As a Linux user I haven't used Photoshop all that much, and so when I do use it I find it a little awkward and clumsy to use. However, as a longtime linux user I _have_ used Gimp quite a bit (I did web applications projects for 5+ years before I got my current job) so I am extremely familiar with its interface, tools and general methodology... and I will quite LOUDLY and VOCALLY state that it SUCKS! (DID YOU HEAR THAT GIMP-GUYS??? IT SUCKS!!!) I find it very counter-intuitive in most areas, though its reasonably useful in its basic mode. If you just want to open a picture, resize it, do some color adjustments or add a caption, gimp works pretty well for that. And its layering isn't all that bad. But when you want more-- it gets complicated and confusing-- and some dialogs/tools have persistant states and some don't and which do and which don't is very inconsistent-- and 9 times out of 10 when there is a script-foo plugin I want to use, it crashes, does something irreversibly horrible and ugly to my image, or has incredibly cryptic controls that make no sense whatsoever (has anybody ever heard of DOCS?? They're really cool-- you can READ THEM and LEARN STUFF from them--- why don't they MAKE some for these plugins???) Using gimp is, in a word, E-X-A-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-N-G !!! And I agree it has a ton of power, and that you can do tons of cools stuff with it, that in many respects its infinitely more hackable than Photoshop probably is, and that in spite of its counter-intuitive, brain-dead, dysfunctional interface-- I've actually done some really nice stuff with it-- and deep down I sorta secretly _like_ it..... and I _HATE_ it too... OOOOOH! It makes me so veeerrrryyy angry!
But hey, that's gimp for ya. What can you do? Nobody said it was easy!:)
Okay-- let's assume we agree with your basic statements there-- and then let me point out that Once upon a time... there wasn't anything called Windows. And there was no support for it either. CP/M and PCDOS ruled the day (okay, well sorta)-- then this Windows thing came along and people started using it-- and after awhile, the vendors HAD to support it because there was a large-enough base of users to make it practical, cost-effective (and downright suicidal if they didn't!) The same is/will be true for Linux. Continue to adopt, support, grow and use Linux and sooner or later the people who want to make money off of support (or sell products that require support) will eventually come around to the notion that in order to survive they must support... (gasp!) LINUX! Its already happening. I see the word LINUX on more and more packages (as in "systems supported: Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac, Linux") or drivers available for LINUX-- even if you have to go around back to get them or download them off of some obscure portion of the vendor's website-- the point is: the Linux drivers ARE showing up! How long has THAT been true??? Not that long, let me tell you. I have been a Linux user for many, many, many years-- since the early 90's when it could hardly get out of its own way. Back then the idea that a REAL hardware or software company would ever ACTUALLY SUPPORT Linux was fucking ludicrous! But hey, here we are in 2006 and support for Linux is all over the place. Sure, its not as ubiquitous and mainstream as I would really like, but its getting there. And even ME, who's impatient as hell-- is beginning to realize, notice, and acknowledge it.
LINUX -- its not just for geeks anymore.
And has anybody ever REALLY looked at the Microsoft Windows logo??? Ever notice how much it resembles a BROKEN window??? I think that's telling;)
Just out of curiosity (and I'm asking 'cause I don't know)-- how many times HAS Microsoft's EULA been challenged in court? What were the outcomes? Has anybody actually legally challenged any of it? Or is it all academic since its never been scrutinized in open court?
>> Originally the term PC meant Personal Computer, until IBM named there personal computer a PC. Sort of like Microsoft naming their operating system Windows.
Uh, don't you mean sorta like Microsoft naming their Windows an "Operating System"?
Is it just me? Or does it really seem like Microsoft is just absolutely bound and determined to blow their foot right off??? Seriously. Some of the incredibly bone-headed pronouncements and "innovations" that have been coming out of Redmond of late are just mind-boggling stupid. Is Microsoft REALLY trying to tank their core business? Are they REALLY trying to screw the pooch? Are they REALLY trying to piss people off to the point that they stop buying MS's operating systems (cough) and office applications? All of their turning of screws and attacks on piracy seem to be inciting people ever more to use open systems where you don't have to worry about how many times you re-install the os... or even if you install the os a whole bunch of times on lots of systems at the same time... or if you sell the computer with the os on it... And you don't have to worry about little dastardly programs running in the background sneakily phoning home to tattle on you... or check up on you... or report things about you that you'd rather keep to yourself.... Open systems that don't require "activation" or any stupid shit like that.
I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft but lately my job has been requiring me to come up to speed on a lot of its stuff (windows server, miis, mssql, etc) so I've been slogging my way through learning all about this crap-- and just being blown away and amazed-- just stupified-- at how paranoid, locked-down and complicated it is just to set up and install microsoft's stuff anymore. And why on earth would I __PICK__ the stuff in the first place??? The only reason I'm using it is because I'm practically being forced to in order to keep my job (and I like where I work Microsoft notwithstanding). Open systems can do practically everything that we're using Microsoft for, and it can do it more easily, cheaper, and without all the byzantine bullshit and flaming hoops that Microsoft makes me jump through _just to install the stuff_ --- I haven't even _started_ to use it yet.
Are they _REALLY_ that stupid??? I just don't get it. Are they TRYING to piss people off??? Are they TRYING to lose business??? Are they REALLY so blind, narrow-minded and sanctimoneous that they think people won't switch??? Or that there aren't other legitimate offerings out there??? Or that other offerings won't come to the forefront to fill the vacuum???
I just don't get it. Can anybody explain it to me? Seriously.
Man, I wish I could mod your post up. It deserves it. What a well-thought out posting!
I'll have to mull over the numeric aspect of your post before I decide whether I agree with that part or not.
However, as to the remaining points-- I'm not knee-jerk anti-war. I'm just not for _this_ war. Perhaps I might have been (or could still be) if it had been (or would be) presented factually, truthfully, and methodically what the evidence for war was (is) and then given over to the house and senate to consider. As it was, Iraq and Sadaam Hussein was convicted in the court of public opinion by a very well-coordinated series of one-two punches that nobody had a chance to step back from and consider. There was a much better case for going to war in Afghanistan or Pakistan (still is) with respect to the "War on Terrorism" and chasing Al Queida. Bush and Cheney and the senior administration were making the rounds on every talk show, on every news show, in every newspaper-- beating the drum for war. If they did not outright manufacture evidence (ie. LIE) of Iraqi duplicity and complicity, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction-- and particularly with respect to allowing the American public to believe that there was some connection between Iraqi, Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda when there clearly was not! There are two types of lies: lies of commission, and lies of omission. To permit the American people to persist in the belief that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda was at least a lie of omission. Truth-telling requires the active correction of erroneous details, something Bush and his administration assuredly did not do. Even to this day the administration would like us to believe-- even though they no longer assert-- that Iraq and Al Qaeda are somehow connected. Its convenient for them for us to be confused and they aren't going out of their way to disabuse us of our misbegotten notions.
I don't know what the truth of 9/11 was. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist-- for one thing I have misplaced my tinfoil hat someplace-- but I have a hard time believing all of the "facts" of the situation as presented by the Bush administration and the 9/11 commission. The whole thing just seems "too pat". But okay, sometimes coincidences happen-- I'll agree to not look at that part too closely-- but even if there was no complicity it sure was "damned convenient" for the Bush administration and the Republicans. Perhaps it would have been just as convenient if the Democrats were in office-- I can't say since they weren't. And of course they would fall all over themselves to claim they wouldn't have been, so we'll never really know that point.
The truth is that Bush had been trying to make the case for war against Iraq since the day he took office. Its public knowledge that Bush was advocating the ousting of Saddam long before 9/11-- even at the first National Security Council meeting in January 2001. Recall that on 9/12 Bill Bennett said that we were in "a struggle between good and evil", that congress should declare war on "militant Islam", and that "overwhelming force" should be used. The nations he cited as evil were China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon and Syria. Afghanistan, home of Al Queda did not even make it on the list. Why were these countries singled out before anybody even knew who attacked us? Furthermore, these assertions were followed-up with inferences that Hezbollah was somehow involved and therefore retaliation should include the eradication of Hezbollah.
So did Bush get a warning about the attacks to come on 9/11? Apparently so. There are lots of accounts by CIA and other intelligence personnel that they attempted numerous times to warn the White House about attacks on American soil, even attacks involving the use of aircraft to smash into buildings! Lately it has ben coming out that many warnings, alarms and reports were raised on several fronts and the Bush administration turned a blind eye and a tin ear to their call. Was this a result of misjudgement? Ine
Lessee... just so I can get my lil' whiney ass on the right page... which crazy-ass dictator am I supposed to be thanking God for... the one we invaded that DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction (though they DID have a shitload of oil)... or the one that we DIDN'T invade that DID have weapons of mass destruction (but no oil). Or the one we're shaking the big stick at because they dare to get uppity and wanna have a better life (oh, and probably some nukes too)... (and --bonus-- they have OIL!)
Talk about PUSSIES.
BUSH and the REPUBLICANS can pick on countries that DON'T HAVE Weapons of Mass Destruction but can't be bothered to invade the ones that DO. Sounds like a typical schoolyard bully to me. They only pick on the WEAK kids that can't defend themselves.
OH-- and just look at how WELL we are handling the job too.
Call me anything you want. Its unpleasant to hear truth. Our country is incredibly fucked-up at the hands of BUSH, his cronies, and the REPUBLICANS.
Of course, if you ask me, the DEMOCRATS are a bunch of pussies too. And I wouldn't trust them to WIN the war in Iraq OR solve the IRAN and North Korea problem. They WILL get us out of the war though-- they'll just cut and run. I have no doubt that what Bush says is true about that.
The biggest PROBLEM in this country is that we have one single party controlling ALL of the major sections of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The founding fathers never dreamed in a zillion years that one single political idealogy would monopolize our government. In their day there were LOTS of factions and none of them had a clear majority. In fact, the political party didn't even enter the scene until the mid 1780's.
We have close to 300 Million people in this country and we (generally) only get to pick from two assholes for any given national office. Its gotten to the point where a third-party candidate doesn't have a prayer since the prevaling wisdom is "a vote for the third-party guy is really a vote for whichever _other_ party you really oppose" (ie. a vote for foobar is really a vote for the democrats) on the assumption that most people will vote along party lines and the third-party candidate can't get a clear majority and thus will "waste" a vote that could have gone for one of the candidates that actually had a "chance" to win.
This is SO bogus.
All we ever get to pick from are tax-happy liberals and war-mongering conservatives. I don't know about you, but I-- for one-- am sick and bloody tired of it.
And ALL of them pick our pockets and piss on our backs and tell us its raining. POLITICIANS SUCK. I don't care if they are Republicans or Democrats-- and probably third-party candidates too.
So now we have this bunch of ARROGANT FUCKING ASSHOLES in office sending American kids to war for oil.
GO AHEAD-- I DARE YOU-- TELL ME IT AIN'T FOR OIL
(And mod me down and call me a troll while you're at it-- that's what you all do when you have mod points and get your little feelings hurt)
Call me a Jackass too if you want. That's fine with me. I can handle being called names.
What I CAN'T HANDLE is our country being sold down the river by these REPUBLICAN ASSHOLES. And I only say Republican because they have the power at the moment. The Democrats are just as bad. They just waffle more and are worried how we FEEL about it afterwards.
Don't sweat it-- the way./ works is anything that hits a nerve, has a bit of uncomfortable truth, or goes against the party line-- gets modded down. BTW-- since I'm relaying one of those unpleasant truths, you'll probably see this post get modded down too. That's the way it works.
Here is the list compiled from various public sources. Of the 535 members of the house and senate, a total of two percent, meaning twelve members, have, or have had, children in Iraq or Afghanistan, and most appear to be Republicans. All but two seem to be officers. Three seem to have volunteered for multiple tours. One was killed in action in Iraq. And only one seems to be currently still serving. (again from what I was able to establish using public sources). There appear to be NO children from the White House senior officials serving (or have served) in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Joseph Biden, D-DE, Son is Officer in Natl Guard not very likely to go to Iraq Marilyn Musgrave, R-CO, Son is Enlisted in the Navy serving in the Mediterranean Duncan Hunter, R-CA, Son is Officer in the Marines, served two tours including a few months in Iraq and is now home Christopher Bond, R-MO, Son is Officer in the Marines who served in Iraq for a few months and is now home Becky Lourey, D-MN, Son was Officer in the Army served two tours and was killed in Iraq May 2005 Tim Johnson, D-SD, Son is Enlisted in the Army served four wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is now home Todd Akin, R-MO, Son is Officer in Marines serving as a Combat Engineer in Iraq and is now home Ike Skelton, D-MO, two sons both Officers in army and navy deployment unknown (not specified) Joe Wilson, R-SC, three sons in military, all officers, on in Natl Guard served in Iraq and is now home John Kline, R-MN, son is Officer in Army serving in Iraq Charles Taylor, R-NC, son is Officer in Army served in Iraq and is now home Jim Bunning, R-KY, son is Officer in Air Force served in Afghanistan and is now home
Feel free to mod this 'tard up or down as you see fit-- but those are the facts, the best as I can determine them. I think based on the numbers I can safely assert that our nation's leaders have put this country on a war footing but are not going out on a limb with their own children.
I should hope not. Geez, he's a busy guy. Between insulting world leaders, starting bogus oil wars on false pretenses, and thinking up new ways to restrict american rights and freedoms, I'm not sure where he would find the time.
Poor kids crawling through the dirt to do the dying. Rich kids getting commissions to drive their air-conditioned humvees. Politicians kids getting dispensation to stay home and help daddy with politican campaign.
How many CONGRESS OR SENATOR OR PRESIDENT'S KIDS AT WAR????
BUSH and the REPUBLICANS LIE THEIR ASSES OFF to the American people to stir up a bullshit, phoney war in Iraq-- on the pretext that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction-- and does ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING regarding North Korea-- who DEMONSTRABLY HAS Weapons of Mass Destruction (but no oil... oops, did I say that out loud???) So whatcha gonna do now Bush, you arrogant, fucking asshole? You SHOULD apologize to the American people and then check yourself into Guantanamo. I am sick and tired of being fed lies and bullshit by the BUSH Administration and the SLEAZY SCUMBAG REPUBLICAN party.
Dems aren't much better but at LEAST they aren't REPUBLICANS.
Actually, given who is in office, ie. the current administration, and all those SLEEZEBAG REPLUBLICANS in congress, what did you really expect? However, in my view, the news of government employees surfing sex and gambling sites may not be such a bad thing. That means they're spending less time stomping on your rights and freedoms and less time thinking up new ways to screw you and steal you blind. In fact, I'd say let's all chip in and contribute our favorite sex and gambling sites to help them out... http://www.thehun.net/ and http://www.goldenpalace.com/ would be good places to start. WARNING to good, honest working folks-- these are NOT work-friendly sites! For all you govt surfers out there though-- rock on and bon' appetit!
Why Yes. Yes I have written a billing system for a phone company. And co-incidently enough, so has my girlfriend. And both projects were completely unrelated to each other as things (jobs we've had) in the past...
Hell, you should'a let 'em sue you and gone to court... invite some of the local press along for company. That would have been fun. Even if you ended up with the court costs... would have been exceptionally cheap considering the high-quality entertainment you were about to receive.... Plus a lifetime of stories to tell...
What a terrific idea! I hope these guys make a lot of moolah for their efforts. That would be a good idea for ipods, laptops, and lots of other personal electronics that so often get stolen. Its about time that somebody came up with a good idea for how to combat the problem. The cops sure don't have time to do it.
That's interesting information. It does seem that way. I personally know of quite a few articles that have been rejected out-of-hand that are _at minimum_ equally as worthy as the _least_ of other articles that do get published.
My experience with this site is that its editorial policy is capricious at best and downright mean-spirited at worst.
I like slashdot and I thank them for keeping up the good work every day. But I dislike the way they go out of their way to shut out user participation.
Slashdot Mirror
As a Linux user I haven't used Photoshop all that much, and so when I do use it I find it a little awkward and clumsy to use. However, as a longtime linux user I _have_ used Gimp quite a bit (I did web applications projects for 5+ years before I got my current job) so I am extremely familiar with its interface, tools and general methodology... and I will quite LOUDLY and VOCALLY state that it SUCKS! (DID YOU HEAR THAT GIMP-GUYS??? IT SUCKS!!!) I find it very counter-intuitive in most areas, though its reasonably useful in its basic mode. If you just want to open a picture, resize it, do some color adjustments or add a caption, gimp works pretty well for that. And its layering isn't all that bad. But when you want more-- it gets complicated and confusing-- and some dialogs/tools have persistant states and some don't and which do and which don't is very inconsistent-- and 9 times out of 10 when there is a script-foo plugin I want to use, it crashes, does something irreversibly horrible and ugly to my image, or has incredibly cryptic controls that make no sense whatsoever (has anybody ever heard of DOCS?? They're really cool-- you can READ THEM and LEARN STUFF from them--- why don't they MAKE some for these plugins???) Using gimp is, in a word, E-X-A-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-N-G !!! And I agree it has a ton of power, and that you can do tons of cools stuff with it, that in many respects its infinitely more hackable than Photoshop probably is, and that in spite of its counter-intuitive, brain-dead, dysfunctional interface-- I've actually done some really nice stuff with it-- and deep down I sorta secretly _like_ it..... and I _HATE_ it too... OOOOOH! It makes me so veeerrrryyy angry!
But hey, that's gimp for ya. What can you do? Nobody said it was easy!
That's an interesting idea for sure-- someone mod this guy up!
Okay-- let's assume we agree with your basic statements there-- and then let me point out that Once upon a time... there wasn't anything called Windows. And there was no support for it either. CP/M and PCDOS ruled the day (okay, well sorta)-- then this Windows thing came along and people started using it-- and after awhile, the vendors HAD to support it because there was a large-enough base of users to make it practical, cost-effective (and downright suicidal if they didn't!) The same is/will be true for Linux. Continue to adopt, support, grow and use Linux and sooner or later the people who want to make money off of support (or sell products that require support) will eventually come around to the notion that in order to survive they must support... (gasp!) LINUX! Its already happening. I see the word LINUX on more and more packages (as in "systems supported: Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac, Linux") or drivers available for LINUX-- even if you have to go around back to get them or download them off of some obscure portion of the vendor's website-- the point is: the Linux drivers ARE showing up! How long has THAT been true??? Not that long, let me tell you. I have been a Linux user for many, many, many years-- since the early 90's when it could hardly get out of its own way. Back then the idea that a REAL hardware or software company would ever ACTUALLY SUPPORT Linux was fucking ludicrous! But hey, here we are in 2006 and support for Linux is all over the place. Sure, its not as ubiquitous and mainstream as I would really like, but its getting there. And even ME, who's impatient as hell-- is beginning to realize, notice, and acknowledge it.
LINUX -- its not just for geeks anymore.
And has anybody ever REALLY looked at the Microsoft Windows logo??? Ever notice how much it resembles a BROKEN window??? I think that's telling
Just out of curiosity (and I'm asking 'cause I don't know)-- how many times HAS Microsoft's EULA been challenged in court? What were the outcomes? Has anybody actually legally challenged any of it? Or is it all academic since its never been scrutinized in open court?
Inquiring minds want to know!
>> Originally the term PC meant Personal Computer, until IBM named there personal computer a PC. Sort of like Microsoft naming their operating system Windows.
Uh, don't you mean sorta like Microsoft naming their Windows an "Operating System"?
Is it just me? Or does it really seem like Microsoft is just absolutely bound and determined to blow their foot right off??? Seriously. Some of the incredibly bone-headed pronouncements and "innovations" that have been coming out of Redmond of late are just mind-boggling stupid. Is Microsoft REALLY trying to tank their core business? Are they REALLY trying to screw the pooch? Are they REALLY trying to piss people off to the point that they stop buying MS's operating systems (cough) and office applications? All of their turning of screws and attacks on piracy seem to be inciting people ever more to use open systems where you don't have to worry about how many times you re-install the os... or even if you install the os a whole bunch of times on lots of systems at the same time... or if you sell the computer with the os on it... And you don't have to worry about little dastardly programs running in the background sneakily phoning home to tattle on you... or check up on you... or report things about you that you'd rather keep to yourself.... Open systems that don't require "activation" or any stupid shit like that.
I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft but lately my job has been requiring me to come up to speed on a lot of its stuff (windows server, miis, mssql, etc) so I've been slogging my way through learning all about this crap-- and just being blown away and amazed-- just stupified-- at how paranoid, locked-down and complicated it is just to set up and install microsoft's stuff anymore. And why on earth would I __PICK__ the stuff in the first place??? The only reason I'm using it is because I'm practically being forced to in order to keep my job (and I like where I work Microsoft notwithstanding). Open systems can do practically everything that we're using Microsoft for, and it can do it more easily, cheaper, and without all the byzantine bullshit and flaming hoops that Microsoft makes me jump through _just to install the stuff_ --- I haven't even _started_ to use it yet.
Are they _REALLY_ that stupid??? I just don't get it. Are they TRYING to piss people off??? Are they TRYING to lose business??? Are they REALLY so blind, narrow-minded and sanctimoneous that they think people won't switch??? Or that there aren't other legitimate offerings out there??? Or that other offerings won't come to the forefront to fill the vacuum???
I just don't get it. Can anybody explain it to me? Seriously.
Man, I wish I could mod your post up. It deserves it. What a well-thought out posting!
I'll have to mull over the numeric aspect of your post before I decide whether I agree with that part or not.
However, as to the remaining points-- I'm not knee-jerk anti-war. I'm just not for _this_ war. Perhaps I might have been (or could still be) if it had been (or would be) presented factually, truthfully, and methodically what the evidence for war was (is) and then given over to the house and senate to consider. As it was, Iraq and Sadaam Hussein was convicted in the court of public opinion by a very well-coordinated series of one-two punches that nobody had a chance to step back from and consider. There was a much better case for going to war in Afghanistan or Pakistan (still is) with respect to the "War on Terrorism" and chasing Al Queida. Bush and Cheney and the senior administration were making the rounds on every talk show, on every news show, in every newspaper-- beating the drum for war. If they did not outright manufacture evidence (ie. LIE) of Iraqi duplicity and complicity, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction-- and particularly with respect to allowing the American public to believe that there was some connection between Iraqi, Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda when there clearly was not! There are two types of lies: lies of commission, and lies of omission. To permit the American people to persist in the belief that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda was at least a lie of omission. Truth-telling requires the active correction of erroneous details, something Bush and his administration assuredly did not do. Even to this day the administration would like us to believe-- even though they no longer assert-- that Iraq and Al Qaeda are somehow connected. Its convenient for them for us to be confused and they aren't going out of their way to disabuse us of our misbegotten notions.
I don't know what the truth of 9/11 was. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist-- for one thing I have misplaced my tinfoil hat someplace-- but I have a hard time believing all of the "facts" of the situation as presented by the Bush administration and the 9/11 commission. The whole thing just seems "too pat". But okay, sometimes coincidences happen-- I'll agree to not look at that part too closely-- but even if there was no complicity it sure was "damned convenient" for the Bush administration and the Republicans. Perhaps it would have been just as convenient if the Democrats were in office-- I can't say since they weren't. And of course they would fall all over themselves to claim they wouldn't have been, so we'll never really know that point.
The truth is that Bush had been trying to make the case for war against Iraq since the day he took office. Its public knowledge that Bush was advocating the ousting of Saddam long before 9/11-- even at the first National Security Council meeting in January 2001. Recall that on 9/12 Bill Bennett said that we were in "a struggle between good and evil", that congress should declare war on "militant Islam", and that "overwhelming force" should be used. The nations he cited as evil were China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon and Syria. Afghanistan, home of Al Queda did not even make it on the list. Why were these countries singled out before anybody even knew who attacked us? Furthermore, these assertions were followed-up with inferences that Hezbollah was somehow involved and therefore retaliation should include the eradication of Hezbollah.
So did Bush get a warning about the attacks to come on 9/11? Apparently so. There are lots of accounts by CIA and other intelligence personnel that they attempted numerous times to warn the White House about attacks on American soil, even attacks involving the use of aircraft to smash into buildings! Lately it has ben coming out that many warnings, alarms and reports were raised on several fronts and the Bush administration turned a blind eye and a tin ear to their call. Was this a result of misjudgement? Ine
Lessee... just so I can get my lil' whiney ass on the right page... which crazy-ass dictator am I supposed to be thanking God for... the one we invaded that DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction (though they DID have a shitload of oil)... or the one that we DIDN'T invade that DID have weapons of mass destruction (but no oil). Or the one we're shaking the big stick at because they dare to get uppity and wanna have a better life (oh, and probably some nukes too)... (and --bonus-- they have OIL!)
Talk about PUSSIES.
BUSH and the REPUBLICANS can pick on countries that DON'T HAVE Weapons of Mass Destruction but can't be bothered to invade the ones that DO. Sounds like a typical schoolyard bully to me. They only pick on the WEAK kids that can't defend themselves.
OH-- and just look at how WELL we are handling the job too.
Call me anything you want. Its unpleasant to hear truth. Our country is incredibly fucked-up at the hands of BUSH, his cronies, and the REPUBLICANS.
Of course, if you ask me, the DEMOCRATS are a bunch of pussies too. And I wouldn't trust them to WIN the war in Iraq OR solve the IRAN and North Korea problem. They WILL get us out of the war though-- they'll just cut and run. I have no doubt that what Bush says is true about that.
The biggest PROBLEM in this country is that we have one single party controlling ALL of the major sections of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The founding fathers never dreamed in a zillion years that one single political idealogy would monopolize our government. In their day there were LOTS of factions and none of them had a clear majority. In fact, the political party didn't even enter the scene until the mid 1780's.
We have close to 300 Million people in this country and we (generally) only get to pick from two assholes for any given national office. Its gotten to the point where a third-party candidate doesn't have a prayer since the prevaling wisdom is "a vote for the third-party guy is really a vote for whichever _other_ party you really oppose" (ie. a vote for foobar is really a vote for the democrats) on the assumption that most people will vote along party lines and the third-party candidate can't get a clear majority and thus will "waste" a vote that could have gone for one of the candidates that actually had a "chance" to win.
This is SO bogus.
All we ever get to pick from are tax-happy liberals and war-mongering conservatives. I don't know about you, but I-- for one-- am sick and bloody tired of it.
And ALL of them pick our pockets and piss on our backs and tell us its raining. POLITICIANS SUCK. I don't care if they are Republicans or Democrats-- and probably third-party candidates too.
So now we have this bunch of ARROGANT FUCKING ASSHOLES in office sending American kids to war for oil.
GO AHEAD-- I DARE YOU-- TELL ME IT AIN'T FOR OIL
(And mod me down and call me a troll while you're at it-- that's what you all do when you have mod points and get your little feelings hurt)
Call me a Jackass too if you want. That's fine with me. I can handle being called names.
What I CAN'T HANDLE is our country being sold down the river by these REPUBLICAN ASSHOLES. And I only say Republican because they have the power at the moment. The Democrats are just as bad. They just waffle more and are worried how we FEEL about it afterwards.
Yes, that's what Hillary Clinton is doing in New York
(what? really? oh.)
Okay. Sorry about that-- that's Carpet-BAGGING...
Well, we're sure as heck not spreading sunshine and flowers. What would YOU call it???
Don't sweat it-- the way ./ works is anything that hits a nerve, has a bit of uncomfortable truth, or goes against the party line-- gets modded down. BTW-- since I'm relaying one of those unpleasant truths, you'll probably see this post get modded down too. That's the way it works.
You're right-- its NOT zero. I stand corrected.
Here is the list compiled from various public sources. Of the 535 members of the house and senate, a total of two percent, meaning twelve members, have, or have had, children in Iraq or Afghanistan, and most appear to be Republicans. All but two seem to be officers. Three seem to have volunteered for multiple tours. One was killed in action in Iraq. And only one seems to be currently still serving. (again from what I was able to establish using public sources). There appear to be NO children from the White House senior officials serving (or have served) in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Joseph Biden, D-DE, Son is Officer in Natl Guard not very likely to go to Iraq
Marilyn Musgrave, R-CO, Son is Enlisted in the Navy serving in the Mediterranean
Duncan Hunter, R-CA, Son is Officer in the Marines, served two tours including a few months in Iraq and is now home
Christopher Bond, R-MO, Son is Officer in the Marines who served in Iraq for a few months and is now home
Becky Lourey, D-MN, Son was Officer in the Army served two tours and was killed in Iraq May 2005
Tim Johnson, D-SD, Son is Enlisted in the Army served four wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is now home
Todd Akin, R-MO, Son is Officer in Marines serving as a Combat Engineer in Iraq and is now home
Ike Skelton, D-MO, two sons both Officers in army and navy deployment unknown (not specified)
Joe Wilson, R-SC, three sons in military, all officers, on in Natl Guard served in Iraq and is now home
John Kline, R-MN, son is Officer in Army serving in Iraq
Charles Taylor, R-NC, son is Officer in Army served in Iraq and is now home
Jim Bunning, R-KY, son is Officer in Air Force served in Afghanistan and is now home
Feel free to mod this 'tard up or down as you see fit-- but those are the facts, the best as I can determine them. I think based on the numbers I can safely assert that our nation's leaders have put this country on a war footing but are not going out on a limb with their own children.
I should hope not. Geez, he's a busy guy. Between insulting world leaders, starting bogus oil wars on false pretenses, and thinking up new ways to restrict american rights and freedoms, I'm not sure where he would find the time.
If there had been even the remotest chance that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, do you think we'd have invaded Iraq?
The question was actually whether he stlll had them. His use of chemical weapons and his program to develop nukes was not in doubt.
Well neither is Kim Jong-il. What are we doing about that??
Nothing.
North Korea doesn't have anything we want.
No oil.
Too bad, so sad.
Poor kids crawling through the dirt to do the dying. Rich kids getting commissions to drive their air-conditioned humvees. Politicians kids getting dispensation to stay home and help daddy with politican campaign.
How many CONGRESS OR SENATOR OR PRESIDENT'S KIDS AT WAR????
-- ZERO --
Any questions?
(yeah, I have a few)
BUSH and the REPUBLICANS LIE THEIR ASSES OFF to the American people to stir up a bullshit, phoney war in Iraq-- on the pretext that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction-- and does ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING regarding North Korea-- who DEMONSTRABLY HAS Weapons of Mass Destruction (but no oil... oops, did I say that out loud???) So whatcha gonna do now Bush, you arrogant, fucking asshole? You SHOULD apologize to the American people and then check yourself into Guantanamo. I am sick and tired of being fed lies and bullshit by the BUSH Administration and the SLEAZY SCUMBAG REPUBLICAN party.
Dems aren't much better but at LEAST they aren't REPUBLICANS.
So what does Bill Gates care about it?? He's got more money than God.
Microsoft is just a playtoy to him. Sure he's got some ego wrapped-up in it, but ultimately at this point if it tanks, so what?
Actually, given who is in office, ie. the current administration, and all those SLEEZEBAG REPLUBLICANS in congress, what did you really expect? However, in my view, the news of government employees surfing sex and gambling sites may not be such a bad thing. That means they're spending less time stomping on your rights and freedoms and less time thinking up new ways to screw you and steal you blind. In fact, I'd say let's all chip in and contribute our favorite sex and gambling sites to help them out... http://www.thehun.net/ and http://www.goldenpalace.com/ would be good places to start. WARNING to good, honest working folks-- these are NOT work-friendly sites! For all you govt surfers out there though-- rock on and bon' appetit!
Why Yes. Yes I have written a billing system for a phone company. And co-incidently enough, so has my girlfriend. And both projects were completely unrelated to each other as things (jobs we've had) in the past...
Coincidence?
I think so.
You be the judge!
Hell, you should'a let 'em sue you and gone to court... invite some of the local press along for company. That would have been fun. Even if you ended up with the court costs... would have been exceptionally cheap considering the high-quality entertainment you were about to receive.... Plus a lifetime of stories to tell...
I am dumbfounded that out of 300 MILLION PEOPLE we can ever only find TWO SLEAZY, SCUMBAG BOZOS to prop up to vote for.
Whatever happened to of the people, by the people and for the people???
What a terrific idea! I hope these guys make a lot of moolah for their efforts. That would be a good idea for ipods, laptops, and lots of other personal electronics that so often get stolen. Its about time that somebody came up with a good idea for how to combat the problem. The cops sure don't have time to do it.
They should rename their suit "Grand Theft Lotto" and hope they hit the jackpot.
No, its not flamebait - It's my opinion.
There's a difference.
That's interesting information. It does seem that way. I personally know of quite a few articles that have been rejected out-of-hand that are _at minimum_ equally as worthy as the _least_ of other articles that do get published.
My experience with this site is that its editorial policy is capricious at best and downright mean-spirited at worst.
I like slashdot and I thank them for keeping up the good work every day. But I dislike the way they go out of their way to shut out user participation.