running Windows NT Server to only four servers running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition."
From the parent comment: "Did any of the idiots commenting on this story
with sophmoric [statements]... even start to read the Whitepaper?"
The first section of the paper is an "Executive Summary". The second section
is "Introduction: OTG Mission and Priorities". Think about it for a while.
Did you notice the acronym that is not defined? Did you notice the next two
paragraphs? Look:
Microsoft Mission:
Enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full
potential.
OTG Mission:
Proactively deliver IT infrastructure and applications that exceed defined
expectations of our clients, customers, and partners-making it easy to work
anywhere at any time.
The "Microsoft Security Whitepaper" is as comment #7540789 says, all nonsense. The paper is
evidence of a social breakdown at Microsoft. Someone at Microsoft is not
making sense, and no one else there notices it.
Don't think this is correct? Then what is the difference between "Proactively
deliver" and "deliver"? What are "defined expectations"; how are they
different from expectations?
Isn't this sentence a bit grandiose? "Microsoft Mission: Enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential." Does this mean Microsoft will begin providing free education?
Isn't it grandiose to say that the mission is "making it easy to work
anywhere at any time"?
What is "partners-making"? It's a typo, that's what, and no one
noticed the typo, even though it is at the beginning of the article. They mean
"partners -- making..." Or maybe "partners-making" is playing cupid. No one noticed the typo because no one read the article, or even those first paragraphs of the article.
I'm not trolling. I'm serious. There is a social breakdown occurring at
Microsoft, and this is just one symptom of it. I'm not saying it is the same
as the social breakdown at Enron or
Anderson Consulting or Tyco, but it a social breakdown nevertheless.
Why isn't OTG defined in the "whitepaper"? Because it doesn't matter. No one is depending on the
article for anything, and they probably aren't reading it. OTG stands for
Operations and Technology Group, or Operations & Technology Group, or
Operations Technology Group. Sometimes two names for the group appear in one document.
When an organization begins producing nonsense documents like the "Microsoft
Security Whitepaper", something is terribly wrong. That paper is just one small example. There are many.
Seriously, what is a "whitepaper"? This is not a troll. I have no idea what it
is. Is it an article? I know what a "paper" is; what is the significance of it
being white? Are there blackpapers?
Oh Great Slashdot Oracle, I, your humble follower, bow before you, please hear
my question.
What is the difference between the kind of ideas that are in a whitepaper, and
the kind of ideas that are in a paper? Are the whitepaper ideas whiter? When
you are having white ideas do you consciously avoid negative thoughts?
If there were a "Microsoft Security Blackpaper", what would it say? "Ohmygod,
we've had years of pushing out product before the programmers are really
finished with it. Now we a sitting on a mountain of sloppy code. We have no
hope of finding all the vulnerabilities."
Yup. I also had problems with 0.7, and am back to 0.61.
Firebird is important. Browsers are an important window on the world. I would like to see more corporate sponsorship of open source. We need faster development.
"Its designed to deal with this very problem with transferring images to other hardware."
I don't know why, but people bring up Sysprep when talking about imaging software. Of course it is necessary to use Sysprep. The Ask Slashdot question was about your experiences with imaging software. As you can see from the many comments, people have problems with each of the imaging software packages.
RIS requires Windows Server 2003. This is sometimes inconvenient or impossible, depending on the customer's network.
As Dave Letterman said on his national TV talk show, when you make out the check to help pay for the $87,000,000,000, there are two "L"s in Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's company. (It's called "using the power of government to help your friends get rich"; it's 100% government corruption.)
However, it is not that there was a threat, only that there was a perceived threat. Quite possibly the threat to go to OS X was not real, and also only a perceived threat.
OSX may not have a low cost of ownership, but it has a low cost of threat. Make a threat to buy OSX, and you get free Microsoft product. Make a threat against the U.S., and maybe you too can get $87,000,000,000 in free money.
Many technically oriented people think of the Internet as a technical achievement. Gore thought of it as a political achievement. His achievement was to make it a public utility. This seems obvious now. It wasn't then. At the time, other political leaders were technically clueless.
Vint Cerf told me that Al Gore was in fact the strongest early supporter of making the old ArpaNet into the public utility we call the Internet. Without Gore's technical understanding and power in the U.S. Congress, it would have taken much longer.
For those who can remember back that far, there were many ArpaNet users who did now want the system open to the public. There was intense opposition to making the system open to commercial interests, too. Al Gore was a true visionary, in this case.
Minorities:
Brazil has a higher proportion of Blacks than the U.S.
Government:
Brazil: Democracy
U.S.: Democracy
Physical Health:
Brazil: Most people are slim.
U.S.: The U.S. is the most obese country in the world.
War:
Brazil: Apparently the last war was in 1820.
U.S.: At least 50 wars and "police actions" in the last 100 years. The U.S. government has killed an estimated 3,000,000 people directly since the second world war. Most of those were in the Vietnam war. An estimated additional 3,000,000 have been killed indirectly as a result of U.S. government actions.
Murder rates in the most violent city. These statistics are old; apparently both cities have reduced their murder rate:
Brazil, Rio: 45 per 100,000 per year.
U.S., Washington, D.C.: 77 per 100,000 per year.
Percentage of population in prison, or involved with the criminal justice system:
Brazil: I believe about that of European countries, and about one-sixth that of the U.S.
U.S.: The highest in the world. The U.S. is rapidly building new prisons, and preparing for an even higher percentage. (Some people say Russia has a higher rate.)
System of measurement:
Brazil: Metric system
U.S.: Old, foolish English system. The foot is the length of an English king's foot.
Surveillance:
Brazil: Not known for government surveillance.
U.S.: The U.S. government spends a huge amount of money on surveillance. The taxpayers are not allowed to know how much that is; they just pay, they have no rights over the surveillance departments. The U.S. government's FBI, CIA, NSA, and other departments are a global secret police force. It is said that the U.S. government breaks U.S. law using the technique of hiring the Israeli secret police to do things that are illegal if done by U.S. government departments.
Health of the Family:
Brazil: In many families, strong.
U.S.: In many families, amazingly weak.
Voting:
Brazil: Open-Source voting machines, paper verification.
U.S.: Last president decided by politically interested Supreme Court. Closed-source voting machines, and much evidence of fraud. No paper verification.
Now, is it obvious which country is the better one?
Slashdot Mirror
From the parent post: As for your entire thesis, "jews knew they weren't wanted"...suppose you bought a vacant lot in my town.
Suppose a white person bought a vacant lot in Harlem, in the center of the black community in New York. Suppose many blacks warned him that he was not wanted there. Yes, it would be unfair, but the white person would be the target of violence.
Here's good advice to anyone with an anger problem: Stay out of harm's way. On any particular day, there are many people crazier than you.
Please notice that I said in my original post that Jews are wanted in New York. I think everyone, or almost everyone, agrees that they make fine contributions to U.S. society. (And stupid contributions, too, as do every sub-culture.)
When I speak against Jewish self-destructiveness, I am anti-Jewish? Jews should be allowed to destroy themselves without comment from anyone who is non-Jewish? Particularly when they are corrupting the U.S. government for their self-destructive purposes? It would be irresponsible not to comment.
Both Jews and Arabs are Semitic, so being anti-Semitic would not be anti-Jewish.
"this aid comes in the form of money israel can only spend on _american_ military products, so actually most of this money is used to keep a part of the american economy alive, and not to be used by Israel as it wants."
The "aid" is used to buy U.S.-made weapons, which are solely used to kill Israel's Arab neighbors.
$5 billion per year does not "keep a part of the american economy alive". It helps make the owners of U.S. arms manufacturers rich.
You said, "Look, the zionists (not all) jews realised that jews were not wanted anywhere at all."
This is not true. There are more Jews in New York than Israel. Although their relationships are not perfect there, they are wanted.
I'm an American. I'm not Jewish. I'm not Arab. I don't live near New York. I'm not saying I know any answers. I know that many Jews are very well educated, and many are brilliant. But I've observed that, when considering violence, Jewish IQ drops to a very low value.
By getting Americans into a fight with Arabs, the Jews have assured that, eventually, the truth will become known to American taxpayers, and Jews will become unwelcome in America. The Jews have been making themselves unwelcome for 3200 years. When will it stop?
The truth I am speaking of: The U.S. government gives $5.5 billion each year, about $1000 for every Jewish man, woman, and child in Israel, to Israelis for the purpose of killing Arabs. According to recent interviews on TV of the King of Jordan and the Iranian ambassador, U.S. government support for violence against Arabs is 90% of the reason for the terrorism against the United States. Most Americans don't know this. When average Americans discover that they are paying for Jewish violence, they will revolt.
In return for American hospitality, Jews have helped corrupt the U.S. government. Put yourself in the place of a non-Jewish American. Would you want such a powerful and powerfully destructive small group in your country? Those who call themselves "Zionists" are helping history repeat itself.
I did what was suggested in the parent comment. It was very interesting. I learned something. This is the first sentence of one of the Google links to '1929 hebron slaughter': "Under Ottoman Rule 1882 - 1917 -- From the beginning Jewish settlement met with opposition from the local Arabs." The article is by a Jewish organization in Israel.
So the Jews realized in 1882 that they were not wanted, but decided to settle in Palestine anyway.
Later, the article says that the Jews decided to engage in violence to promote their ability to stay in Palestine. There are only about 14 million Jews in the entire world. There are 330 million Arabs, I understand, and 1.1 billion Muslims.
Here's a question: Why do Jews think they can get into gun battles with Arabs and "win"?
Another of the Google links you took me to said this (I'm not inventing this; see for yourself; it's at the end.): "Not all the Arab missiles, bombs and daggers constitute the main danger to our existence, but our suicidal Jewish genetics. This is the cause of all the destruction that ever befell us." This is from another Jewish organization in Israel.
These are quotes from links you suggested I see.
Here is the closed source competition: Microsoft OTG Reduces Print Servers--From 30 Down to 4--By Consolidating with Windows Server 2003.
Quote: "Here's the story of how they consolidated print servers from 30 servers running Windows NT Server to only four servers running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition."
From the parent comment: "Did any of the idiots commenting on this story with sophmoric [statements]
The first section of the paper is an "Executive Summary". The second section is "Introduction: OTG Mission and Priorities". Think about it for a while.
Did you notice the acronym that is not defined? Did you notice the next two paragraphs? Look:
The "Microsoft Security Whitepaper" is as comment #7540789 says, all nonsense. The paper is evidence of a social breakdown at Microsoft. Someone at Microsoft is not making sense, and no one else there notices it.
Don't think this is correct? Then what is the difference between "Proactively deliver" and "deliver"? What are "defined expectations"; how are they different from expectations?
Isn't this sentence a bit grandiose? "Microsoft Mission: Enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential." Does this mean Microsoft will begin providing free education?
Isn't it grandiose to say that the mission is "making it easy to work anywhere at any time"?
What is "partners-making"? It's a typo, that's what, and no one noticed the typo, even though it is at the beginning of the article. They mean "partners -- making..." Or maybe "partners-making" is playing cupid. No one noticed the typo because no one read the article, or even those first paragraphs of the article.
I'm not trolling. I'm serious. There is a social breakdown occurring at Microsoft, and this is just one symptom of it. I'm not saying it is the same as the social breakdown at Enron or Anderson Consulting or Tyco, but it a social breakdown nevertheless.
Why isn't OTG defined in the "whitepaper"? Because it doesn't matter. No one is depending on the article for anything, and they probably aren't reading it. OTG stands for Operations and Technology Group, or Operations & Technology Group, or Operations Technology Group. Sometimes two names for the group appear in one document.
When an organization begins producing nonsense documents like the "Microsoft Security Whitepaper", something is terribly wrong. That paper is just one small example. There are many.
"Microsoft Security Whitepaper"
Seriously, what is a "whitepaper"? This is not a troll. I have no idea what it is. Is it an article? I know what a "paper" is; what is the significance of it being white? Are there blackpapers?
Oh Great Slashdot Oracle, I, your humble follower, bow before you, please hear my question.
What is the difference between the kind of ideas that are in a whitepaper, and the kind of ideas that are in a paper? Are the whitepaper ideas whiter? When you are having white ideas do you consciously avoid negative thoughts?
If there were a "Microsoft Security Blackpaper", what would it say? "Ohmygod, we've had years of pushing out product before the programmers are really finished with it. Now we a sitting on a mountain of sloppy code. We have no hope of finding all the vulnerabilities."
The company that owns Slashdot is unbelievably bad at marketing. I doubt they make much money. Anyone who knows more care to inform us?
Yup. I also had problems with 0.7, and am back to 0.61.
Firebird is important. Browsers are an important window on the world. I would like to see more corporate sponsorship of open source. We need faster development.
"Its designed to deal with this very problem with transferring images to other hardware."
I don't know why, but people bring up Sysprep when talking about imaging software. Of course it is necessary to use Sysprep. The Ask Slashdot question was about your experiences with imaging software. As you can see from the many comments, people have problems with each of the imaging software packages.
RIS requires Windows Server 2003. This is sometimes inconvenient or impossible, depending on the customer's network.
Exactly right. See this: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories
As Dave Letterman said on his national TV talk show, when you make out the check to help pay for the $87,000,000,000, there are two "L"s in Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's company. (It's called "using the power of government to help your friends get rich"; it's 100% government corruption.)
However, it is not that there was a threat, only that there was a perceived threat. Quite possibly the threat to go to OS X was not real, and also only a perceived threat.
OSX may not have a low cost of ownership, but it has a low cost of threat. Make a threat to buy OSX, and you get free Microsoft product. Make a threat against the U.S., and maybe you too can get $87,000,000,000 in free money.
I'd love to have a native Windows version, also.
Michelle, a Symantec Ghost techical support representative told me today that Ghost has a GUI display that often has caused problems.
The question is not whether the problem has been solved. The question is what is the best solution.
Many technically oriented people think of the Internet as a technical achievement. Gore thought of it as a political achievement. His achievement was to make it a public utility. This seems obvious now. It wasn't then. At the time, other political leaders were technically clueless.
A national leader could tell everyone on Prime-Time TV not to buy from spammers.
Moderators: Mod me down all you want, but it is a terrible name.
I'm NOT saying the software is terrible, or the people are terrible. I'm only saying the name is terrible.
Many people will pronounce it "Wreck-All".
Would you consider sharing your scripts and batch files?
Microsoft says NTBackup doesn't work for making full backups: #7463612
Microsoft says NTBackup doesn't work for making full backups: #7463612
"Wreck-All". Another great open source name.
Vint Cerf told me that Al Gore was in fact the strongest early supporter of making the old ArpaNet into the public utility we call the Internet. Without Gore's technical understanding and power in the U.S. Congress, it would have taken much longer.
For those who can remember back that far, there were many ArpaNet users who did now want the system open to the public. There was intense opposition to making the system open to commercial interests, too. Al Gore was a true visionary, in this case.
Eduardo, see this comment: Brazil or U.S.: Which is better? #7494436
From the parent post: "... first world..."
Have a look at this comparison between the United States and Brazil:
Size of country:
Brazil is approximately the same size as the continental United States.
Population
Brazil: 160,000,000.
U.S.: 270,000,000.
Dominant culture:
Brazil: European.
U.S.: European.
Minorities: Brazil has a higher proportion of Blacks than the U.S.
Government:
Brazil: Democracy
U.S.: Democracy
Physical Health:
Brazil: Most people are slim.
U.S.: The U.S. is the most obese country in the world.
War:
Brazil: Apparently the last war was in 1820.
U.S.: At least 50 wars and "police actions" in the last 100 years. The U.S. government has killed an estimated 3,000,000 people directly since the second world war. Most of those were in the Vietnam war. An estimated additional 3,000,000 have been killed indirectly as a result of U.S. government actions.
Murder rates in the most violent city. These statistics are old; apparently both cities have reduced their murder rate:
Brazil, Rio: 45 per 100,000 per year.
U.S., Washington, D.C.: 77 per 100,000 per year.
Percentage of population in prison, or involved with the criminal justice system:
Brazil: I believe about that of European countries, and about one-sixth that of the U.S.
U.S.: The highest in the world. The U.S. is rapidly building new prisons, and preparing for an even higher percentage. (Some people say Russia has a higher rate.)
System of measurement:
Brazil: Metric system
U.S.: Old, foolish English system. The foot is the length of an English king's foot.
Surveillance:
Brazil: Not known for government surveillance.
U.S.: The U.S. government spends a huge amount of money on surveillance. The taxpayers are not allowed to know how much that is; they just pay, they have no rights over the surveillance departments. The U.S. government's FBI, CIA, NSA, and other departments are a global secret police force. It is said that the U.S. government breaks U.S. law using the technique of hiring the Israeli secret police to do things that are illegal if done by U.S. government departments.
Health of the Family:
Brazil: In many families, strong.
U.S.: In many families, amazingly weak.
Voting:
Brazil: Open-Source voting machines, paper verification.
U.S.: Last president decided by politically interested Supreme Court. Closed-source voting machines, and much evidence of fraud. No paper verification.
Now, is it obvious which country is the better one?