Yea, I was thinking that 744,000 sounds like too big a number to me, too. But, it COULD be right I guess, considering the army is pretty big. Maybe they mean 744,000 USERS and not actual machines. That sounds more correct. (Soldiers don't usually carry around government issued computers with them.)
I don't necessarily agree with the whole SP1 business anymore though. Maybe that's why Server 2008 includes it.. (It's really just Vista with server apps included, and Vista SP1 came out before Server 2008 was released, so I'm guessing that's why it shows SP1. But it could also be psychological.)
If the system works with no service pack, then I don't have a problem with production use of it. Vista with no service pack worked fine for most things - the SP addressed some compatibility and performance issues and added support for some new standards but the operating system was already pretty stable and ready for production. One of the reasons Vista took so long to release is that they did a really long, extended testing phase to make sure of that.
In past versions of Windows, it was more valid. I mean, Windows 2000 with no Service Pack was completely broken when it came to Active Directory. Replication never worked right, DNS records were always all screwed up, and it still relied too much on NETBIOS name resolution. SP2 finally made AD a lot more friendly. But, Windows Server 2003 with no SP was a lot better - most things worked fine out of the box. Server 2008 is even better; I've had a lot of great success with Server 2008. I've done a lot of deployments of it to a great success. It's their best Server OS yet.
As always, I'm not defending Microsoft as a corporation, but Vista isn't nearly as bad as all the bad press made it out to be. They had to make some concessions in order to finally fix some legacy issues with Windows and I think they did a decent job considering.
I think it's almost comical how all these people that absolutely HATE Vista are all drooling over Windows 7. It's really just Vista! It uses the same drivers for goodness sakes! They changed the UI a bit (which I do like the new task bar quite a bit - it's like the MacOS dock but way better) and optimized the boot process to make it faster (and it IS faster; my old notebook used to take about 8 minutes to be finally done booting up to a Desktop and Windows 7 took 1.5 minutes.)
But, it still has the same architecture and thus the same "problems" with things like games. Of course, most of those problems were driver related, and not the fault of Vista. The majority of those issues have been resolved by now and any game released after Vista works great because it was designed with Vista differences in mind.
So you're saying: Instead of starting the planned roll-out now, after two years of planning, let's start all over again with Windows 7 because it's newer?
Or are you agreeing that the Vista roll-out is good and should move forward, but they should start planning for Windows 7 now? (of course, they can't plan on anything until W7 is RTM.)
"Seeing how the IT department just couldn't care less about what the users actually need in an organization"
Are you kidding me? What kind of bizarre world do you live in?
The users are the REASON IT exists. Of course IT cares about them, and IT is usually very careful to ensure upgrades have as little impact as possible. Generally speaking, the larger the organization, the more careful IT is.
Really, I think you need a little more exposure to IT in the enterprise.
Don't forget that it's extremely expensive to switch from Windows to something else, such as Linux. The entire IT staff may need to be re-trained to replaced.
If you're looking for some semblance of central management, you need to pay for that. There's yet to be a real, free solution that gives you even close to what Windows desktops can give you out of the box.
Again, I'm being pragmatic here. I love open source but it's naive to suggest that you can just make a switch like that. Don't you understand that?
You're right, the OS keeps on running, but no more updates outside critical updates. If a bug exists you can pay to have them whip up a hotfix for you, maybe. It happened with Windows 2000, although a lot of companies - even very large ones - often still run Windows 2000 servers.
Desktops are a little different then servers though; it's pretty important to upgrade them all together in some sort of timely fashion. While it's relatively easy to deal with a mish-mash of server OS versions and types (Linux and Windows mixed, etc) it's a whole different story to deal with mixed workstations.
There's still time to wait for Windows 7 or stick with Windows XP for awhile but a change is going to have to happen pretty soon. For such large organizations, things happen very slowly so if you have the opportunity to go with Vista now, you should do it.
I have nothing against Linux and Open Source. I believe it's the future. I really like the new KDE and I use it whenever I can.
CrossOver Office is fantastic and WINE is simply amazing. I've been using it all for the better part of a decade.
All this, plus virtualization and you don't need a dedicated Windows installation anymore.
That all being said, it's not feasible in many organizations at this point. While I'd love to be involved with a large scale implementation of Linux desktops, it doesn't happen very often.
To suggest that going with Debian is the path of least resistance versus going to Vista is a fallacy.
To suggest that an upgrade to Vista is "new just because" is another one. If you're a Microsoft shop, you have to stick with their upgrade path. That's the way it is with everything, including Open Source. You need to keep updated with the latest security patches, hardware support, etc. It's not a choice, it's a responsibility.
Peace of mind comes in many forms. For a large organization, that usually comes in the form of support. XP is in extended support and will turn into special support in just a couple years. It will cost more for Premiere support, and we'll see more computers and more software begin to have half-assed XP support.
Again, you're not understanding large organizations I guess? I mean, there's usually not "the guy making the decision." With an organization of 17,000 PC's you better believe there's teams of people involved and many layers of concept, planning, testing - and that's not even speaking to any sort of deployment plan.
It's a large undertaking and decisions are not made lightly.
You can't leave it to the users to decide what's best for IT. Companies, law firms and military organizations are not democracies. If everything went to vote, we'd still be using Windows 3.11 for Workgroups because "it's what we're used to."
Part of a large roll-out will certainly involve users. You want to make sure you retain the important functionality that the users require for their jobs. But they don't decide if an upgrade is going to happen - they just help with planning and testing.
I'm sorry but it seems you have a little bit to learn about such matters.
To me, it always has been. SP1 didn't really do much for me, although they did make improvements in some areas.
I decided to get on Vista pretty much as soon as it was released. I'm not much of one for betas so that was the first release I used of it. It worked fine, and my workstation was (still is) a bit old by today's standards (although, because I spent some money on it at the time, it's still relevant years later.)
I found it to be reliable - rarely a crash to be seen - the video driver restart feature was a big one. Sure, I had some compatibility issues, but not many. Usually it was some system utility or something, and even on 64-bit now a days everything has been updated to support it. Not a lot of software is actually 64-bit but they are certified to run under it and they do well.
Because my experience has been solid for over a year on 64-bit, if you're going to go Vista or Server 2008 you should go 64-bit (I can't imagine too many people building machines with less than 4GB RAM anymore; even store machines commonly include 4GB now) and never look back.
No OS upgrade will be without problems. I think the fact that the big complaints about Vista are (in my mind) relatively minor says a lot about the improved quality of their operating systems these days.
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of complaints with Microsoft software and Windows. My observations here are based on the Microsoft baseline. There's a lot of things I really love about alternative approaches such as Linux/UNIX but when comparing Oranges to Oranges, Vista is a good move from XP, and I'm glad to finally see large organizations moving on it. There's a lot of benefits for the Enterprise.
The bad press has been really hard on Microsoft when it comes to Vista; unjustifiably so in many cases.
Why does it have to be black and white? You defended them until Vista? Why did you do that? I just use software, I don't defend corporations.
I use Linux, Windows, and even some MacOS on my Hackintosh machine. As an IT professional, I think it's important to have some exposure to all of them.
If you can get by on Linux, then that's great! I love Linux. I really like the new KDE stuff they're doing quite a bit. But I use Windows too, and it's fine.
So you had problems with Vista on a machine or two and you got "OMG PISSED OFF M$ SUCKS!!" That happens when you install a new operating system on older hardware sometimes. Two years later now, it's a lot better. Better hardware support, better software support.
Go ahead, keep ranting on. I try to take a more pragmatic approach.
PS. I hated the first implementations of PnP. I much preferred cards with jumpers because you never had a problem. Now, with PCI, APIC and reliable IRQ sharing it's no longer a problem. It's called progress.
So let's say they wait. They'll need the official release of Windows 7 before they can start testing. Then they do that, for maybe a year or so. They design a training program to help users with the new system, and plan for deployment. Maybe another 6 months to a year.
That brings them awfully close to the support cut-off of Windows XP, and for what? What will Windows 7 really provide? Faster bootup times? Who cares. If all their software works on Vista, then it's not compatibility.
If they don't upgrade in time, they'll end up paying out the ass for special extended support for XP. Tell me that's better use of "my tax dollars."
If you always wait for the next release of that software, that car, or that style shoes you like you'll never end up with anything.
You need to draw a line somewhere. Windows Vista is a good move because it's been available for some time and they've had enough time to test it out with whatever software they might use. XP is getting more difficult with new machines, and if you want to stay on a Microsoft platform it's the way to go.
Windows 7 isn't so much different than Vista in terms of the operating system itself, and it's more similar to XP in interface than Windows 7.
I don't understand what the issue is here. I guess some people don't understand how IT works in organizations with more than a few hundred users.
This type of thing has been used in Windows terminal servers for awhile. Microsoft uses certain workarounds to allow more applications to run in a terminal environment with less privileges than one might have on a full workstation. Yea, not every app works in Terminal Server but most do.
In my opinion, most of this is blown way out of proportion. Most applications run fine in Vista, and Windows 7 is even better when it comes to its compatibility mode. Sure, drivers are a little point of contention but even in 64-bit Vista/W7 the support from vendors has become really good.
There's always going to be some old legacy applications that won't work right, but they're the exception, not the rule. Workarounds will be required for these applications but they're just not a prevalent as people seem to make them out to be.
That often depends on the culture of the particular organization. I've worked for and done work for a lot of companies, and sometimes the users are flexible and sometimes they are rigid.
It almost always depends on how much upper management stands by IT. If a secretary can tell the CEO that she doesn't like the new Icon for Outlook and you're forced to change it, chances are good that you'll NEVER be able to make a major change. But, if management is on the side of IT and trusts the IT department to make the right decisions, the users will be more likely to adapt and take it in stride.
Although a bunch of people here are touting the use of CSS to replace tables, you just can't replace all table formatting with CSS. Somewhere on almost any site is an unavoidable pile of tables that are a bitch to work with, because they're better supported than advanced formatting via CSS.
A better, more in-line solution is sorely needed. And hopefully all of the browsers will support it properly from the start, so we don't have to deal with a million different redundant "border=0" type entries.
Plus, CSS for formatting is a lot more difficult to learn. A LOT more difficult. I'm no web developer but I can make a real decent looking web site with tables, and I use CSS for text formatting and styles but I still have a real hard time using CSS for anything other than that.
Anyways, I'm 100% there with you. I eagerly await a better table system.
Sure, and that will work for when you're using a company issued Blackeberry phone within the company building. But last I checked, the security guard at the entrance of anywhere else doesn't have access to your BES console to make sure your phone is listed on an applicable IT Policy that locks down the camera.
You can get a very high end HP or Dell notebook without a camera/webcam.
I was once issued a Dell Precision Notebook, completely decked out with BluRay and everything (this is a few years ago - it was a $700 option) and no camera. A year and a half ago, I was issued an HP 8710p - basically the same machine as the Dell but a bit nicer because it was not as bulky but both have 17" screens. Again, no camera.
So I don't know about the Apple computers, but on the "everyone else" front it's easy to get an amazing desktop-replacement notebook with all the bells and whistles and no camera. In my experience, the camera on the top end notebooks from these manufacturers is optional. At least with the business-centric machines.
Apple notebooks aren't targeted for the business, and neither are certain lines from the big others, but at least with the big others you have options.
Phones are a different story, but you could use some sort of permanent adhesive to cover the camera. But I'd make sure that would pass as acceptable before doing it.
This happens on both sides, of course, but as much as the "Bush Bashing" happened for the last several years, it wasn't anything like how mean spirited and flat out wrong a lot of these nut jobs in the Republican party are now.
I don't align perfectly with the Democrats, don't get me wrong. I'd prefer we do something, and now, against illegal immigration. I want to stop the abuse of welfare. I don't love the bailout strategy either, but I can see the logic to it so I guess we'll just have to wait and see, there.
The problem with the Republicans and the so-called "Conservatives" is that they aren't about the real issues facing us today. They're about anti-gays, abortion, religion and all the other things that pay no dividends to our society. I mean, there's a good portion of the Republicans IN OFFICE TODAY that don't believe in global warming.
I pick the lesser of two evils. At least for now, the Democrats are thinking a little more clearly about what we face today REALLY. And I support thinking people.
And I'm fucking glad they're going to do something about the credit card companies. They've been raping our wallets for decades.
They seem like crazy nut jobs here, too. Every time I hear another insane rant about "Obama's Fascist Regime" it pushes me further and further away from the Republican party.
They are SO upset that they lost the election and they're going ape shit. Instead of trying to push their message with resonable thought, they force it on you with words of communism and "fascism."
The more they do it though, the less people they will inevitably get to vote for them. You might get some simple people to believe the nonsense but not a thinking person.
Well, as of now it seems like a pretty localized site, so it doesn't surprise me that it doesn't fit in the top 100,000.
I think the site is a good idea. And, to invoke Copyright on this is unbelievable. There's no COPYING being done. When I give you my book, I no longer have that book.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, I was thinking that 744,000 sounds like too big a number to me, too. But, it COULD be right I guess, considering the army is pretty big. Maybe they mean 744,000 USERS and not actual machines. That sounds more correct. (Soldiers don't usually carry around government issued computers with them.)
I don't necessarily agree with the whole SP1 business anymore though. Maybe that's why Server 2008 includes it.. (It's really just Vista with server apps included, and Vista SP1 came out before Server 2008 was released, so I'm guessing that's why it shows SP1. But it could also be psychological.)
If the system works with no service pack, then I don't have a problem with production use of it. Vista with no service pack worked fine for most things - the SP addressed some compatibility and performance issues and added support for some new standards but the operating system was already pretty stable and ready for production. One of the reasons Vista took so long to release is that they did a really long, extended testing phase to make sure of that.
In past versions of Windows, it was more valid. I mean, Windows 2000 with no Service Pack was completely broken when it came to Active Directory. Replication never worked right, DNS records were always all screwed up, and it still relied too much on NETBIOS name resolution. SP2 finally made AD a lot more friendly. But, Windows Server 2003 with no SP was a lot better - most things worked fine out of the box. Server 2008 is even better; I've had a lot of great success with Server 2008. I've done a lot of deployments of it to a great success. It's their best Server OS yet.
As always, I'm not defending Microsoft as a corporation, but Vista isn't nearly as bad as all the bad press made it out to be. They had to make some concessions in order to finally fix some legacy issues with Windows and I think they did a decent job considering.
I think it's almost comical how all these people that absolutely HATE Vista are all drooling over Windows 7. It's really just Vista! It uses the same drivers for goodness sakes! They changed the UI a bit (which I do like the new task bar quite a bit - it's like the MacOS dock but way better) and optimized the boot process to make it faster (and it IS faster; my old notebook used to take about 8 minutes to be finally done booting up to a Desktop and Windows 7 took 1.5 minutes.)
But, it still has the same architecture and thus the same "problems" with things like games. Of course, most of those problems were driver related, and not the fault of Vista. The majority of those issues have been resolved by now and any game released after Vista works great because it was designed with Vista differences in mind.
Anyways, I'm rambling!
So you're saying: Instead of starting the planned roll-out now, after two years of planning, let's start all over again with Windows 7 because it's newer?
Or are you agreeing that the Vista roll-out is good and should move forward, but they should start planning for Windows 7 now? (of course, they can't plan on anything until W7 is RTM.)
Your comment could be interpreted both ways.
Umm.. if my system hasn't crashed in six months and it's only been rebooted twice in that time for updates - that's not reliable?
What's your definition? It shows up on time to dates?
"Seeing how the IT department just couldn't care less about what the users actually need in an organization"
Are you kidding me? What kind of bizarre world do you live in?
The users are the REASON IT exists. Of course IT cares about them, and IT is usually very careful to ensure upgrades have as little impact as possible. Generally speaking, the larger the organization, the more careful IT is.
Really, I think you need a little more exposure to IT in the enterprise.
Don't forget that it's extremely expensive to switch from Windows to something else, such as Linux. The entire IT staff may need to be re-trained to replaced.
If you're looking for some semblance of central management, you need to pay for that. There's yet to be a real, free solution that gives you even close to what Windows desktops can give you out of the box.
Again, I'm being pragmatic here. I love open source but it's naive to suggest that you can just make a switch like that. Don't you understand that?
You're right, the OS keeps on running, but no more updates outside critical updates. If a bug exists you can pay to have them whip up a hotfix for you, maybe. It happened with Windows 2000, although a lot of companies - even very large ones - often still run Windows 2000 servers.
Desktops are a little different then servers though; it's pretty important to upgrade them all together in some sort of timely fashion. While it's relatively easy to deal with a mish-mash of server OS versions and types (Linux and Windows mixed, etc) it's a whole different story to deal with mixed workstations.
There's still time to wait for Windows 7 or stick with Windows XP for awhile but a change is going to have to happen pretty soon. For such large organizations, things happen very slowly so if you have the opportunity to go with Vista now, you should do it.
I have nothing against Linux and Open Source. I believe it's the future. I really like the new KDE and I use it whenever I can.
CrossOver Office is fantastic and WINE is simply amazing. I've been using it all for the better part of a decade.
All this, plus virtualization and you don't need a dedicated Windows installation anymore.
That all being said, it's not feasible in many organizations at this point. While I'd love to be involved with a large scale implementation of Linux desktops, it doesn't happen very often.
To suggest that going with Debian is the path of least resistance versus going to Vista is a fallacy.
To suggest that an upgrade to Vista is "new just because" is another one. If you're a Microsoft shop, you have to stick with their upgrade path. That's the way it is with everything, including Open Source. You need to keep updated with the latest security patches, hardware support, etc. It's not a choice, it's a responsibility.
Your..logic... no.. compute..
Peace of mind comes in many forms. For a large organization, that usually comes in the form of support. XP is in extended support and will turn into special support in just a couple years. It will cost more for Premiere support, and we'll see more computers and more software begin to have half-assed XP support.
Again, you're not understanding large organizations I guess? I mean, there's usually not "the guy making the decision." With an organization of 17,000 PC's you better believe there's teams of people involved and many layers of concept, planning, testing - and that's not even speaking to any sort of deployment plan.
It's a large undertaking and decisions are not made lightly.
You can't leave it to the users to decide what's best for IT. Companies, law firms and military organizations are not democracies. If everything went to vote, we'd still be using Windows 3.11 for Workgroups because "it's what we're used to."
Part of a large roll-out will certainly involve users. You want to make sure you retain the important functionality that the users require for their jobs. But they don't decide if an upgrade is going to happen - they just help with planning and testing.
I'm sorry but it seems you have a little bit to learn about such matters.
To me, it always has been. SP1 didn't really do much for me, although they did make improvements in some areas.
I decided to get on Vista pretty much as soon as it was released. I'm not much of one for betas so that was the first release I used of it. It worked fine, and my workstation was (still is) a bit old by today's standards (although, because I spent some money on it at the time, it's still relevant years later.)
I found it to be reliable - rarely a crash to be seen - the video driver restart feature was a big one. Sure, I had some compatibility issues, but not many. Usually it was some system utility or something, and even on 64-bit now a days everything has been updated to support it. Not a lot of software is actually 64-bit but they are certified to run under it and they do well.
Because my experience has been solid for over a year on 64-bit, if you're going to go Vista or Server 2008 you should go 64-bit (I can't imagine too many people building machines with less than 4GB RAM anymore; even store machines commonly include 4GB now) and never look back.
No OS upgrade will be without problems. I think the fact that the big complaints about Vista are (in my mind) relatively minor says a lot about the improved quality of their operating systems these days.
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of complaints with Microsoft software and Windows. My observations here are based on the Microsoft baseline. There's a lot of things I really love about alternative approaches such as Linux/UNIX but when comparing Oranges to Oranges, Vista is a good move from XP, and I'm glad to finally see large organizations moving on it. There's a lot of benefits for the Enterprise.
The bad press has been really hard on Microsoft when it comes to Vista; unjustifiably so in many cases.
Why does it have to be black and white? You defended them until Vista? Why did you do that? I just use software, I don't defend corporations.
I use Linux, Windows, and even some MacOS on my Hackintosh machine. As an IT professional, I think it's important to have some exposure to all of them.
If you can get by on Linux, then that's great! I love Linux. I really like the new KDE stuff they're doing quite a bit. But I use Windows too, and it's fine.
So you had problems with Vista on a machine or two and you got "OMG PISSED OFF M$ SUCKS!!" That happens when you install a new operating system on older hardware sometimes. Two years later now, it's a lot better. Better hardware support, better software support.
Go ahead, keep ranting on. I try to take a more pragmatic approach.
PS. I hated the first implementations of PnP. I much preferred cards with jumpers because you never had a problem. Now, with PCI, APIC and reliable IRQ sharing it's no longer a problem. It's called progress.
So let's say they wait. They'll need the official release of Windows 7 before they can start testing. Then they do that, for maybe a year or so. They design a training program to help users with the new system, and plan for deployment. Maybe another 6 months to a year.
That brings them awfully close to the support cut-off of Windows XP, and for what? What will Windows 7 really provide? Faster bootup times? Who cares. If all their software works on Vista, then it's not compatibility.
If they don't upgrade in time, they'll end up paying out the ass for special extended support for XP. Tell me that's better use of "my tax dollars."
Sorry, I only take requests for people that are logged in.
If you always wait for the next release of that software, that car, or that style shoes you like you'll never end up with anything.
You need to draw a line somewhere. Windows Vista is a good move because it's been available for some time and they've had enough time to test it out with whatever software they might use. XP is getting more difficult with new machines, and if you want to stay on a Microsoft platform it's the way to go.
Windows 7 isn't so much different than Vista in terms of the operating system itself, and it's more similar to XP in interface than Windows 7.
I don't understand what the issue is here. I guess some people don't understand how IT works in organizations with more than a few hundred users.
This type of thing has been used in Windows terminal servers for awhile. Microsoft uses certain workarounds to allow more applications to run in a terminal environment with less privileges than one might have on a full workstation. Yea, not every app works in Terminal Server but most do.
In my opinion, most of this is blown way out of proportion. Most applications run fine in Vista, and Windows 7 is even better when it comes to its compatibility mode. Sure, drivers are a little point of contention but even in 64-bit Vista/W7 the support from vendors has become really good.
There's always going to be some old legacy applications that won't work right, but they're the exception, not the rule. Workarounds will be required for these applications but they're just not a prevalent as people seem to make them out to be.
Since when does a small company have 15,000 employees?
That often depends on the culture of the particular organization. I've worked for and done work for a lot of companies, and sometimes the users are flexible and sometimes they are rigid.
It almost always depends on how much upper management stands by IT. If a secretary can tell the CEO that she doesn't like the new Icon for Outlook and you're forced to change it, chances are good that you'll NEVER be able to make a major change. But, if management is on the side of IT and trusts the IT department to make the right decisions, the users will be more likely to adapt and take it in stride.
Although a bunch of people here are touting the use of CSS to replace tables, you just can't replace all table formatting with CSS. Somewhere on almost any site is an unavoidable pile of tables that are a bitch to work with, because they're better supported than advanced formatting via CSS.
A better, more in-line solution is sorely needed. And hopefully all of the browsers will support it properly from the start, so we don't have to deal with a million different redundant "border=0" type entries.
Plus, CSS for formatting is a lot more difficult to learn. A LOT more difficult. I'm no web developer but I can make a real decent looking web site with tables, and I use CSS for text formatting and styles but I still have a real hard time using CSS for anything other than that.
Anyways, I'm 100% there with you. I eagerly await a better table system.
"What kind of application requires real-time computing without a video output?"
Last I checked, most notebooks have at least a VGA port and more commonly now a days is an HDMI port.
So just hook it to any monitor and use it like a desktop. Problem solved.
Sure, and that will work for when you're using a company issued Blackeberry phone within the company building. But last I checked, the security guard at the entrance of anywhere else doesn't have access to your BES console to make sure your phone is listed on an applicable IT Policy that locks down the camera.
You can get a very high end HP or Dell notebook without a camera/webcam.
I was once issued a Dell Precision Notebook, completely decked out with BluRay and everything (this is a few years ago - it was a $700 option) and no camera. A year and a half ago, I was issued an HP 8710p - basically the same machine as the Dell but a bit nicer because it was not as bulky but both have 17" screens. Again, no camera.
So I don't know about the Apple computers, but on the "everyone else" front it's easy to get an amazing desktop-replacement notebook with all the bells and whistles and no camera. In my experience, the camera on the top end notebooks from these manufacturers is optional. At least with the business-centric machines.
Apple notebooks aren't targeted for the business, and neither are certain lines from the big others, but at least with the big others you have options.
Phones are a different story, but you could use some sort of permanent adhesive to cover the camera. But I'd make sure that would pass as acceptable before doing it.
This happens on both sides, of course, but as much as the "Bush Bashing" happened for the last several years, it wasn't anything like how mean spirited and flat out wrong a lot of these nut jobs in the Republican party are now.
I don't align perfectly with the Democrats, don't get me wrong. I'd prefer we do something, and now, against illegal immigration. I want to stop the abuse of welfare. I don't love the bailout strategy either, but I can see the logic to it so I guess we'll just have to wait and see, there.
The problem with the Republicans and the so-called "Conservatives" is that they aren't about the real issues facing us today. They're about anti-gays, abortion, religion and all the other things that pay no dividends to our society. I mean, there's a good portion of the Republicans IN OFFICE TODAY that don't believe in global warming.
I pick the lesser of two evils. At least for now, the Democrats are thinking a little more clearly about what we face today REALLY. And I support thinking people.
And I'm fucking glad they're going to do something about the credit card companies. They've been raping our wallets for decades.
They seem like crazy nut jobs here, too. Every time I hear another insane rant about "Obama's Fascist Regime" it pushes me further and further away from the Republican party.
They are SO upset that they lost the election and they're going ape shit. Instead of trying to push their message with resonable thought, they force it on you with words of communism and "fascism."
The more they do it though, the less people they will inevitably get to vote for them. You might get some simple people to believe the nonsense but not a thinking person.
It... will... learn how... to write like... this one day... just like.... you...
Stand by your sentences. End them with a single punctuation mark like a real man.
Ohh don't be such a twit.
I mean, what the hell do you mean "Nintendo Won"?
It wasn't a death-match. Sony has sold a lot of PSP's and made a bundle of cash on them. 50 million units is nothing to sneeze at.
Just because someone is more successful than you, it doesn't mean THEY WON and YOU LOST.
Get over yourself.
Well, as of now it seems like a pretty localized site, so it doesn't surprise me that it doesn't fit in the top 100,000.
I think the site is a good idea. And, to invoke Copyright on this is unbelievable. There's no COPYING being done. When I give you my book, I no longer have that book.