So my response is.. if you are posting something AC that you are really worried about someone finding your true identity, why are you posting it to fucking Slashdot anyway?
Talk about a non-problem.. do you bitch just to see your own words?
The same logic is applied to the War on Drugs. No drug users = no drug problem.
However, drug users are addicted to intoxication (particular substance notwithstanding) and spam customers are just plain gullible fools (of which there are legion; just ask the Republican Party)
The downside is that wishing upon a star won't help.. neither will (further) bankrupting the US economy.
I got you beat by a year. I'm class of '86. And I wrote a program using BASICA on an IBM PC (8088) that printed out an ASCII picture of a cabin while it played "Silent Night" through the squeaker. This was a Christmas Eve present to my parents back in '82.
Of course, since I booted without a floppy in the drive I couldn't save the program.
Hey.. that explains the Iraqi uranium connection! Saddam got an email from a Nigerian government official trying to move a few tons of yellowcake which were billed under a fraudulent invoice. For his part, Saddam got to keep 20% of the material.
Of course, since it was a scam, Saddam got nothing. However, when Bush found out about it he agreed to deliver a few thousand pounds of the stuff (albeit in 30mm "pellets" of depleted form).
whew.. that makes me feel so much better about recent events...
Except, to date, SCO's actions have been one of trying to *avoid* the primary method of remediation for this type of proceeding (namely, the removal of the infringing code from the Linux kernel source).
SCO is trying to have its cake and eat it, too. It wants to prevail such that the breach can be repaired (gaining them a large financial windfall), but it is not willing to allow the allegedly offending parties to exercise their rights of remediation (removing the code, erasing the financial windfall).
Yes, it's all bullshit. No matter what the outcome, SCO will not have monetary rights to Linux (outside of any judgement awarded from their original suit against IBM). SCO is merely continuing its stalling tactics for whatever gains it seeks (external to the lawsuit). There is also the problem that, if SCO were to prevail against IBM, they would turn around and start suing anyone who used any 2.4.x kernels during the whole proceeding (myself included). The damage to the adoption of Linux at that point (IMHO) would be irreparable.
I just hope that when all is finally said and done that someone is able to go after SCO (and its officers, personally) for damages from this whole crock of nonsense.
What this further demonstrates is that SCO obviously did not, based on their original lawsuit and all arguments after, perform adequate pre-acquisition due diligence to protect the Intellectual Property they are claiming is infringed.
SCO investors should be extremely interested in this point when the courts rule against SCO. This opens up the possibility of investor lawsuits against Darl and his E-staff personally (regardless of any governmental actions contemplated by the SEC and/or FTC)
Normal TCP/IP networking is open to an attack known as "SYN flooding". This denial-of-service attack prevents legitimate remote users from being able to connect to your computer during an ongoing attack and requires very little work from the attacker, who can operate from anywhere on the Internet.
SYN cookies provide protection against this type of attack. If you say Y here, the TCP/IP stack will use a cryptographic challenge protocol known as "SYN cookies" to enable legitimate users to continue to connect, even when your machine is under attack. There is no need for the legitimate users to change their TCP/IP software; SYN cookies work transparently to them. For technical information about SYN cookies, check out http://cr.yp.to/syncookies.html.
In case your browser is broken, from cr.yp.to/syncookies.html:
What are SYN cookies?
SYN cookies are particular choices of initial TCP sequence numbers by TCP servers. The difference between the server's initial sequence number and the client's initial sequence number is
* top 5 bits: t mod 32, where t is a 32-bit time counter that increases every 64 seconds;
* next 3 bits: an encoding of an MSS selected by the server in response to the client's MSS;
* bottom 24 bits: a server-selected secret function of the client IP address and port number, the server IP address and port number, and t.
This choice of sequence number complies with the basic TCP requirement that sequence numbers increase slowly; the server's initial sequence number increases slightly faster than the client's initial sequence number.
A server that uses SYN cookies doesn't have to drop connections when its SYN queue fills up. Instead it sends back a SYN+ACK, exactly as if the SYN queue had been larger. (Exceptions: the server must reject TCP options such as large windows, and it must use one of the eight MSS values that it can encode.) When the server receives an ACK, it checks that the secret function works for a recent value of t, and then rebuilds the SYN queue entry from the encoded MSS.
A SYN flood is simply a series of SYN packets from forged IP addresses. The IP addresses are chosen randomly and don't provide any hint of where the attacker is. The SYN flood keeps the server's SYN queue full. Normally this would force the server to drop connections. A server that uses SYN cookies, however, will continue operating normally. The biggest effect of the SYN flood is to disable large windows.
I tell my wife all about my day in the tech world, and she tells me all about her day in the marketing world. Neither of us knows fuck-all about what the other is saying, but it makes for good conversation.
Except in Silent Running it was an inside job perpetrated by a drugged-out Bruce Dern and a gimpy little robot...(and *after* he had cut the forests loose)
Also, space flight doesn't work like that... but every other series I've seen has portrayed space flight as far too similar to atmospheric flight, so I guess I shouldn't bother complaining.
I believe this can be explained as the "Buck Rogers Effect". In the first films (before rocket travel) the ships were all seen going in circles (small sets, short strings) and the sound was that of a large piston engine, similar to the high performance military aircraft of the time. It was something with which people could identify, even though it was incorrect.
And let's face it -- extra-atmospheric maneuvering ain't exactly sexy, so if Hollywood wants to cheat and have nice graceful arcs in an exciting dogfight I'll go ahead and suspend that portion of my right brain for a few minutes.
Wow.. you know.. I could *totally* live with that. And it would be much better than that "Theodore 'Christ' Preston" bullshit we all knew was coming but couldn't tear our eyes away from because of the sheer morbid horror of it all...
Let's face it, Keanu Reeves' best acting job came when he got run-through by John Malkovic's sword in "Dangerous Liasons" (oh, and I suppose "Speed" was kind of fun, but that's probably only because Dennis Hopper makes a good psycho).
Nice cut-n-paste from the front page of the RNC website. It's really good to know that you actually dug all that up yourself... (yawn; btw, that is all just an attempt to smear the Democrats by creating some illusion of fealty to Howard Dean...)
So.. you have a couple of quotes from 1998 concerning "regime change". Did you forget who was in office at the time? Regime change in Iraq has been on the US Government's mind since 1991. The trick is exactly *how best to do it* without creating the disarray and power vacuum which exists now. Perhaps (and don't hurt yourself thinking about this) that's why Bush Sr. didn't allow Schwartzkopf to drive all the way to Baghdad back in Gulf-I... Bush Sr. was smart enough to know that without a concrete game plan in place to deal with the after-effects of toppling Saddam, the situation would become many times worse than the status-quo of containment (which had been working quite well, all Saddam press-ops aside). Apparently Bush Jr. isn't as smart as his daddy...
Regarding your out-of-context snippet from Bob Graham, let's look at what then occurred...
Graham voted against authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq. (H.J.Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Adopted 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Graham Voted Nay)
Sen. Graham Supported President George H.W. Bush In 1991 And Clinton In 1995 In Efforts Against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Regime, But Voted Against Support Of President George W. Bush In 2002.
So.. actually, it appears that Graham is consistent with his message, in spite of that single sentence you offered as "proof" of his waffling.
The rest of your post follows the same lines. I've put my karma where my mouth is.. how about you?
About as big an aberration as the "concrete proof" that Bush claimed he had regarding WMDs. That was the exact same intelligence he relied upon for Salmon Pak. Incidentally, there was ample evidence of the airliner parked there in 2000 (and even prior). You wanna make claims about that? We can trot out the tinfoil suspicions regarding Bush ignoring warnings pre-9/11... How do you wanna play it, Mr. AC?
recession inherited from the Clinton administration lives on until the 2004 elections.
Actually, Bush inherited a nicely balanced budget (indeed, in the surplus) and an economy so hopeful that one of Bush's campaign ideas (thankfully swept under the rug) was to make Social Security based on the stock market (incidentally an idea that Clinton, Gore, and anyone with a fiscal brain said was a *BAD* idea). In fact, as late as last year Bush still floated that Social-Security-based-on-stock-market balloon during a speech. There's a real fiscal genius running the White House... The bubble was sure to burst at some point. But the fact is that by this time 2001 (2002 at the latest) the economy should have corrected and been back to a more stable state. Instead, because Junior wants to run apeshit through the world like some coked up playboy, we are grasping for economic straws during a time of incredible unemployment. Instead of paying attention to the problems at home, Junior wanted to go create problems in the world so he could show how just like his daddy he could be (and I voted for Bush Sr.). Junior can't hold daddy's jock.
Yeah, the AARP, a truly conservative special interest group, supported passing of that bill. Funny how Clinton made promises of prescription drug benefits during both of his campaigns and yet it took Bush to get it done.
But what you conveniently left out was that the AARP "supported" this legislation because, in their words, it was "better than nothing". In fact, they were pushing all the way for it to be brought back to the original proposal before the Republicans destroyed it in committee. In fact, in the AARP commercials their "support" is explained in this light.
Would you like to ask the troops currently stationed in Afghanistan if we have forgotten about Al Qaeda or bin laden? How about the office of homeland security, I'm sure they don't give two shits about bin laden right? Of course the CIA and FBI could care less about him too.
How about asking the troops in Afghanistan if there are enough of them to do the job required of them? How about asking if they really were thrilled about their numbers being diverted to Iraq? How about asking how busy the CIA is trying to track down the Fedayeen leaders so our troops stop getting cut down a couple of soldiers at a time on an almost daily basis? How about asking why, after a campaign promise of "smaller government", the government was almost doubled in size by the addition of a single (IMHO unecessary) Cabinet (your "Homeland 'Security'")?
I guess the dead Jews who were killed by Palestinian terrorists publicly bankrolled by Saddam don't count in your eyes. The hundreds of Kurds killed by chemical weapons and the recently discovered mass graves don't make you a terrorist.
Here's where you can really get yourself in trouble. Let's keep this simple. Saddam, in his effort to maintain his self-image as a big player in the Arab world, made a large public speech where he promised payments for Palestinian "martyrs". In fact, such payment has *YET* to be made (even well before Gulf-II). Saddam was a tempest in a teapot, easily contained by the UN actions post-Gulf-I. As for your point regarding the Kurds... well...:
1. Bush Sr. urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam post-Gulf-I. They did, expecting US support. US support did not come, they got slaughtered by an injured and vengeful Saddam.
2. Iraq is not a "country". It is a confederation of disparate ethnic and religious parties who are quite frequently at bitter odds with each other, where the word "compromise" is not in their mutual vocabularies. A strong brutal leader is sometimes the only way to make all those parties behave. Is that a nice picture? Hell no. But it does accurately describe the shitstorm that is now present-day Iraq and why Western-style democracy probably won't work so well there. The biggest part of what makes our democracy work here is that the St
Tax Cut You mean your one-time "benefit" of somewhere in the vicinity of $300? Real big help there.. Just in time to help boost Christmas spending so he can claim a "recovery" and a "robust, booming economy". Bzzzt.
Prescription Drugs You mean the watered-down piece of shit that not even some Republicans wanted to sign because it held no real benefits for the majority and was actually just a step closer to privatization of Medicare? Bzzzzt.
War on Terrorism Are you even still in the room? We totally forgot about Osama (a real live admitted terrorist) so that Dubya could go spend billions of our dollars destroying Saddam (a bad guy, but no terrorist [and don't even START that bullshit about his hosting Al Queda because the evidence does NOT support that]). So now, instead of making the world safer by taking out a very dangerous terrorist group he has scattered them to the winds (think cancerous metastasizing) and has gone to great (and expensive) lengths to further destabilize the Middle East by creating a desert-style Vietnam situation. Instead of using the political and sympathetic capital showered upon us by the world post-9/11 he has squandered it to the point where we are now feared and reviled like never before in history.
Oh, and did I forget squandering what was a budgetary surplus, creating the fastest-growing budget deficit this country has evern seen?
Bush promised smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a foreign policy of global cooperation. So far we have double the size of government, destroyed any sense of fiscal responsibility (all the while mired in a preventable recession) and bullied the rest of the world into hating us (even our allies are nervous these days).
"Hey Grandma! There's a new program I think you might enjoy called 'Foobar'. Type 'sudo apt-get install foobar', enter your password at the prompt, and tell me how you like the new program!"
"Gee Sonny.. that was swell. And I didn't even have to reboot! Here's a nice apple pie for you to take home to your mother..."
Slashdot Mirror
So my response is.. if you are posting something AC that you are really worried about someone finding your true identity, why are you posting it to fucking Slashdot anyway?
Talk about a non-problem.. do you bitch just to see your own words?
The same logic is applied to the War on Drugs. No drug users = no drug problem.
However, drug users are addicted to intoxication (particular substance notwithstanding) and spam customers are just plain gullible fools (of which there are legion; just ask the Republican Party)
The downside is that wishing upon a star won't help.. neither will (further) bankrupting the US economy.
Wow.. if I had mod points I'd use them all on that response.. good show, AC.
I got laid in '87.. does that count?
I got you beat by a year. I'm class of '86. And I wrote a program using BASICA on an IBM PC (8088) that printed out an ASCII picture of a cabin while it played "Silent Night" through the squeaker. This was a Christmas Eve present to my parents back in '82.
Of course, since I booted without a floppy in the drive I couldn't save the program.
I've cursed Bill Gates' name ever since.
And I prefer blondes. Does that mean my marriage is now annulled because of my choice?
Damn dude, use the (P)review button more often... sheesh.
oh.. you're right..
ack.. arrrgh! I'm mellllltiiiiinnnnnnnggg!!!....
...just say "DRM" and "Open Standard" in the same sentence?
Pentium Pro == Pentium 1.5?
Hey.. that explains the Iraqi uranium connection! Saddam got an email from a Nigerian government official trying to move a few tons of yellowcake which were billed under a fraudulent invoice. For his part, Saddam got to keep 20% of the material.
Of course, since it was a scam, Saddam got nothing. However, when Bush found out about it he agreed to deliver a few thousand pounds of the stuff (albeit in 30mm "pellets" of depleted form).
whew.. that makes me feel so much better about recent events...
Except, to date, SCO's actions have been one of trying to *avoid* the primary method of remediation for this type of proceeding (namely, the removal of the infringing code from the Linux kernel source).
SCO is trying to have its cake and eat it, too. It wants to prevail such that the breach can be repaired (gaining them a large financial windfall), but it is not willing to allow the allegedly offending parties to exercise their rights of remediation (removing the code, erasing the financial windfall).
Yes, it's all bullshit. No matter what the outcome, SCO will not have monetary rights to Linux (outside of any judgement awarded from their original suit against IBM). SCO is merely continuing its stalling tactics for whatever gains it seeks (external to the lawsuit). There is also the problem that, if SCO were to prevail against IBM, they would turn around and start suing anyone who used any 2.4.x kernels during the whole proceeding (myself included). The damage to the adoption of Linux at that point (IMHO) would be irreparable.
I just hope that when all is finally said and done that someone is able to go after SCO (and its officers, personally) for damages from this whole crock of nonsense.
What this further demonstrates is that SCO obviously did not, based on their original lawsuit and all arguments after, perform adequate pre-acquisition due diligence to protect the Intellectual Property they are claiming is infringed.
SCO investors should be extremely interested in this point when the courts rule against SCO. This opens up the possibility of investor lawsuits against Darl and his E-staff personally (regardless of any governmental actions contemplated by the SEC and/or FTC)
.Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of fuckwits.
This can help...
From the Linux kernel:
Normal TCP/IP networking is open to an attack known as "SYN flooding". This denial-of-service attack prevents legitimate remote users from being able to connect to your computer during an ongoing attack and requires very little work from the attacker, who can operate from anywhere on the Internet.
SYN cookies provide protection against this type of attack. If you say Y here, the TCP/IP stack will use a cryptographic challenge protocol known as "SYN cookies" to enable legitimate users to continue to connect, even when your machine is under attack. There is no need for the legitimate users to change their TCP/IP software; SYN cookies work transparently to them. For technical information about SYN cookies, check out http://cr.yp.to/syncookies.html.
In case your browser is broken, from cr.yp.to/syncookies.html:
What are SYN cookies?
SYN cookies are particular choices of initial TCP sequence numbers by TCP servers. The difference between the server's initial sequence number and the client's initial sequence number is
* top 5 bits: t mod 32, where t is a 32-bit time counter that increases every 64 seconds;
* next 3 bits: an encoding of an MSS selected by the server in response to the client's MSS;
* bottom 24 bits: a server-selected secret function of the client IP address and port number, the server IP address and port number, and t.
This choice of sequence number complies with the basic TCP requirement that sequence numbers increase slowly; the server's initial sequence number increases slightly faster than the client's initial sequence number.
A server that uses SYN cookies doesn't have to drop connections when its SYN queue fills up. Instead it sends back a SYN+ACK, exactly as if the SYN queue had been larger. (Exceptions: the server must reject TCP options such as large windows, and it must use one of the eight MSS values that it can encode.) When the server receives an ACK, it checks that the secret function works for a recent value of t, and then rebuilds the SYN queue entry from the encoded MSS.
A SYN flood is simply a series of SYN packets from forged IP addresses. The IP addresses are chosen randomly and don't provide any hint of where the attacker is. The SYN flood keeps the server's SYN queue full. Normally this would force the server to drop connections. A server that uses SYN cookies, however, will continue operating normally. The biggest effect of the SYN flood is to disable large windows.
I tell my wife all about my day in the tech world, and she tells me all about her day in the marketing world. Neither of us knows fuck-all about what the other is saying, but it makes for good conversation.
Then we go shag like bunnies...
I think Boltar planted a few "agents" in the fembot, too...
Except in Silent Running it was an inside job perpetrated by a drugged-out Bruce Dern and a gimpy little robot...(and *after* he had cut the forests loose)
Also, space flight doesn't work like that... but every other series I've seen has portrayed space flight as far too similar to atmospheric flight, so I guess I shouldn't bother complaining.
I believe this can be explained as the "Buck Rogers Effect". In the first films (before rocket travel) the ships were all seen going in circles (small sets, short strings) and the sound was that of a large piston engine, similar to the high performance military aircraft of the time. It was something with which people could identify, even though it was incorrect.
And let's face it -- extra-atmospheric maneuvering ain't exactly sexy, so if Hollywood wants to cheat and have nice graceful arcs in an exciting dogfight I'll go ahead and suspend that portion of my right brain for a few minutes.
Wow.. you know.. I could *totally* live with that. And it would be much better than that "Theodore 'Christ' Preston" bullshit we all knew was coming but couldn't tear our eyes away from because of the sheer morbid horror of it all...
Let's face it, Keanu Reeves' best acting job came when he got run-through by John Malkovic's sword in "Dangerous Liasons" (oh, and I suppose "Speed" was kind of fun, but that's probably only because Dennis Hopper makes a good psycho).
Right on target. What's more effective (and considerably less expensive): A condom or an abortion?
Guess which one gets more headlines...
Ben didn't know the first Thing about space travel...
Nice cut-n-paste from the front page of the RNC website. It's really good to know that you actually dug all that up yourself... (yawn; btw, that is all just an attempt to smear the Democrats by creating some illusion of fealty to Howard Dean...)
So.. you have a couple of quotes from 1998 concerning "regime change". Did you forget who was in office at the time? Regime change in Iraq has been on the US Government's mind since 1991. The trick is exactly *how best to do it* without creating the disarray and power vacuum which exists now. Perhaps (and don't hurt yourself thinking about this) that's why Bush Sr. didn't allow Schwartzkopf to drive all the way to Baghdad back in Gulf-I... Bush Sr. was smart enough to know that without a concrete game plan in place to deal with the after-effects of toppling Saddam, the situation would become many times worse than the status-quo of containment (which had been working quite well, all Saddam press-ops aside).
Apparently Bush Jr. isn't as smart as his daddy...
Regarding your out-of-context snippet from Bob Graham, let's look at what then occurred...
Graham voted against authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq. (H.J.Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Adopted 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Graham Voted Nay) Sen. Graham Supported President George H.W. Bush In 1991 And Clinton In 1995 In Efforts Against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Regime, But Voted Against Support Of President George W. Bush In 2002.
So.. actually, it appears that Graham is consistent with his message, in spite of that single sentence you offered as "proof" of his waffling.
The rest of your post follows the same lines. I've put my karma where my mouth is.. how about you?
About as big an aberration as the "concrete proof" that Bush claimed he had regarding WMDs. That was the exact same intelligence he relied upon for Salmon Pak. Incidentally, there was ample evidence of the airliner parked there in 2000 (and even prior). You wanna make claims about that? We can trot out the tinfoil suspicions regarding Bush ignoring warnings pre-9/11... How do you wanna play it, Mr. AC?
recession inherited from the Clinton administration lives on until the 2004 elections.
Actually, Bush inherited a nicely balanced budget (indeed, in the surplus) and an economy so hopeful that one of Bush's campaign ideas (thankfully swept under the rug) was to make Social Security based on the stock market (incidentally an idea that Clinton, Gore, and anyone with a fiscal brain said was a *BAD* idea). In fact, as late as last year Bush still floated that Social-Security-based-on-stock-market balloon during a speech. There's a real fiscal genius running the White House... The bubble was sure to burst at some point. But the fact is that by this time 2001 (2002 at the latest) the economy should have corrected and been back to a more stable state. Instead, because Junior wants to run apeshit through the world like some coked up playboy, we are grasping for economic straws during a time of incredible unemployment. Instead of paying attention to the problems at home, Junior wanted to go create problems in the world so he could show how just like his daddy he could be (and I voted for Bush Sr.). Junior can't hold daddy's jock.
Yeah, the AARP, a truly conservative special interest group, supported passing of that bill. Funny how Clinton made promises of prescription drug benefits during both of his campaigns and yet it took Bush to get it done.
But what you conveniently left out was that the AARP "supported" this legislation because, in their words, it was "better than nothing". In fact, they were pushing all the way for it to be brought back to the original proposal before the Republicans destroyed it in committee. In fact, in the AARP commercials their "support" is explained in this light.
Would you like to ask the troops currently stationed in Afghanistan if we have forgotten about Al Qaeda or bin laden? How about the office of homeland security, I'm sure they don't give two shits about bin laden right? Of course the CIA and FBI could care less about him too.
How about asking the troops in Afghanistan if there are enough of them to do the job required of them? How about asking if they really were thrilled about their numbers being diverted to Iraq? How about asking how busy the CIA is trying to track down the Fedayeen leaders so our troops stop getting cut down a couple of soldiers at a time on an almost daily basis? How about asking why, after a campaign promise of "smaller government", the government was almost doubled in size by the addition of a single (IMHO unecessary) Cabinet (your "Homeland 'Security'")?
I guess the dead Jews who were killed by Palestinian terrorists publicly bankrolled by Saddam don't count in your eyes. The hundreds of Kurds killed by chemical weapons and the recently discovered mass graves don't make you a terrorist.
Here's where you can really get yourself in trouble. Let's keep this simple. Saddam, in his effort to maintain his self-image as a big player in the Arab world, made a large public speech where he promised payments for Palestinian "martyrs". In fact, such payment has *YET* to be made (even well before Gulf-II). Saddam was a tempest in a teapot, easily contained by the UN actions post-Gulf-I. As for your point regarding the Kurds... well...:
1. Bush Sr. urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam post-Gulf-I. They did, expecting US support. US support did not come, they got slaughtered by an injured and vengeful Saddam.
2. Iraq is not a "country". It is a confederation of disparate ethnic and religious parties who are quite frequently at bitter odds with each other, where the word "compromise" is not in their mutual vocabularies. A strong brutal leader is sometimes the only way to make all those parties behave. Is that a nice picture? Hell no. But it does accurately describe the shitstorm that is now present-day Iraq and why Western-style democracy probably won't work so well there. The biggest part of what makes our democracy work here is that the St
Tax Cut
You mean your one-time "benefit" of somewhere in the vicinity of $300? Real big help there.. Just in time to help boost Christmas spending so he can claim a "recovery" and a "robust, booming economy". Bzzzt.
Prescription Drugs
You mean the watered-down piece of shit that not even some Republicans wanted to sign because it held no real benefits for the majority and was actually just a step closer to privatization of Medicare? Bzzzzt.
War on Terrorism
Are you even still in the room? We totally forgot about Osama (a real live admitted terrorist) so that Dubya could go spend billions of our dollars destroying Saddam (a bad guy, but no terrorist [and don't even START that bullshit about his hosting Al Queda because the evidence does NOT support that]). So now, instead of making the world safer by taking out a very dangerous terrorist group he has scattered them to the winds (think cancerous metastasizing) and has gone to great (and expensive) lengths to further destabilize the Middle East by creating a desert-style Vietnam situation. Instead of using the political and sympathetic capital showered upon us by the world post-9/11 he has squandered it to the point where we are now feared and reviled like never before in history.
Oh, and did I forget squandering what was a budgetary surplus, creating the fastest-growing budget deficit this country has evern seen?
Bush promised smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a foreign policy of global cooperation. So far we have double the size of government, destroyed any sense of fiscal responsibility (all the while mired in a preventable recession) and bullied the rest of the world into hating us (even our allies are nervous these days).
Sounds like a great job....
"Hey Grandma! There's a new program I think you might enjoy called 'Foobar'. Type 'sudo apt-get install foobar', enter your password at the prompt, and tell me how you like the new program!"
"Gee Sonny.. that was swell. And I didn't even have to reboot! Here's a nice apple pie for you to take home to your mother..."