Now that I've finally managed to teach you how to find information for yourself (even though you failed, at least you finally tried to do something for yourself).
Riiiight. You've so schooled me. I mean seriously. That link you completely failed to provide TOTALLY blew away my argument. Of course you made up for your lack of knowledge by sputtering and calling me more names. I'm seeing a pattern with you... Profess knowledge, fail to back it up from other sources, start name calling, repeat.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. I've looked at the GAO site too. If you have a link, quit 'threatening' to send it--actually send it.
It is a fact that Reagan led the country to the largest growth of the US government in history.
That is indisputable, and I'd be happy to give you a link to the budget numbers, but it's entirely pointless. You'll just claim that whatever link I give you is some dumb commie without even bothering to read it and we'll be back to square one.
Yeah--a link would be nice. Of course if the link goes to a site "if*ckinghateregan.com/our-made-up-data/reganbudget.html" I'll be a bit suspicious. The fact that you had to predicate the handing-out of the link with a statement like that means it's probably some lib conspiracy site.
I double-checked the numbers, and I have to admit I'm wrong. It's actually Nixon that presided over the largest increase in entitlement spending--then FDR. (reference)
if you're going to put so much faith in a human being, spend at least one minute researching them before lying about matters of the public record in the midst of your fanboygasm.
Care to point out the statement I made, followed by a link to the public record that refutes my statement? After more replies than I care to count, you still refuse to cite any sort of fact. You appear to be under the impression that you are successfully refuting my points by being snide and calling me names, when in fact 'normal' people refute points by citing fact and using reason and logic.
You could provide examples of real substantive differences between their policies. Given that their policies are pretty much identical, you'll fail miserably as you obviously know.
I'm not arguing about their policies being "identical", I'm arguing about them being "identically disastrous".
You lose the ability to claim you believe in small government when you're defending him dipshit. He's the undisputed king of big government.
Uuh..that would be Franklin Roosevelt and Lynden Johnson not Ronald Reagan. Both of them democrats. It created tons of crap government programs for things like farmers, welfare, employment subsidies, etc...
Look up "The Great Society" and be schooled.
Of course you'll probably come back and say "Eliminating poverty and racism is good you commie!" to which I'll reply "Yeah--but I don't need the government to do it. I was below the poverty line for 8 months out of my adult life--and I worked my ass off to do better for myself and my family. I don't need a government handout to do it."
I'm not saying that Reagan, Bush, or any other conservative president was perfect--but definitely better than the libs and all the social policies they want to implement. How in the world can someone think that Hillary or Obama's free healthcare idea is really free? Who pays the f*cking bills for the doctors, nurses, and equipment? Someone has to--and I'm betting it's not coming out of their pocket book, but yours and mine. So tell me--why I should pay for someone elses healthcare?
Since you completely failed to answer my questions and all you are doing is name-calling and bashing, I'm assuming you're out of logical, rational, arguments based in fact?
Giving a blanket statement that their "policies are pretty much identical and identically disastrous" doesn't convince me of anything
That's why I gave all the examples, jackass as you well know. You have yet to attempt to refute one of them.
You really are a tool. How are you supposed to refute "their policies are pretty much identical and identically disastrous"?
Here, let me refute your factless statement in the best way I can: No, you're a stupid head.
Wow, what delusional nutjobs you wingnuts are. You believe any idiotic sound bit put out by Fox news even when it's directly contradicted by reality.
Clinton was no prize, but he did manage to have the people who attacked us on his watch caught, tried, and convicted.
Oh--that's right. Osama's men bombed the World Trade Center the first time on February 26, 1993--shortly after BJ Clinton took office...so what the hell did he do for the next 8 years? According to you he caught, tried, and convicted the people who attacked us. Or what about Saddam? I remember watching the video of his hanging...but I seem to recall that being while Bush was in office... Whatever. Of course then you go on to say that I'm blaming Clinton for Bushes failures. Yeah, Bush senior failed to get Saddam.
Trying to blame Clinton for Bush's failures is just disgusting though, of course you can't be a right wing nut without being a disgusting person and deeply ignorant.
That's ok. Try and attack me by saying I'm disgusting and ignorant--you know, rather than just presenting facts that back up your argument. My mother, sister, and extended family are all liberal. I know this tactic well. When you start to lose, start bashing on the person instead of refuting the message. Of course when that fails, they usually start acting confused and/or say "I'm not going to discuss it anymore".
You might have noticed Bush's systematic dismantling of our anti terrorism aparatus, his refusal to allow the head of the team investigating the Cole bombing back into Yemen where a joint FBI CIA taskforce (you know, the things that could never happen demanding removing the demonstrably necessary separation between intelligence groups and creating the gestapo bullshit DHS) was on their trail.
No, I failed to notice it. It must have been so covert it slipped past me. Have any links on the subject? I'd be interested in reading it. However if you're trying to get me to condone, side-with, or say I like the DHS, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc... you won't get it. I think most of the government should be put out to pasture. The government should only be there for national defence, and a few other small things as outlined in the constitution. The people should be responsible for themselves.
Gee illegal warantless wiretaps? Third world death camps "extrodinary rendition", selling a war based on well known lies?
That's so left it's hard to stomach. The judge who originally wrote the wiretapping law and setup the FISA court said the Bush administration has done nothing illegal. On the flip-side, if the president had done something illegal, it's Nancy Pelosi's job to start impeachment proceedings--and you know a crazy liberal like Pelosi would love do impeach Bush...but she can't, because she has nothing on him.
As for selling a war based on known lies...? What lies? Were we attacked on September 11 2001 or not? Yes. Who did it? Members of Al Queda. Did an assload of liberals vote to go to war? Yes.
What about Iraq? Yeah--a lot of libs voted for the Iraq war too. 77 members of the house voted to go to war in Iraq, 23 voted against it. So when it's been voted that we go to war, how is that vote illegal? I'm not trying to say the war itself is right or wrong--I'm saying it was voted upon and decided that we should go to war. That means it's legal.
Ahh, so opening lines of communication is "disasterous", yet pretending t
Bush and McCain are not even in the same ballpark as Reagan.
Where did you get that crazy idea?
The *only* major difference between Bush and Reagan is that Reagan was an actor and therefore a good liar.
Their policies are pretty much identical and identically disasterous. In Reagan's day there was more actual value still in this country so when him and his cronies leached it off the system could still handle it.
Other than that though, we have the same policies, same people, and same contempt for the law and the constitution.
McCain is just a me too.
Acting does not make you a "good liar" anymore than my wife and I having sex makes her a prostitute.
Giving a blanket statement that their "policies are pretty much identical and identically disastrous" doesn't convince me of anything--anymore than me saying "Clinton's policies were disastrous and since he wasn't an actor, he was a terrible liar". I could say however than Clinton had a chance to go in and deal with Osama Bin Laden during his two terms as president. He decided not to go get a terrorist--and unfortunately that allowed the largest act of terrorism ever on US soil.
What is the contempt for the law and the constitution you are talking about? I know with Bush he's failing to secure our borders and protect the nation, and McCain--well, I despise the man and due to his flip-flopping I have no clue where he stands on issues. I suppose even if he took a stand on the issues, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
But I feel the same about the liberal candidates. Hillary has been shown again and again to lie and cheat. Obama--all he has is a catch phrase "change!" and a few 'disastrous' policies like wanting to meet with leaders of terrorist states, drink the cool-aide, and try to get along.
That would have involved integrity on the part of our government. He avoided execution for his many acts of treason the same way Bush has. Through the cowardice and dishonesty of Congress and their supporters, that includes you, of course.
It must have been difficult to use the words "integrity" and "government" in the same sentence without laughing out loud. You'll get no argument there--but seriously...treason? Are you telling me that whiny bitches like Nancy Pelosi are just sitting there with the knowledge that Bush committed treason? Hell no. If he had committed treason they would be all over him in a second. The problem is that Bush hasn't committed treason.
I don't know where you think I support Congress, cowardice, and dishonesty. I can't think of a single thing Congress has done that I agree with in the last year. I just don't see Reagan as being a coward or dishonest.
Hell, they brought impeachment proceedings over a fucking blowjob and flat out refused to do that in the case of real actual treason.
If I recall, impeachment proceedings were brought over lying to congress about a fucking blowjob--not the actual blowjob. What "real actual treason" are you talking about?
If you're trying to get me to logically defend the integrity of Congress you're crazy.
No, I don't like the Reagan style Republicans like Bushes and McCain. That was my point. You seem really confused.
Bush and McCain are not even in the same ballpark as Reagan.
Right, I pay attention and therefore I'm both "liberal" and a "nut job". Interesting line of reasoning, but I'm a bit concerned about its validity.
Well--I haven't seen any actual facts being thrown around from you OR me. We're currently engaged in bashing each others views without logic or reason to back it up. (Like my Bush/McCain vs Reagan statement. No facts, just an opinion.)
Selling crack to buy guns for terrorists in direct violation of Congress? Where were you in the 80s?
...and what jail is he in now? What judge sentenced him?
(And I'm not oblivious to the argument going the other way--who sentenced Bill Clinton for lying to congress? No one.)
Heading? Surely you mean where the party has long since gone?
I can't argue that one.
and instead elected the fascist traitor Ronald Reagan.
Oh--now I get it. You're one of those liberal nut jobs.
That statement explains the rest of your statements. You think it's good that the Republican part is becoming a bunch of liberal pansies like McCain...
Care to tell me how Reagan was a traitor?
How did he betray his country by committing treason?
Wasn't there a case recently where they decided it's illegal for you to refuse this?
I was really hoping one of the distros (hoping for Debian / Ubuntu) would do the full-disk encryption with your password stored on a USB key--any maybe not even a simple password, but rather something similar to a GPG key or SSL cert.
Then you can just tell the border agents that you don't have the 'key' with you. You FedEx'd it on ahead to your destination. Of course you'd always keep a backup copy in a safety deposit box or safe back at home--and maybe a copy you carry with you at the airport but could trash easily if searched. (Maybe make it small enough to be somewhat edible, and make the parts susceptible to stomach acid.)
you gotta low how bold corporate shills can speak due to years of republican administration spoilage.
how bold corporate shills can speak
What? She's not allowed to speak? Or she's not allowed to speak boldly? Or is it that she works for a corporation? Isn't this (at least where I am, and Comcast is) America? Ever hear of the first amendment? Be you a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Marxists, or Communist--you can't restrict the freedom of speech in America.
republican administration spoilage
Meh. I'm a conservative which means most liberals identify me as a "republican", but I'm pretty pissed about the way the party is heading. It used to be about doing honorable and decent things, limiting the control and taxation of the government, standing against our enemies, and keeping a great nation going strong. Now it's about power, gay sex with interns, having a 'secret' second family, compromising beliefs, and slowly eroding the constitution. Not saying Democrats are any better though--Bill slept with a fat chick;). (Yeah--I'm taking it easy on the Democrats at the moment. If the party that used to share my views is collapsing, it's kinda hard to throw stones.)
Maybe Microsoft's marketing droids could use that. You could run your computer everyday for less than a cup of coffee. That actually makes it sounds good.
...although...
My kid is only 2 and is starting to get the hang of using the mouse...I'm guessing he'll be needing a computer of his own around 5. My grandfather is somewhere around 80 and still using his computer... So if I take those two (very rough and non-scientific) values and come up with 75 years of computer use, you can expect to pay $16,698.75 for a lifetime of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office from your costs of $0.61 per day. It also looks like it could be a bit less if you follow the upgrade path. Of course it doesn't take into account things like inflation or Microsoft missing a shipping deadline by a few years.
Of course my house has been running Linux for the last 3 years. My software costs are still $0. That $16k could buy me some nice shiny new hardware.
That's nothing. When the IP counter passed 666,666,666, I started getting tons of packet loss. After a lot of debugging, I figured out the IP Rapture had occurred. Only the packets with the evil bit were left behind...
When mac users/programmers say "Our platform is great!", windows users/programmers don't say "Ours is too!", but rather insist on "No, you suck!".
Of course that's going to be the answer.
A valid response to "The Mac is an awesome platform" is not "Windows is an awesome platform too". Why? Because the initial topic was the Mac platform and how awesome it was.
For example, if someone comes up to me and says "My Tandy TRS-80 is a really fast computer", I'm not going to say "My AMD Athlon 64 2800+ is fast too". I'm going to say "No, your Tandy TRS-80 is an old piece of shit."
MADD also is asking Rockstar Games to consider removing GTA IV from distribution 'out of respect for the millions of victims/survivors of drunk driving.'
And today, I am asking Senator Kennedy to consider removing himself from office 'out of respect for the millions of victims/survivors of alcoholism.'
And if I told you the drivers were probably broken all the time, and all the old versions of Windows just played nice about it and the enhanced security in Vista no longer does, then thats Vistas fault as well, right? And I am just a lame M$ fanboy, right?
Nope. If the drivers were broken originally and all the old versions of Windows played nice, it's simply a little less Microsoft's fault. Although not much less.
Look--if you're worried that I'm just Microsoft bashing, I'll tell you two areas where I think Microsoft totally kicks ass. IDEs and Microsoft Money. Those are the two things I miss by not running Windows at home. The Visual Studio development system is pretty damn nice. And Microsoft Money has no equivalent on the Linux platform. I've tried all the free ones and I've tried moneydance. Microsoft just wins hands-down. Although I love writing in python using vi, it would be so much nicer if I had an IDE with auto-completion and better integration with the rest of the tools on the Linux platform. And no, eclipse doesn't count--because either it sucks ass or I'm using it wrong...;)
If your script isn't working on Vista, the problem is YOUR SCRIPT. Get over it.
Yeah--fuck backwards compatibility. It's for sissies! I'd hate to have to reinvest significant amounts of time upgrading programs, scripts, drivers, hardware, and what-not with every new version of an OS. I mean damn--I've been running Ubuntu at home since Hoary. I can't f*cking believe the audacity of them--letting me use the same damn printer I've been using for years.
Sorry, you're not using a Vista print driver, and blaming Vista? Hmm, what would/ers say if I just ran out and buy some new hardware and it didn't work with Linux? Oh yeah, "you should have checked hardware compatibility, noob!" Yes, I do believe that's the response I'd get. You (or the person that bought the laptop) didn't check anything and just ran out and bought it. Someone failed in their job, likely you, since you should be enforcing the notion that you should at least be consulted before buying new computer equipment.
See previous paragraph. If I buy hardware that is 'windows compatible' or 'linux compatible', I expect it to work. I can understand if I'm trying to use a 400 year old printer that was designed for DOS 0.1 alpha, but it's a fairly new printer from 2002. I can totally understand having to upgrade a video card to work with Vista--or get a faster machine, or more memory--but I don't see why Microsoft broke compatibility with just about everything--video drivers, print drivers, and I'm sure there's more that I haven't run into yet since there are only two machines with Vista on my network.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that you don't hate working with Windows and would rather be admining unix. So go do that.
You could shorten that sentence to "Which has nothing to do with the fact that you hate working"...
But it pays well--allowing me to eat, and have a roof over my head, and raise a family. I'm simply saying that I dislike certain aspects of the Windows platform. But the one thing that seems to keep it in the corporate world is backwards compatibility. Now that Vista is breaking that, I'm getting a few customers starting to ask about Linux. While I'm thrilled about that--it's not always in line with their business objectives. (Someone like an accountant who uses QuickBooks as their primary business application should probably stick to Windows--at least until Intuit provides a Linux-based or web-based version.)
People calling Vista garbage pretty much have no clue. You wouldn't install BSD without making sure everything would work, yet you would with Vista. Stop blaming your adversion to learning on others and take responsiblity for yourself. I've seen people like you first hand; "Windows is stupid because I can't figure out how to make it do X, and I can't be bothered to spend five minutes looking it up and learning."
The reason I'm calling Vista garbage is NOT because I picked up a shiny new workstation without reading the specs and something didn't work. The reason I'm calling Vista garbage is that I have hardware that is listed as "Windows compatible" (and it worked under XP) and it suddenly isn't working anymore with no Vista drivers available. And to tweak your quote "Windows is stupid--because while I can figure out how to make it do X, I don't want to be bothered with having to change all my shit around because someone at Microsoft had a dumb idea and I'll probably have to change it again when Windows 7 (or 8 or 9 or whatever the hell the next version is) comes out in a year.
Pretend for a moment that I bought one of the new Dells with pre-installed Ubuntu and it came with a printer. If an upgrade to Ubuntu made my printer not work, I'd be a little pissed. It's never happened in all the years I've used Linux. (Granted, 6 is not all that much compared to some of Slashdot).
Of course the whole argument can be made that if we constantly hold on to backward compatibility, we'll be constrained in moving forward with software. Meh. True. Maybe I do just hate Microsoft.
Do people complain that they have to enter their admin password when they install something on a mac ? how is this any different, except that you can turn it off ?
No clue--I haven't touched a mac in years. But what I expect is that when I'm an administrator that I am allowed to do administrative things without tons of annoying and nagging prompts. Especially if I'm scripting. Once my clients are ready to deploy Vista, I'll start modifying my scripts and tools to work with Vista's stupid restrictions.
Could you imagine if Canonical did something like this? Any time you logged in as root you still had to do something like 'sudo' to run privileged commands? It would mess up automated scripts and annoy admins. Debian would probably have a lot more followers the day that happened.
This is the major problem you're having. So instead of bashing MS because you can't figure out how to script things properly or even prevent someone from "introducing" a new computer to your network, quit your job and find one administering *nix.
No--I'm scripting things properly--it's just that Microsoft decided to 'add some value' to their new OS that prevents scripts that worked perfectly under Windows 2000, 2003, and XP from working on Vista. And just to be clear, the Vista laptops are going away because they flat out won't print to any printer. The print spooler service constantly crashes and the printer manufacturers say they aren't releasing Vista drivers or that we will have to wait for updates before things actually work correctly.
Plus the part you couldn't have known before you dispensed with your witty advice of quitting my job was that their primary business application doesn't run well under Vista. The developers say it won't be fixed until sometime in 2009. So seeing as how Vista is a huge pile of garbage and flat-out doesn't work due to factors beyond my control, and not because I'm a n00b admin, we'll be overwriting a few installs of Vista with XP.
So driver bugs are Vista's fault? Bad network configuration is Vista's fault? Just blame Vista for everything that isn't working, right?
Sounds good to me. The printers on the network worked with Windows NT4, Windows 2000, Windows 2003, and Windows XP. I'm sure they would have worked with Windows 95, 98, and possibly even ME. But for some strange reason, Vista is all broken. The print spooler constantly crashes. So yeah--blaming Vista and Microsoft for totally making a f*ckup of their OS is what I'm doing.
I was referring mainly to the idea of every user running as an administrator which was used by most home users. Regarding your script, UAC can be disabled for administrators (or anyone) via secpol.msc. From then on, the administrator mode will run as one would expect. Whether you can change that though is dependent on your organization's security policies.
True--everyone running as an admin is retarded. But on the flip-side, disabling UAC is one more hurdle/annoyance of Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that I've finally managed to teach you how to find information for yourself (even though you failed, at least you finally tried to do something for yourself).
Riiiight. You've so schooled me. I mean seriously. That link you completely failed to provide TOTALLY blew away my argument. Of course you made up for your lack of knowledge by sputtering and calling me more names. I'm seeing a pattern with you... Profess knowledge, fail to back it up from other sources, start name calling, repeat.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. I've looked at the GAO site too. If you have a link, quit 'threatening' to send it--actually send it.
It is a fact that Reagan led the country to the largest growth of the US government in history. That is indisputable, and I'd be happy to give you a link to the budget numbers, but it's entirely pointless. You'll just claim that whatever link I give you is some dumb commie without even bothering to read it and we'll be back to square one.
Yeah--a link would be nice. Of course if the link goes to a site "if*ckinghateregan.com/our-made-up-data/reganbudget.html" I'll be a bit suspicious. The fact that you had to predicate the handing-out of the link with a statement like that means it's probably some lib conspiracy site.
I double-checked the numbers, and I have to admit I'm wrong. It's actually Nixon that presided over the largest increase in entitlement spending--then FDR. (reference)
if you're going to put so much faith in a human being, spend at least one minute researching them before lying about matters of the public record in the midst of your fanboygasm.
Care to point out the statement I made, followed by a link to the public record that refutes my statement? After more replies than I care to count, you still refuse to cite any sort of fact. You appear to be under the impression that you are successfully refuting my points by being snide and calling me names, when in fact 'normal' people refute points by citing fact and using reason and logic.
Grow up.
You could provide examples of real substantive differences between their policies. Given that their policies are pretty much identical, you'll fail miserably as you obviously know.
I'm not arguing about their policies being "identical", I'm arguing about them being "identically disastrous".
You lose the ability to claim you believe in small government when you're defending him dipshit. He's the undisputed king of big government.
Uuh..that would be Franklin Roosevelt and Lynden Johnson not Ronald Reagan. Both of them democrats. It created tons of crap government programs for things like farmers, welfare, employment subsidies, etc...
Look up "The Great Society" and be schooled.
Of course you'll probably come back and say "Eliminating poverty and racism is good you commie!" to which I'll reply "Yeah--but I don't need the government to do it. I was below the poverty line for 8 months out of my adult life--and I worked my ass off to do better for myself and my family. I don't need a government handout to do it."
I'm not saying that Reagan, Bush, or any other conservative president was perfect--but definitely better than the libs and all the social policies they want to implement. How in the world can someone think that Hillary or Obama's free healthcare idea is really free? Who pays the f*cking bills for the doctors, nurses, and equipment? Someone has to--and I'm betting it's not coming out of their pocket book, but yours and mine. So tell me--why I should pay for someone elses healthcare?
Since you completely failed to answer my questions and all you are doing is name-calling and bashing, I'm assuming you're out of logical, rational, arguments based in fact?
Giving a blanket statement that their "policies are pretty much identical and identically disastrous" doesn't convince me of anything
That's why I gave all the examples, jackass as you well know. You have yet to attempt to refute one of them.
You really are a tool. How are you supposed to refute "their policies are pretty much identical and identically disastrous"?
Here, let me refute your factless statement in the best way I can: No, you're a stupid head.
Wow, what delusional nutjobs you wingnuts are. You believe any idiotic sound bit put out by Fox news even when it's directly contradicted by reality.
Clinton was no prize, but he did manage to have the people who attacked us on his watch caught, tried, and convicted.
Oh--that's right. Osama's men bombed the World Trade Center the first time on February 26, 1993--shortly after BJ Clinton took office...so what the hell did he do for the next 8 years? According to you he caught, tried, and convicted the people who attacked us. Or what about Saddam? I remember watching the video of his hanging...but I seem to recall that being while Bush was in office... Whatever. Of course then you go on to say that I'm blaming Clinton for Bushes failures. Yeah, Bush senior failed to get Saddam.
Trying to blame Clinton for Bush's failures is just disgusting though, of course you can't be a right wing nut without being a disgusting person and deeply ignorant.
That's ok. Try and attack me by saying I'm disgusting and ignorant--you know, rather than just presenting facts that back up your argument. My mother, sister, and extended family are all liberal. I know this tactic well. When you start to lose, start bashing on the person instead of refuting the message. Of course when that fails, they usually start acting confused and/or say "I'm not going to discuss it anymore".
You might have noticed Bush's systematic dismantling of our anti terrorism aparatus, his refusal to allow the head of the team investigating the Cole bombing back into Yemen where a joint FBI CIA taskforce (you know, the things that could never happen demanding removing the demonstrably necessary separation between intelligence groups and creating the gestapo bullshit DHS) was on their trail.
No, I failed to notice it. It must have been so covert it slipped past me. Have any links on the subject? I'd be interested in reading it. However if you're trying to get me to condone, side-with, or say I like the DHS, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc... you won't get it. I think most of the government should be put out to pasture. The government should only be there for national defence, and a few other small things as outlined in the constitution. The people should be responsible for themselves.
Gee illegal warantless wiretaps? Third world death camps "extrodinary rendition", selling a war based on well known lies?
That's so left it's hard to stomach. The judge who originally wrote the wiretapping law and setup the FISA court said the Bush administration has done nothing illegal. On the flip-side, if the president had done something illegal, it's Nancy Pelosi's job to start impeachment proceedings--and you know a crazy liberal like Pelosi would love do impeach Bush...but she can't, because she has nothing on him.
As for selling a war based on known lies...? What lies? Were we attacked on September 11 2001 or not? Yes. Who did it? Members of Al Queda. Did an assload of liberals vote to go to war? Yes.
What about Iraq? Yeah--a lot of libs voted for the Iraq war too. 77 members of the house voted to go to war in Iraq, 23 voted against it. So when it's been voted that we go to war, how is that vote illegal? I'm not trying to say the war itself is right or wrong--I'm saying it was voted upon and decided that we should go to war. That means it's legal.
Ahh, so opening lines of communication is "disasterous", yet pretending t
Bush and McCain are not even in the same ballpark as Reagan.
Where did you get that crazy idea?
The *only* major difference between Bush and Reagan is that Reagan was an actor and therefore a good liar.
Their policies are pretty much identical and identically disasterous. In Reagan's day there was more actual value still in this country so when him and his cronies leached it off the system could still handle it.
Other than that though, we have the same policies, same people, and same contempt for the law and the constitution.
McCain is just a me too.
Acting does not make you a "good liar" anymore than my wife and I having sex makes her a prostitute.
Giving a blanket statement that their "policies are pretty much identical and identically disastrous" doesn't convince me of anything--anymore than me saying "Clinton's policies were disastrous and since he wasn't an actor, he was a terrible liar". I could say however than Clinton had a chance to go in and deal with Osama Bin Laden during his two terms as president. He decided not to go get a terrorist--and unfortunately that allowed the largest act of terrorism ever on US soil.
What is the contempt for the law and the constitution you are talking about? I know with Bush he's failing to secure our borders and protect the nation, and McCain--well, I despise the man and due to his flip-flopping I have no clue where he stands on issues. I suppose even if he took a stand on the issues, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
But I feel the same about the liberal candidates. Hillary has been shown again and again to lie and cheat. Obama--all he has is a catch phrase "change!" and a few 'disastrous' policies like wanting to meet with leaders of terrorist states, drink the cool-aide, and try to get along.
That would have involved integrity on the part of our government. He avoided execution for his many acts of treason the same way Bush has. Through the cowardice and dishonesty of Congress and their supporters, that includes you, of course.
It must have been difficult to use the words "integrity" and "government" in the same sentence without laughing out loud. You'll get no argument there--but seriously...treason? Are you telling me that whiny bitches like Nancy Pelosi are just sitting there with the knowledge that Bush committed treason? Hell no. If he had committed treason they would be all over him in a second. The problem is that Bush hasn't committed treason.
I don't know where you think I support Congress, cowardice, and dishonesty. I can't think of a single thing Congress has done that I agree with in the last year. I just don't see Reagan as being a coward or dishonest.
Hell, they brought impeachment proceedings over a fucking blowjob and flat out refused to do that in the case of real actual treason.
If I recall, impeachment proceedings were brought over lying to congress about a fucking blowjob--not the actual blowjob. What "real actual treason" are you talking about?
If you're trying to get me to logically defend the integrity of Congress you're crazy.
You're right--that would be crazy.
No, I don't like the Reagan style Republicans like Bushes and McCain. That was my point. You seem really confused.
...and what jail is he in now? What judge sentenced him?
Bush and McCain are not even in the same ballpark as Reagan.
Right, I pay attention and therefore I'm both "liberal" and a "nut job". Interesting line of reasoning, but I'm a bit concerned about its validity.
Well--I haven't seen any actual facts being thrown around from you OR me. We're currently engaged in bashing each others views without logic or reason to back it up. (Like my Bush/McCain vs Reagan statement. No facts, just an opinion.)
Selling crack to buy guns for terrorists in direct violation of Congress? Where were you in the 80s?
(And I'm not oblivious to the argument going the other way--who sentenced Bill Clinton for lying to congress? No one.)
Heading? Surely you mean where the party has long since gone?
I can't argue that one.
and instead elected the fascist traitor Ronald Reagan.
Oh--now I get it. You're one of those liberal nut jobs.
That statement explains the rest of your statements. You think it's good that the Republican part is becoming a bunch of liberal pansies like McCain...
Care to tell me how Reagan was a traitor?
How did he betray his country by committing treason?
Wasn't there a case recently where they decided it's illegal for you to refuse this?
I was really hoping one of the distros (hoping for Debian / Ubuntu) would do the full-disk encryption with your password stored on a USB key--any maybe not even a simple password, but rather something similar to a GPG key or SSL cert.
Then you can just tell the border agents that you don't have the 'key' with you. You FedEx'd it on ahead to your destination. Of course you'd always keep a backup copy in a safety deposit box or safe back at home--and maybe a copy you carry with you at the airport but could trash easily if searched. (Maybe make it small enough to be somewhat edible, and make the parts susceptible to stomach acid.)
you gotta low how bold corporate shills can speak due to years of republican administration spoilage.
;). (Yeah--I'm taking it easy on the Democrats at the moment. If the party that used to share my views is collapsing, it's kinda hard to throw stones.)
how bold corporate shills can speak
What? She's not allowed to speak? Or she's not allowed to speak boldly? Or is it that she works for a corporation? Isn't this (at least where I am, and Comcast is) America? Ever hear of the first amendment? Be you a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Marxists, or Communist--you can't restrict the freedom of speech in America.
republican administration spoilage
Meh. I'm a conservative which means most liberals identify me as a "republican", but I'm pretty pissed about the way the party is heading. It used to be about doing honorable and decent things, limiting the control and taxation of the government, standing against our enemies, and keeping a great nation going strong. Now it's about power, gay sex with interns, having a 'secret' second family, compromising beliefs, and slowly eroding the constitution. Not saying Democrats are any better though--Bill slept with a fat chick
80x30 grey on black.
Oh crap. We're forked.
Go back and read my post.
Meh...I still stand by mine.
the cost per day only goes up to $0.61 per day.
...although...
Maybe Microsoft's marketing droids could use that. You could run your computer everyday for less than a cup of coffee. That actually makes it sounds good.
My kid is only 2 and is starting to get the hang of using the mouse...I'm guessing he'll be needing a computer of his own around 5. My grandfather is somewhere around 80 and still using his computer... So if I take those two (very rough and non-scientific) values and come up with 75 years of computer use, you can expect to pay $16,698.75 for a lifetime of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office from your costs of $0.61 per day. It also looks like it could be a bit less if you follow the upgrade path. Of course it doesn't take into account things like inflation or Microsoft missing a shipping deadline by a few years.
Of course my house has been running Linux for the last 3 years. My software costs are still $0. That $16k could buy me some nice shiny new hardware.
Hey, I'm 2/3 of a person, you insensitive clod!
That's nothing. When the IP counter passed 666,666,666, I started getting tons of packet loss. After a lot of debugging, I figured out the IP Rapture had occurred. Only the packets with the evil bit were left behind...
David Roberson...predicts that by 2013 the storage industry will be shipping a yottabyte (a billion gigabytes) of storage capacity annually
Something tells me David Roberson received a copy of the initial specs for Windows 9.
When mac users/programmers say "Our platform is great!", windows users/programmers don't say "Ours is too!", but rather insist on "No, you suck!".
Of course that's going to be the answer.
A valid response to "The Mac is an awesome platform" is not "Windows is an awesome platform too". Why? Because the initial topic was the Mac platform and how awesome it was.
For example, if someone comes up to me and says "My Tandy TRS-80 is a really fast computer", I'm not going to say "My AMD Athlon 64 2800+ is fast too". I'm going to say "No, your Tandy TRS-80 is an old piece of shit."
Really now? You think everyone in Iran is ready to die,
It doesn't have to be everyone--just the one or ones with the "big red button".
MADD also is asking Rockstar Games to consider removing GTA IV from distribution 'out of respect for the millions of victims/survivors of drunk driving.'
And today, I am asking Senator Kennedy to consider removing himself from office 'out of respect for the millions of victims/survivors of alcoholism.'
And if I told you the drivers were probably broken all the time, and all the old versions of Windows just played nice about it and the enhanced security in Vista no longer does, then thats Vistas fault as well, right? And I am just a lame M$ fanboy, right?
;)
Nope. If the drivers were broken originally and all the old versions of Windows played nice, it's simply a little less Microsoft's fault. Although not much less.
Look--if you're worried that I'm just Microsoft bashing, I'll tell you two areas where I think Microsoft totally kicks ass. IDEs and Microsoft Money. Those are the two things I miss by not running Windows at home. The Visual Studio development system is pretty damn nice. And Microsoft Money has no equivalent on the Linux platform. I've tried all the free ones and I've tried moneydance. Microsoft just wins hands-down. Although I love writing in python using vi, it would be so much nicer if I had an IDE with auto-completion and better integration with the rest of the tools on the Linux platform. And no, eclipse doesn't count--because either it sucks ass or I'm using it wrong...
If your script isn't working on Vista, the problem is YOUR SCRIPT. Get over it.
/ers say if I just ran out and buy some new hardware and it didn't work with Linux? Oh yeah, "you should have checked hardware compatibility, noob!" Yes, I do believe that's the response I'd get. You (or the person that bought the laptop) didn't check anything and just ran out and bought it. Someone failed in their job, likely you, since you should be enforcing the notion that you should at least be consulted before buying new computer equipment.
Yeah--fuck backwards compatibility. It's for sissies! I'd hate to have to reinvest significant amounts of time upgrading programs, scripts, drivers, hardware, and what-not with every new version of an OS. I mean damn--I've been running Ubuntu at home since Hoary. I can't f*cking believe the audacity of them--letting me use the same damn printer I've been using for years.
Sorry, you're not using a Vista print driver, and blaming Vista? Hmm, what would
See previous paragraph. If I buy hardware that is 'windows compatible' or 'linux compatible', I expect it to work. I can understand if I'm trying to use a 400 year old printer that was designed for DOS 0.1 alpha, but it's a fairly new printer from 2002. I can totally understand having to upgrade a video card to work with Vista--or get a faster machine, or more memory--but I don't see why Microsoft broke compatibility with just about everything--video drivers, print drivers, and I'm sure there's more that I haven't run into yet since there are only two machines with Vista on my network.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that you don't hate working with Windows and would rather be admining unix. So go do that.
You could shorten that sentence to "Which has nothing to do with the fact that you hate working"...
But it pays well--allowing me to eat, and have a roof over my head, and raise a family. I'm simply saying that I dislike certain aspects of the Windows platform. But the one thing that seems to keep it in the corporate world is backwards compatibility. Now that Vista is breaking that, I'm getting a few customers starting to ask about Linux. While I'm thrilled about that--it's not always in line with their business objectives. (Someone like an accountant who uses QuickBooks as their primary business application should probably stick to Windows--at least until Intuit provides a Linux-based or web-based version.)
People calling Vista garbage pretty much have no clue. You wouldn't install BSD without making sure everything would work, yet you would with Vista. Stop blaming your adversion to learning on others and take responsiblity for yourself. I've seen people like you first hand; "Windows is stupid because I can't figure out how to make it do X, and I can't be bothered to spend five minutes looking it up and learning."
The reason I'm calling Vista garbage is NOT because I picked up a shiny new workstation without reading the specs and something didn't work. The reason I'm calling Vista garbage is that I have hardware that is listed as "Windows compatible" (and it worked under XP) and it suddenly isn't working anymore with no Vista drivers available. And to tweak your quote "Windows is stupid--because while I can figure out how to make it do X, I don't want to be bothered with having to change all my shit around because someone at Microsoft had a dumb idea and I'll probably have to change it again when Windows 7 (or 8 or 9 or whatever the hell the next version is) comes out in a year.
Pretend for a moment that I bought one of the new Dells with pre-installed Ubuntu and it came with a printer. If an upgrade to Ubuntu made my printer not work, I'd be a little pissed. It's never happened in all the years I've used Linux. (Granted, 6 is not all that much compared to some of Slashdot).
Of course the whole argument can be made that if we constantly hold on to backward compatibility, we'll be constrained in moving forward with software. Meh. True. Maybe I do just hate Microsoft.
Do people complain that they have to enter their admin password when they install something on a mac ? how is this any different, except that you can turn it off ?
No clue--I haven't touched a mac in years. But what I expect is that when I'm an administrator that I am allowed to do administrative things without tons of annoying and nagging prompts. Especially if I'm scripting. Once my clients are ready to deploy Vista, I'll start modifying my scripts and tools to work with Vista's stupid restrictions.
Could you imagine if Canonical did something like this? Any time you logged in as root you still had to do something like 'sudo' to run privileged commands? It would mess up automated scripts and annoy admins. Debian would probably have a lot more followers the day that happened.
This is the major problem you're having. So instead of bashing MS because you can't figure out how to script things properly or even prevent someone from "introducing" a new computer to your network, quit your job and find one administering *nix.
No--I'm scripting things properly--it's just that Microsoft decided to 'add some value' to their new OS that prevents scripts that worked perfectly under Windows 2000, 2003, and XP from working on Vista. And just to be clear, the Vista laptops are going away because they flat out won't print to any printer. The print spooler service constantly crashes and the printer manufacturers say they aren't releasing Vista drivers or that we will have to wait for updates before things actually work correctly.
Plus the part you couldn't have known before you dispensed with your witty advice of quitting my job was that their primary business application doesn't run well under Vista. The developers say it won't be fixed until sometime in 2009. So seeing as how Vista is a huge pile of garbage and flat-out doesn't work due to factors beyond my control, and not because I'm a n00b admin, we'll be overwriting a few installs of Vista with XP.
So driver bugs are Vista's fault? Bad network configuration is Vista's fault? Just blame Vista for everything that isn't working, right?
Sounds good to me. The printers on the network worked with Windows NT4, Windows 2000, Windows 2003, and Windows XP. I'm sure they would have worked with Windows 95, 98, and possibly even ME. But for some strange reason, Vista is all broken. The print spooler constantly crashes. So yeah--blaming Vista and Microsoft for totally making a f*ckup of their OS is what I'm doing.
I don't even manage 80 computers and I had no problem getting Vista to run a vbscript at login with no UAC prompt (and I left UAC enabled).
They aren't login scripts, they are just scripts I run from the command line to automate a few tasks.
Heck, I even ran into a problem when I was trying to do a simple task (I think it was 'net use') triggering UAC.
I was referring mainly to the idea of every user running as an administrator which was used by most home users. Regarding your script, UAC can be disabled for administrators (or anyone) via secpol.msc. From then on, the administrator mode will run as one would expect. Whether you can change that though is dependent on your organization's security policies.
True--everyone running as an admin is retarded. But on the flip-side, disabling UAC is one more hurdle/annoyance of Vista.